The Supreme Court recently dissolved the marriage of a doctor couple, ruling that the denial of sexual intimacy to the husband amounted to cruelty and that their 15-year separation had resulted in irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih found that evidence led by the husband showed that during the brief period of cohabitation, the wife would sleep early, lock her room from inside and not open the door despite his knocking, compelling him to sleep in a separate room.

The wife had not denied that they slept in separate rooms, the Court noted in its judgment of June 2.

"The Courts in India have repeatedly established that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe emotional distress and undermines the bedrock of marriage," the Court stated.

The husband and wife failed to perform their conjugal responsibilities during the short period of cohabitation and the High Court was correct in accepting cruelty as a ground for divorce, the Court said.

All attempts at reconciliation had failed and that their marriage had broken down irretrievably, the top court further noted.

"Therefore, the conclusion of the High Court is sustained. The decree of divorce as granted by allowing the appeal of the respondent-husband is upheld," it ruled.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the appellant-wife challenging the Rajasthan High Court's judgment granting divorce to the husband. A family court had earlier dismissed his divorce petition.

The couple married on December 5, 2007, in Gujarat according to Hindu rites. They did not have any children. At the time of marriage, the wife was working as a gynaecologist in a government hospital in Gujarat, while the husband was working as a doctor in State service in Rajasthan.

According to the husband, differences in their backgrounds and lifestyles led to problems in the marriage. He alleged that the wife treated him with cruelty and lived with him for only about two to three months at their matrimonial home in Bharatpur during their two-year marital relationship.

In 2009, the husband approached the family court seeking divorce. However, the family court dismissed his plea, holding that he had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the wife.

The husband then challenged the decision before the High Court. In 2025, the High Court allowed his appeal and granted him a divorce. The wife then approached the Supreme Court.

The wife argued that she had always been willing to continue the marriage and had neither treated the husband with cruelty nor deserted him. She contended that the husband had failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his allegations of cruelty against her.

On the other hand, the husband argued that the she had never made any efforts to save the marriage and that the parties had been living separately for more than 15 years. It was further submitted that the wife had denied sexual relations to the husband on several occasions and had thereby subjected him to cruelty.

The top court noted that prolonged physical separation spanning more than a decade and a half was a significant aspect in the case.

It, however, added that the element of desertion can be viewed neutrally through an objective lens where spouses choose independent professional and geographical paths.

"In such circumstances, desertion ceases to be merely a matter of individual malice or unilateral fault rather it assumes the character of a shared, de facto abandonment of the matrimonial covenant," the Bench said.

Considering the period of separation, the Court said it would not be possible for the couple to live together. In such circumstances, it is best for everyone to end the relationship, the Court observed.

"This Court is also of the view that prolonged pendency of matrimonial litigation only leads to perpetuity of marriage on paper. It is in the best interest of parties and the society if ties are severed between parties in cases where litigation has been pending for a considerably long period of time," it said.

The couple have lived separately for far too long a period of time and there is no sanctity left in the marriage, it added.

"Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties," the Court said, as it dissolved the marriage and dismissed the wife's appeal.