The Allahabad High Court, while hearing a case of divorce, has said that if one of the spouses does not allow physical relations for a long time, then he does mental cruelty to his partner by not allowing physical relations. This type of mental cruelty is the ground for divorce. In the present case, the husband had sought divorce on this ground. He said that his wife is not allowing him to have physical relations for a long time and not living with husband. The High Court has allowed divorce, considering it as cruelty towards the husband. Allowing the petition for divorce, the court has said that mental cruelty is not allowed on the part of the husband or wife to have physical relations with their spouse for a long period of time without sufficient reason. The High Court has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh 2007(4)SCC 511and Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit 2006(3)SCC 778 to define mental cruelty. According to the case Ravindra Pratap Yadav was married to Asha Devi in the year 1979 as per Hindu rituals. After 7 years of marriage, wife Asha Devi came to live with her in-laws after the ceremony of gauna. Ravindra Kumar Yadav and Asha Devi both lived like husband and wife for some time, after that the behavior of the wife changed towards her husband. She refused to live with him like a wife. Despite much persuasion from the husband, the wife did not have physical relations with him. After that she left her husband alone and started living in her maternal house.The husband said that he had gone to the wife's maternal home to convince his wife and bring her back to his home, but the wife refused to come to her matrimonial home.She told the husband that she did not want to live with him, he should divorce her. When the wife did not return, the husband called a panchayat in the wife's maternal home. It was decided in the panchayat that the husband should give twenty two thousand rupees to his wife as a permanent alimony and both should take divorce with mutual consent. The husband said that after some time the wife got married for the second time and she went to her in-laws house with her second husband, where she has two children. The husband filed a divorce petition in the family court seeking divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, long desertion and divorce agreement. Despite summons being issued several times and summons being published in newspapers, the wife never appeared in the court. The Family Court observed that the petitioner has failed to produce the original documents which have been submitted by the petitioner in his favor. Also the petitioner has failed to prove that the wife has remarried. In view of the above, the Family Court dismissed the petitioner's ex parte divorce petition .The petitioner challenged the order of the Family Court dismissing the petition for divorce ex parte in the High Court through an appeal. The High Court perused the evidence produced by the petitioner, heard the submissions made by him and observed that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to prove that the wife has remarried. But the evidence on record further indicates that the two have been living separately for quite some time, the court said.There is nothing on record to rebut these evidences. The Family Court erred in ignoring this fact. A Division Bench of Justice Sunit Kumar and Justice Rajendra Kumar IV heard the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and granted divorce to the husband. Allowing an ex-parte petition for divorce, the court said that the husband and wife who were once life partners cannot be compelled to live together. Nothing is going to be achieved by trying to keep the husband and wife bound in the bond of marriage forever.
