The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights, holding that there is no perversity existed in the Family Court’s findings as the wife had sufficient and reasonable grounds to live separately.
The Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai has noted the following requirements for allowing the provision of restitution of conjugal rights to the concerned spouse-
(i) The withdrawal by the other spouse from society
(ii) The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or excuse or lawful ground
(iii) There should be no other legal ground for refusal of the relief
(iv) The court should be satisfied about the truth for refusal of the relief.
The present appeal was filed by the husband (Appellant) against the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court, whereby the suit for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed. In the instant case, the husband claimed that his wife (Respondent) had left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and had been residing with her parents. The wife, however, alleged that the husband and his family had raised demands for Rs. 10 lakh and a car from her family, against which she had also filed a case for cruelty. She further contended that she was repeatedly pressured by her husband to resign from her government employment on account of his posting in another city.
After examining the issue in detail, the Court clarified that the enquiry in such affairs ought to be confined to one fact, i.e., whether the reason for the separation of the one spouse from the other is based on a just cause or not. While acknowledging the traditional notion of a Hindu wife as a ‘Dharampatni’ expected to accompany her husband, the Court observed that such orthodox views have undergone a transformative shift with the advancement of education and increased literacy among women. Further, it added that “As marriage partners no partner can claim a better or superior right over the other.”
Given the facts of the case, the Court stated that even though it is true that a married life means to live together for mutual conjugal happiness, but where both parties are engaged in a profession of their choice, it cannot be expected from the wife alone to silently follow the husband. In view of the above, the Bench comprising Justice Narayan Prasad and Justice Arum Kumar Rai found the wife’s refusal to sacrifice her career to be reasonable, reiterating that sustaining a marital relationship is a shared responsibility and not an obligation resting on the wife alone.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Appearances:
For Appellant: Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Choubey, advocate
