READ JUDGEMENT | Denial Of Sex By Spouse Does Not Amount To “Exceptional Hardship” Or “Exceptional Depravity”: Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh held,

Once the Parliament, in its wisdom, has legislated that denial of cohabitation/conjugal relationship over a period of one year, or more, would tantamount to cruelty, it cannot be said that denial of sex simpliciter within the period of one year, would be a case of exceptional hardship.

The family court, however, refused to grant the relief stating that the exception carved out in Section 14 was not made out and the parties were unable to prove the case. Their petition was, therefore, dismissed as it was filed before the expiry of one year period.

The High Court said that the requirement of minimum one year period of separation before filing a divorce petition is backed by a sound objective and tinkering with it in an ordinary situation would be diluting the intent of the parliament and would amount to tinkering with the entire fabric with which Section 13B has been woven.

The Court said that the legislature has enacted proviso to Section 14 as a measure to be adopted in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, unless a party is able to make out a case falling into one of the two exceptions, the general rule shall prevail that the parties must wait for the cooling off period.

The Court also examined the meaning of the word ‘depravity’ as contained in Section 14 and said that it means wickedness or immoral behaviour of such a nature which cannot be expected by any individual in any reasonable situation. Such behaviour is marked by perversity and lack of moral decency but depravity cannot be taken to mean deprivation i.e. of being deprived, the judges have held. Explaining the same, the High Court said,

Mere denial of sex by one, or both the parties to the other, cannot be described as an act of exceptional depravity. Such conduct cannot be described as wicked or immoral behavior, or as perverse behavior lacking in moral decency, more so when temperamental differences lie at both ends. No doubt, it may tantamount to a matrimonial misconduct, but that is not what we are examining presently.

Analysing the meaning of the word ‘hardship’, it said that Section 14 qualifies the word ‘hardship’ with ‘exceptional’. Though denial of sex by one spouse to the other, or by both of them to each other may certainly constitute ‘hardship’, but it cannot be said to be ‘exceptional hardship’. The court added,

The intent behind the framing of Section 13, 13B and Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act was to protect both – the individuals, as also the marriage. What the legislature has sought to address by way of divorce on the ground of cruelty, cannot be categorized as exceptional hardship or depravity so as to by-pass the well-established procedure.

Subsequently, the Delhi High Court rejected the divorce appeal and upheld the order of the family court. It said that parties can approach the appropriate court after expiry of the one year of separation.

How much interference by Courts is required in matrimonial matters, especially when both parties want to end a dead legal bond? Leave your thoughts on this case below.

ALSO READ –