# Denying Sex Without Reason Is Mental Cruelty, Rajasthan High Court Rules in Major Divorce Case > The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that refusing physical intimacy for a prolonged period without valid reason constitutes mental cruelty, serving as a ground for divorce. The court dismissed the wife's appeals and upheld the family court's decision granting divorce to the husband. **Type:** article · **Category:** Rajasthan · **Published:** 2026-10-22 · **Source:** TrendKia **Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/rajasthan/denying-sex-without-reason-is-mental-cruelty-rajasthan-high-court-rules-in-major-divorce-case-50613 · **Language:** English **Tags:** Rajasthan High Court, divorce case, mental cruelty, Hindu Marriage Act, family dispute Refusing to engage in physical intimacy for an extended duration without any valid or reasonable justification can be legally construed as mental cruelty. The Rajasthan High Court made this crucial observation while adjudicating a divorce matter, underlining that such circumstances can serve as a legitimate ground for dissolving a marriage. Upholding the lower court's decree in favor of the husband, the bench dismissed both appeals filed by the wife. ## Marriage in 2018 and Early Friction The legal dispute stems from a marriage solemnized in 2018. The husband operates a kulfi manufacturing business in Balotra, while the wife worked as a junior accountant in the Jaisalmer Municipal Council. According to the husband, their relationship soured merely days after the wedding, with the wife persistently refusing physical intimacy. He further alleged that she constantly taunted him regarding his kulfi business and frequently threatened to consume poison and end her life. ## Separation Within Days of the Wedding The husband stated that following the ceremony, the wife spent approximately 10 days with him in Balotra before returning to Jaisalmer for her job. Subsequently, the husband stayed with her in Jaisalmer for about 15 to 20 days. During this period, disputes between the couple reportedly intensified. He maintained that after October 25, 2018, no physical relations took place between them, leading to separate living arrangements. Consequently, he sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion. ## Wife's Counter-Allegations and Demands Conversely, the wife refuted all allegations leveled by her husband. She claimed that he picked quarrels over trivial matters and pressured her to quit her job and relocate to Balotra. She further alleged that he demanded half of her salary. Expressing her desire to live with her husband, she maintained she was unwilling to sacrifice her employment and petitioned for the restitution of conjugal rights. ## Family Court Granted Divorce in 2024 The Family Court in Jaisalmer accepted the husband's petition on February 20, 2024, granting a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty while dismissing the wife's plea for conjugal rights. Challenging this order, the wife approached the Rajasthan High Court, appealing against both the dissolution of marriage and the rejection of her plea to restore their matrimonial life. ## Grounds and Legal Precedents Considered by the High Court A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court, comprising Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit, examined the aspect of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The bench referenced prominent Supreme Court judgments, including Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and Sonal Talpada v. Veeribhan Singh (2026). The court observed that unilateral and prolonged refusal of physical intimacy without justifiable cause amounts to mental cruelty. ## Evaluation of Evidence and Final Ruling The court noted that the wife's written submissions did not claim the resumption of physical relations after October 25, 2018. Furthermore, no evidence regarding physical incapacity was found on record. The allegations concerning threats of suicide were also duly considered. Upon evaluating all facts and records, the High Court affirmed the family court's decision, dismissing the wife's appeals entirely. ## What this means for you This ruling serves as a significant legal precedent for matrimonial disputes involving prolonged separation and the denial of physical intimacy. - **Across India:** The judgment can be cited as a legal precedent in similar pending divorce cases across family courts nationwide. It reinforces the interpretation of prolonged, unjustified denial of physical intimacy as mental cruelty. - **In Rajasthan:** The ruling will have a direct bearing on ongoing matrimonial disputes adjudicated by family courts across the state. Lower courts will factor in this legal interpretation while assessing claims of mental cruelty and desertion. ## Why this happened The judgment was delivered following a thorough examination of statutory provisions under family law and the specific circumstances presented by both parties. - **Legal Provisions:** The court evaluated the concept of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, backed by established Supreme Court precedents. - **Examination of Evidence:** The ruling factored in the absence of any recorded resumption of physical relations after October 25, 2018, alongside allegations regarding threats of suicide. ## Questions & Answers ### 1. What key ruling did the Rajasthan High Court make in the divorce case? The court ruled that refusing physical intimacy for a prolonged period without valid reason constitutes mental cruelty and serves as a valid ground for divorce. ### 2. What were the professions of the husband and wife? The husband ran a kulfi manufacturing business in Balotra, while the wife worked as a junior accountant in the Jaisalmer Municipal Council. ### 3. On what grounds did the husband seek a divorce? The husband sought a divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, lack of physical relations since October 25, 2018, and threats of suicide made by the wife. ### 4. What was the Family Court's earlier ruling? The Jaisalmer Family Court accepted the husband's divorce petition on February 20, 2024, and dismissed the wife's petition for the restitution of conjugal rights. ### 5. Which bench of the High Court delivered this verdict? The verdict was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit. --- _TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._