Husband does not want to have sex: Can wife force or take a divorce? Kerala High Court Rules

I really just fail to find adequate words enough to express my tsunami of feelings of joy to read that in a most refreshing, reassuring, rational, robust and recent judgment titled Xxxxxxx vs Xxxxxx in Mat. Appeal No. 1037 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:KER:25098 that came up for hearing on 18.03.2025 and then was pronounced finally as recently as on 24.03.2025 against the judgment dated 30.10.2024 in OP No.224 of 2022 of Family Court, Muvattupuzha has in the fitness of things upheld the grant of divorce to a woman who claimed that has husband showed no interest in sexual relations or family life but was compulsively pursuing spiritual activities such as temple visits and compelling her also to visit temples and ashrams. Ideally such men or women who have no interest in sex like me who will turn 50 years on April 5, 2025 should never dare to ruin the life of another by marrying when one has no interest in sex at all! I just fail to comprehend that why such men marry or women marry who have just no interest in sex at all and no interest in having children? If Lord Krishna had 16,108 wives as reported even in “The Times of India” newspaper in an editorial in 2018 or 2019 which I showed to many lawyers also in Meerut Bar was affirmed by many also, it was certainly not just for spiritual purposes but for other purposes also like sex and having children and it is an irrefutable fact that all wives were equally happy with him also and no one left him ever!    

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Ms Justice MB Snehalatha for a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Devan Ramachandran and herself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Challenge in this appeal is by the husband against the judgment and decree of Family Court, Muvattupuzha in O.P.No.224/2022 which granted a decree of divorce sought by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.”

As we see, the Division Bench then observes in para 2 that, “Parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.224/2022.”  

To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that, “Petitioner filed the petition for divorce contending as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.10.2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. Respondent is a person having superstitious beliefs who is not interested in having sex with the petitioner and not interested in having kids. Due to his said attitude, petitioner was put to severe mental agony and pain. Respondent often goes to pilgrimage, leaving the petitioner alone. Petitioner is an Ayurvedic doctor. Respondent did not permit her to join PG course and he compelled the petitioner to lead a life based on superstitious and false beliefs. The stipend received by the petitioner while she was studying at Rashtreeya Vidyapeedam was misappropriated by the respondent. Respondent had even sent messages to the petitioner stating that he wants divorce from the petitioner. In the year 2019, petitioner had filed O.P.No.871/2019 seeking divorce. Upon receiving notice in the said case, respondent approached the petitioner and her parents and he apologized to the petitioner and agreed that he will not repeat any further mistakes and promised to lead a good family life with the petitioner. Believing his words, petitioner withdrawn the said Original Petition and again resided with the respondent at his house. But the respondent again reverted to his superstitious beliefs. Respondent subjected the petitioner to severe mental harassment by abstaining from having sex with her and by not performing the duties as a husband and thus subjected her to cruelty.”

As it turned out, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 that, “Respondent filed counter denying the case of the petitioner and also stating that he has no superstitious and false beliefs as alleged and he has not subjected the petitioner to cruelty. Respondent made all arrangements to the petitioner for her higher studies and gave her financial assistance for the same. He denied the allegation that he is not interested in having sex with the petitioner. It was contended by him that it was the petitioner, who had an adamant attitude of not to have kids before completing her M.D. After the marriage, the petitioner got a government job. For appropriating the salary of the petitioner, her parents are unnecessarily interfering in the matrimonial life of the petitioner and the respondent.”

Quite uprightly, the Division Bench then stipulates in para 5 that, “The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree granting divorce needs any interference by this Court.”

Be it noted, the Division Bench then notes in para 6 that, “Parties are Hindus. Marriage is admitted. Admittedly the marriage was solemnised on 23.10.2016. The specific case of the petitioner is that due to the disinterest and indifferent attitude of the respondent in the family life and not having sex with her, she is suffering mental agony and distress in her matrimonial life with the respondent. Her case is that respondent is a person who is more interested in spiritual affairs like visiting temples, conducting poojas and he is not at all interested in leading a matrimonial life including sex. In the petition as well as while examined as PW1, she had narrated the various instances in support of her case that the respondent is a person having superstitious beliefs. According to her, respondent is not interested in having kids and is not interested in having sex with her. Her specific case is that as and when the respondent comes home from his workplace, he is interested only in visiting temples and ashrams and compelled her to follow his suit.”

It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench points out in para 7 that, “In the case at hand, the petitioner is categoric in her version that respondent treated her with cruelty. Unlike physical abuse, which is easier to prove, mental cruelty varies from case to case. When the petitioner/wife says that the respondent/ husband behaved in a manner so as to create an impression in her that she was totally neglected by the respondent, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said version.”

 Needless to say, it cannot be lost sight of that the Division Bench lays bare in para 8 revealing that, “It is an admitted case that petitioner had earlier filed O.P.No.871/2019 and subsequently she had withdrawn it, since the respondent confided and promised to lead a family life with her. According to her, after withdrawing the said original petition, respondent again started to behave in the same manner as before.”

To be sure, the Division Bench then very rightly acknowledges in para 9 stating that, “The answers given by the respondent during his cross examination regarding his frequent visits to the temple by taking leave from the job fortifies the case of the petitioner that he is more interested in spiritual affairs than the family life.”

Most commendably, the Division Bench propounds in para 10 holding that, “A marriage does not grant one partner the authority to dictate the other spouse’s personal beliefs whether it is spiritual or otherwise. Compelling the wife to adopt his spiritual life causing emotional distress to her, amounts to mental cruelty. Husband’s disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfill his marital duties.”

Most remarkably, the Division Bench is gracious enough to concede in para 11 expounding that, “A more flexible and comprehensive approach is needed when evaluating a case in which a wife seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty. Persistent neglect, lack of affection and denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse and we find no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that she was subjected to severe mental trauma.”

While citing a recent and relevant case law, the Division Bench notes in para 12 that, “In Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [AIR 2023 SC 4186], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“(7). Historically, the law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the fault theory. Preservation of marital sanctity from a societal perspective was considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with latitudinarianism.””

Finally and far most significantly, the Division Bench then concludes by most sagaciously holding in para 15 that, “The evidence on record would show that the mutual love, trust and care between the spouses has been lost and the marriage has been irretrievably broken, as rightly found by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court has granted the decree of divorce after proper analysis of the evidence and we do not find any reason to unsettle the said finding, which is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Parties shall suffer their respective cost.”

All told, the Kerala High Court has thus very rightly upheld divorce after taking into account the most pivotal point that the husband had just no interest in sex at all and was only keen on spirituality. This latest, learned, laudable, landmark and logical judgment has sent a very loud and clear message that all those who are only keen on spirituality and have just no interest on sex at all should refrain from marrying and if they still dare to do so then the Courts will not hesitate in granting divorce most promptly to the other spouse as we see in this leading case! No denying or disputing it!