Story Content

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has rejected a 58-year-old divorce petition by an old couple married more than 58 years. The decision against the husband was issued on February 9, 2026, by the division bench of the Justices Sudesh Bansal and Anil Kumar Upman, based on an appeal filed in 2019 against a 2019 decision by the Bharatpur family court continuing to deny the potential plea of the husband.

The verdict was published on February 9, 2026, giving light to an order issued by a 2019 order of the Bharatpur family court denying the possible plea of

The husband was aged above 75 years old (in other accounts, a retired school principal in the government) and he requested a divorce on the basis of cruelty under section 13 of Hindu marriage Act 1955. He had purported property squabbles, family misunderstandings and constant wrangles which rendered living together unbearable. The couple got married under Hindu rituals in 1967 and they had three children (two sons and a daughter, all married) and their life together was pleasant until around 2013-2014 when there had been no complaints of this kind.

The court noted that minor irritations, friction, everyday wear and tear of a marriage union are all part of any long term relationship and they do not constitute cruelty that warrants the dissolution. As Justice Bansal and Upman pointed out: "Although we may assume that certain family aspects related to property matter or lack of understanding on part of members of the same family have brought up, the same cannot be taken as valid enough to separate old married couple who have lived their marriage life together since 1967 to 2013 without any grievance against the other spouse".

The bench stressed that there are slight highs and lows in the marital life, particularly in the life after being in unison almost 60 years. To award divorce at this point on such basis, they reasoned, would be unfair, as they turned down the appeal challenging the rejection of the family court.

The case, which receives debates on social media and in legal forums with regards to shielding elderly couples against late-life separation because of property or family conflicts, has been decided. It reiterates the fact that inhumane treatment has to be not a trifle and sustained- not a normal quarrel- but enough to bring a decades-long marriage to a close.

The identity of the couple is mostly confidential when reported with emphasis laid on the legal principle. The case is timely to recall how Indian judicial system has been keen on sustaining the marriages especially during the stage of old age where companionship tends to override the short-lived confrontations.