The Supreme Court of India gave a divorce to a husband and wife. Both people are doctors. They did not live together for fifteen years.

印度最高法院判准一對夫婦離婚。兩人皆為醫生，他們已經分開生活十五年。

The couple married in 2007. The wife did not want to be close to her husband. The court said this was a form of mental pain. This is a reason for divorce.

這對夫婦於2007年結婚。妻子不想與丈夫親近，法院表示這是一種精神痛苦，是離婚的理由。

The wife said she lived in Rajasthan. But the court found she worked in Gujarat. She did not want to live with her husband again.

妻子稱她住在拉賈斯坦邦，但法院發現她其實在古吉拉特邦工作。她不想再與丈夫同居。

The court used a special law to help them. The judges said the marriage was dead. They want the two people to be free and happy.

法院使用了一項特別法律來協助他們。法官表示這段婚姻已經破裂，希望兩人能獲得自由與快樂。

The marriage is now over. The long legal fight is finished.

這段婚姻現在結束了，漫長的法律之爭終於落幕。

The Supreme Court of India has granted a divorce to a couple, both medical professionals from Rajasthan, who had lived apart for more than fifteen years.

印度最高法院准許一對來自拉賈斯坦邦、皆為醫療專業人士的夫婦離婚，兩人已分居超過十五年。

The decision was made on June 2 by Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih regarding a marriage that began in December 2007. The court supported a previous ruling from the Rajasthan High Court, which stated that refusing sexual intimacy without a good reason is a form of mental cruelty. This is consistent with the Hindu Marriage Act, as the court emphasized that denying these rights destroys the basic foundation of a marriage.

此決定是由法官 Sanjay Karol 與 Augustine George Masih 於 6 月 2 日針對一段始於 2007 年 12 月的婚姻所做出。法院支持拉賈斯坦邦高等法院之前的裁定，指出在沒有正當理由的情況下拒絕性親密行為是一種精神虐待。這與《印度教婚姻法》一致，因為法院強調，剝奪這些權利會摧毀婚姻的基本基礎。

Regarding the evidence, the court noticed a contradiction in the wife's claims about where she lived. Although she claimed to have moved to Rajasthan, the court found no proof of this and noted that she was still working in Gujarat. Consequently, the judges used their special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure 'complete justice,' arguing that keeping a dead relationship alive prevents both people from moving forward with their lives.

關於證據，法院注意到妻子對其居住地的說法存在矛盾。雖然她聲稱已搬到拉賈斯坦邦，但法院發現沒有相關證明，並注意到她仍於古吉拉特邦工作。因此，法官行使憲法第 142 條賦予的特別權力以確保「完全正義」，認為強行維持一段已死亡的關係，會阻礙雙方重新開始生活。

Furthermore, the court discussed the balance between saving a marriage and allowing individuals to be free. While the court usually tries to keep marriages together, the judges asserted that long legal battles in 'stale' relationships cause psychological and social harm. Therefore, the court decided that it is more important to end long-term legal disputes than to formally maintain a marriage that no longer exists in reality.

此外，法院討論了挽救婚姻與允許個人自由之間的平衡。雖然法院通常嘗試維繫婚姻，但法官斷言在「陳舊」的關係中進行漫長的法律訴訟會造成心理與社會傷害。因此，法院認定終結長期的法律爭議，比形式上維持一段在現實中已不復存在的婚姻更為重要。

The marriage has now been officially dissolved, ending fifteen years of separation and legal conflict.

這段婚姻現已正式解除，結束了十五年的分居與法律衝突。

The Supreme Court of India has granted a divorce to a medical professional couple from Rajasthan who had remained estranged for over fifteen years.

印度最高法院已准許一對來自拉賈斯坦邦、分居超過十五年的醫療專業人士夫婦離婚。

The judicial determination, rendered by Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih on June 2, centered on the dissolution of a marriage contracted in December 2007. The court upheld a prior Rajasthan High Court ruling which had identified the denial of sexual intimacy without reasonable cause as a form of mental cruelty, consistent with Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This finding was reinforced by the observation that the withholding of conjugal rights undermines the fundamental basis of a marital partnership.

此次司法裁決由法官 Sanjay Karol 和 Augustine George Masih 於6月2日做出，重點在於解散一段於2007年12月締結的婚姻。法院維持了拉賈斯坦邦高等法院之前的裁定，認定在沒有合理原因的情況下拒絕性親密行為是一種精神虐待，符合《印度教婚姻法》第13(1)(a)條。法院並指出，剝奪夫妻權會破壞婚姻夥伴關係的基本基礎，進一步強化了此項發現。

Regarding the evidentiary record, the court noted a discrepancy in the wife's claims of residency; while she asserted a relocation to Rajasthan, the bench found no corroborating evidence and determined that her continued employment in Gujarat indicated a lack of intent to resume cohabitation. Consequently, the court invoked its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure 'complete justice,' positing that the prolongation of a defunct relationship precludes the individuals from achieving a free and independent environment.

關於證據記錄，法院注意到妻子對居住地的主張存在分歧；雖然她聲稱已搬遷至拉賈斯坦邦，但法官發現缺乏佐證證據，且她繼續在古吉拉特邦就職，顯示其缺乏恢復同居的意願。因此，法院援引憲法第142條賦予的酌情權以確保「完全正義」，認為延長一段已失效的關係將妨礙當事人獲得自由且獨立的環境。

Furthermore, the bench addressed the tension between the institutional preservation of marriage and the necessity of individual release. While acknowledging the general judicial inclination toward maintaining marital sanctity, the court asserted that the continued pendency of litigation in 'stale' relationships results in sociological and psychological attrition. This jurisprudential approach suggests a shift toward prioritizing the cessation of protracted litigation over the formal maintenance of a marriage that has ceased to exist in any substantive capacity.

此外，法官處理了婚姻制度的維護與個人獲釋必要性之間的緊張關係。儘管法院承認司法上一般傾向於維持婚姻神聖性，但強調在「陳舊」的關係中持續進行訴訟會導致社會學與心理上的損耗。這種法理方法表明，目前的優先順序已轉向終結長期的訴訟，而非形式上維持一段在實質上已不復存在的婚姻。

The marriage has been dissolved, ending a fifteen-year period of separation and legal pendency.

該段婚姻已解散，結束了十五年的分居與法律訴訟期。