The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted if the spouse who withdrew from the marital home did so due to mental or physical cruelty, dowry demands, or unbearable conduct - even if such conduct does not meet the strict threshold of legal cruelty. This judgment underscores that the court’s role is not to enforce cohabitation at the cost of dignity, but to ensure justice grounded in the realities of marital life.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner-husband filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights after his wife, the respondent, left the matrimonial home in April 2018. He alleged she left without reasonable cause, refused to return despite repeated attempts, and had filed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against him for dowry and cruelty. The wife countered that she was subjected to physical abuse, dowry demands of ₹3 lakh, and threats to her life and children, forcing her to leave. She produced a medical injury report dated 2 May 2018 and a pending criminal complaint as evidence.
Procedural History
- 2022: Petition filed by husband in Addl. Family Court No. II, Dhanbad.
- 2024: Family Court granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights, relying primarily on the husband’s testimony and partial excerpts from the wife’s father’s deposition.
- 2024: Wife appealed to the Jharkhand High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The Parties' Positions
- Husband: Claimed wife left without cause, refused reconciliation, and was financially supported by him since 2019.
- Wife: Alleged sustained cruelty, dowry harassment, and threats; denied voluntary withdrawal; cited medical evidence and criminal proceedings.
Relief Sought
The wife sought quashing of the restitution decree, arguing the Family Court ignored material evidence and misapplied the law by focusing only on selective testimony.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a spouse who withdraws from the marital home due to alleged cruelty, dowry demands, or unbearable conduct can still be compelled to resume cohabitation under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and whether the burden of proving reasonable excuse lies solely on the withdrawing spouse without considering the petitioner’s conduct.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The wife’s counsel argued that the Family Court erred by:
- Ignoring the injury report and criminal complaint filed under Section 498A IPC.
- Relying on a single, isolated statement from the wife’s father (D.W.1) that he had no complaint against the husband, while disregarding his testimony about the wife’s medical treatment and the husband’s infrequent visits.
- Failing to apply the principle that Section 9 cannot be used to enforce cohabitation where the petitioner’s own conduct has rendered the marital home intolerable.
- Violating the settled rule that evidence must be appreciated as a whole, not piecemeal.
For the Respondent/State
The husband’s counsel contended that:
- The wife left without any justifiable reason and refused multiple reconciliation attempts.
- The husband had consistently provided financial support, as evidenced by bank receipts (Exhibit X series).
- The father’s testimony confirmed no dispute between him and the son-in-law, supporting the husband’s version.
- The criminal case was a retaliatory tactic to gain advantage in matrimonial proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court emphasized that Section 9 is not a tool to compel cohabitation against the will of a spouse who has been subjected to intolerable conditions. The Court examined the explanation to Section 9, which places the burden of proving reasonable excuse on the withdrawing spouse, but clarified that this does not absolve the court of its duty to examine the petitioner’s conduct under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, which bars relief if the petitioner is taking advantage of their own wrong.
"The court is bound to take into consideration the conduct of the petitioner. If the petitioner by his own misdeeds forced his spouse to leave him, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and ask for the assistance of the Court to perpetuate his own wrongdoing."
The Court distinguished the Family Court’s approach from established precedent, citing Anjani Dei v. Krushna Chandra and Mst. Gurdev Kaur v. Sarwan Singh, which hold that even conduct falling short of statutory cruelty may constitute a reasonable excuse if it renders marital life unbearable. The Family Court’s reliance on a single line from D.W.1’s testimony - ignoring his corroborative evidence of injuries and infrequent visits - was deemed a clear case of piecemeal appreciation.
The Court further noted that the parties had lived separately for nearly eight years, making restitution impractical. The husband’s failure to address the wife’s allegations of abuse, coupled with the existence of a pending criminal case, rendered the decree unsustainable. The judgment was found to be perverse under the standard set in Arulvelu v. State, as it ignored material evidence and reached a conclusion contrary to the record.
The Verdict
The wife won. The Jharkhand High Court quashed the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, holding that a spouse cannot be compelled to resume cohabitation where withdrawal was due to cruelty, dowry demands, or unbearable conduct, even if the conduct does not strictly meet the definition of legal cruelty. The Family Court’s judgment was set aside for perversity and failure to appreciate evidence holistically.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reasonable Excuse Includes Unbearable Conduct
- Practitioners must now argue that reasonable excuse under Section 9 extends beyond statutory cruelty to include psychological abuse, dowry pressure, and sustained humiliation.
- A mere denial of cruelty by the petitioner is insufficient; courts must examine the totality of circumstances.
Evidence Must Be Appreciated Holistically
- Bullet points for practitioners:
- Never rely on isolated statements; always present evidence as a unified narrative.
- Medical reports and pending criminal complaints are critical to establishing reasonable excuse.
- Financial support alone cannot override allegations of abuse or coercion.
Section 23(1)(a) Is a Mandatory Check on Petitioner’s Conduct
- Courts must independently assess whether the petitioner is exploiting their own wrongdoing.
- A petition for restitution fails if the petitioner’s conduct forced the separation, regardless of whether the respondent’s withdrawal technically lacks a ‘legal’ ground.
- This principle applies even in undefended cases - courts have a duty to ensure justice, not procedural convenience.
