Denial of sex: man’s divorce plea rejected
CHENNAI, JANUARY 25, 2019 00:00 IST
No relief:The judgment was passed while dismissing an appeal from a resident of Erode challenging a family court’s ruling in 2014. Picture used for representational purpose only.
Refusal to have conjugal relations amounts to mental cruelty only if marriage is recent, says HC
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that a woman’s refusal to have a conjugal relationship could be termed as mental cruelty and cited as a ground for divorce only if the marriage between a couple was recent and not in cases where they had been married for as long as 16 years.
Justices R. Subbiah and C. Saravanan ruled that a woman’s hesitation to have sexual relationship due to ageing, ill-health or other similar reasons would not amount to subjecting her husband to cruelty and therefore such a ground could not be applied universally, irrespective of the duration of the marriage. The judgment was passed while dismissing an appeal preferred by the owner of a computer service in Erode district challenging the refusal of a family court in 2014 to grant him divorce on the ground that he had been subjected to cruelty by his wife, now mother of a 19-year-old girl, by denying him conjugal bliss.
‘Not cruelty’
“Alleged lack of cooperation of the respondent to reciprocate and yield to the physical desire of the appellant long after 16 years of marriage cannot amount to cruelty by the respondent. It may be due to factors such as age, physical inability, commitment towards the children or family, aversion or lassitude or lack of libido to get physical intimacy.” the Division Bench said.
“This is a natural phenomenon on account of several reasons including ageing and no one can be blamed for it. The appellant has refused to gracefully acknowledge the changes associated with ageing and the challenges to which life exposes one to. There is a lack of acceptance on the part of the appellant,” they added.
Authoring the judgment, Justice Subbiah pointed out that the appellant had fell in love with the respondent and got a document registered with a Sub-Registrar’s office stating that their marriage got solemnised on June 11, 1997 though no such marriage took place. Subsequently, they got married in a temple on August 24, 1998.
Since their relatives did not attend the marriage in the temple, the couple got married once again on September 4, 1998 at the Marudhamalai Murugan temple in the presence of their relatives and friends. The couple gave birth to a female child on June 9, 1999 before their relationship soured due to various factors.
Extramarital affair
The appellant’s wife suspected him of having an extramarital affair with his aunt’s daughter and so he filed a divorce petition accusing his wife of subjecting him to cruelty.
The family court disbelieved his claim and dismissed the petition after holding him guilty of having had an affair with another woman as proven by his wife and hence the present appeal.
Not finding any infirmity in the trial court verdict, the Division Bench said: “For having committed such a blameworthy conduct, the appellant is not entitled to raise his little finger towards the respondent alleging that she subjected him to matrimonial cruelty.”
CHENNAI, JANUARY 25, 2019 00:00 IST
No relief:The judgment was passed while dismissing an appeal from a resident of Erode challenging a family court’s ruling in 2014. Picture used for representational purpose only.
Refusal to have conjugal relations amounts to mental cruelty only if marriage is recent, says HC
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has ruled that a woman’s refusal to have a conjugal relationship could be termed as mental cruelty and cited as a ground for divorce only if the marriage between a couple was recent and not in cases where they had been married for as long as 16 years.
Justices R. Subbiah and C. Saravanan ruled that a woman’s hesitation to have sexual relationship due to ageing, ill-health or other similar reasons would not amount to subjecting her husband to cruelty and therefore such a ground could not be applied universally, irrespective of the duration of the marriage. The judgment was passed while dismissing an appeal preferred by the owner of a computer service in Erode district challenging the refusal of a family court in 2014 to grant him divorce on the ground that he had been subjected to cruelty by his wife, now mother of a 19-year-old girl, by denying him conjugal bliss.
‘Not cruelty’
“Alleged lack of cooperation of the respondent to reciprocate and yield to the physical desire of the appellant long after 16 years of marriage cannot amount to cruelty by the respondent. It may be due to factors such as age, physical inability, commitment towards the children or family, aversion or lassitude or lack of libido to get physical intimacy.” the Division Bench said.
“This is a natural phenomenon on account of several reasons including ageing and no one can be blamed for it. The appellant has refused to gracefully acknowledge the changes associated with ageing and the challenges to which life exposes one to. There is a lack of acceptance on the part of the appellant,” they added.
Authoring the judgment, Justice Subbiah pointed out that the appellant had fell in love with the respondent and got a document registered with a Sub-Registrar’s office stating that their marriage got solemnised on June 11, 1997 though no such marriage took place. Subsequently, they got married in a temple on August 24, 1998.
Since their relatives did not attend the marriage in the temple, the couple got married once again on September 4, 1998 at the Marudhamalai Murugan temple in the presence of their relatives and friends. The couple gave birth to a female child on June 9, 1999 before their relationship soured due to various factors.
Extramarital affair
The appellant’s wife suspected him of having an extramarital affair with his aunt’s daughter and so he filed a divorce petition accusing his wife of subjecting him to cruelty.
The family court disbelieved his claim and dismissed the petition after holding him guilty of having had an affair with another woman as proven by his wife and hence the present appeal.
Not finding any infirmity in the trial court verdict, the Division Bench said: “For having committed such a blameworthy conduct, the appellant is not entitled to raise his little finger towards the respondent alleging that she subjected him to matrimonial cruelty.”
No comments:
Post a Comment