Increasingly fed-up with ‘sex-starved’ marriages, more and more couples were seeking divorces these days. This was observed by the Delhi High court while upholding a man’s plea for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty as his wife was refusing to have sex with him.
“Sex-starved marriages are becoming an undeniable epidemic as urban living conditions today mount unprecedented pressure on couples. The sanctity of sexual relationship and its role in reinvigorating the bond of marriage is getting diluted and as a consequence, more and more couples are seeking divorce due to sexual incompatibility and absence of sexual satisfaction,” Justice Kailash Gambhir noted.
He dismissed the wife’s plea against a trial court order passed in 2001 which had annulled the marriage on the husband’s contention that she had refused to have sexual intercourse on the first night after marriage and that they had had intercourse only 10-15 times during the five months they lived together.
“Wilful denial of sexual intercourse without reasonable cause would amount to cruelty. The courts have, through various judicial pronouncements, taken a view that sex is the foundation of marriage and marriage without sex is anathema,” Justice Gambhir added.
The couple had married on February 17, 1991 according to Hindu rites and the husband had claimed that right from the start, his wife had been “indifferent” to their relationship. She had refused to participate in rituals after the wedding and had even refused to wear “chura” or wedding bangles, he claimed, adding that she had caused him mental agony by embarrassing him in front of his relatives.
They had sexual intercourse for the first time eight days after marriage, he claimed, adding that she was never responsive during sexual intercourse.
The wife, “however”, had denied the allegations stating that they had sexual intercourse from the first night after marriage. She claimed that her husband’s family used to misbehave with her demanding dowry and had thrown her out of their house when she could not fulfil their demands.
However, the court dismissed her plea as she could not produce any evidence. The court also said that the statements made by her were contradictory.