DNA - India - Refusing intercourse is mental harassment: SC - Daily News & Analysis

DNA - India - Refusing intercourse is mental harassment: SC - Daily News & Analysis

Refusing intercourse is mental harassment: SC
Rakesh Bhatnagar
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 23:16 IST




To reprint this article, contact 3DSyndication



NEW DELHI: In a major ruling which might positively affect matrimonial disputes hinging on mental cruelty, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that undergoing vasectomy or sterilisation operation by either of the spouses without the other’s consent is a strong reason for the aggrieved partner to allege mental cruelty and seek divorce.

Similarly, “a unilateral” decision of refusing to have intercourse for “considerable period” without any “physical incapacity or valid reason” may also amount to mental cruelty, a bench observed, while upholding the divorce plea of an IAS officer.

In their 71-page verdict, the court upheld the plea of the prosecution that “he felt like a stranger in his own family and that the marriage was but an eye-wash.”

The case was filed by Samar Ghosh from the 1980 IAS batch, who sought to separate from his wife Jaya, also an IAS officer. The trial court had granted a divorce decree to Ghosh, but the Calcutta High Court that quashed the order.

The HC had said Jaya’s refusing to visit her husband in the hospital when he underwent heart surgery and not cooking food for him despite his heart condition, did not amount to mental cruelty.

Rejecting these observations, the SC upheld Ghosh’s argument that “there was imposition of rationing in emotions in the arena of love, affection, future planning and normal human relations.”

Ghosh had also claimed that he was deprived of loving Jaya’s child from her first marriage. The SC observed that Jaya’s decision not to sleep in the same bed with her husband was mental cruelty.

The judges researched several judgments from different countries and observed: “The consequences of preservation in law of a marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of misery for the parties.”

Conceding that there can’t be any “comprehensive” definition of the concept of “mental cruelty”, the judges cautioned that “no court should even attempt to give such a definition”.