The Jharkhand High Court set aside a Family Court decree for restitution of conjugal rights, holding the wife's withdrawal from matrimonial home was justified by her apprehension of safety due to the husband's brother-in-law's alleged improper conduct. The Court emphasized that Section 281 of Mohammedan Law requires withdrawal to be 'without lawful cause,' and the wife's willingness to reside with the husband in alternative accommodation negated claims of desertion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent-husband (Faisal Hasan) filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of Mohammedan Law (Mulla) against his wife (Sadaf Humaira, appellant) after she allegedly deserted the matrimonial home. The marriage was solemnized on 05.03.2020 per Muslim rites at the wife's father's house in Hazaribagh.
Key Facts
- The husband alleged the wife began quarrelling just two days after marriage and slapped him on 22.04.2020
- On 06.06.2020, the wife left with her father, taking her belongings, and refused to return despite husband's efforts
- A female child was born on 18.01.2021; the husband claimed he bore delivery expenses while the wife stated her father paid them
- The wife returned on 26.07.2021, and they resided in a rented house at Bariyatu, Ranchi
- Since 26.07.2022, the wife resided at her parental home in Hazaribagh without returning
- The wife claimed dowry/gifts worth Rs.10,00,000 were given by her parents at marriage (cash, jewellery, utensils, furniture, scooty)
- The husband denied taking any dowry and stated he lived in his aunt's house for 25 years pre-marriage
Procedural History
- 20.12.2023: Wife filed written statement denying allegations and claiming safety apprehension
- 24.01.2025: Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh, decreed restitution of conjugal rights in favour of husband (Original Suit No. 173 of 2023)
- 12.02.2025: Decree sealed and signed
- Instant appeal filed: Challenging the Family Court judgment and decree
- 13/10/2026: Judgment pronounced by Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant-wife sought to have the Family Court's judgment dated 24.01.2025 and decree dated 12.02.2025 quashed and set aside, asserting her withdrawal was justified by reasonable apprehension of safety.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the wife's withdrawal from the matrimonial home constituted desertion 'without lawful cause' under Section 281 of Mohammedan Law (Mulla), specifically whether her apprehension of safety due to the husband's brother-in-law's alleged improper conduct and willingness to reside with the husband in alternative accommodation amounted to lawful cause for refusing cohabitation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Wife
The appellant contended that after marriage, she initially lived peacefully with the husband at his aunt's house but soon felt unsafe due to the brother-in-law's (Dr. Arun Paswan) alleged improper conduct and 'evil eye' towards her. She informed the husband, who ignored her concerns, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home. She emphasized her willingness to reside with the husband in alternative accommodation where the brother-in-law would not be present, arguing her objection was to the household conditions, not the marital relationship itself. She denied slapping the husband or using abusive language, stating her written statement (20.12.2023) explained her safety apprehension and willingness to cohabit elsewhere.
For the Respondent/Husband
The respondent argued the wife deserted without justification, citing her repeated departures and slapping incident on 22.04.2020. He asserted he performed full marital obligations, bore all expenses for the child's birth, and treated everyone with respect. He contended the wife's allegations of safety apprehension were false and motivated by a desire to avoid maintenance obligations, pointing to her residence at her parental home since 26.07.2022 as proof of unjustified withdrawal. He maintained the Family Court properly appreciated the evidence and granted restitution rightly.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first noted Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 allows appeals on both fact and law, citing Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi [(2008) 10 SCC 497] to affirm the High Court's power to reappraise evidence as a first appellate court. Turning to Section 281 of Mohammedan Law (Mulla), the Court stressed it requires the wife's cessation of cohabitation to be 'without lawful cause' for restitution to be granted, referencing Anis Begum v. Muhammad Istafa Wali Khan [(1933) SCC OnLine All 138] where the Privy Council observed Courts must regard Muhammadan law principles while retaining power to impose fair terms.
The Court found the wife's testimony credible: she stated she felt unsafe due to the brother-in-law's conduct despite informing the husband, who 'paid no heed to her concerns.' Crucially, she expressed willingness to reside with the husband in alternative accommodation where the brother-in-law would not be present. The Court held this defeated the claim of desertion, as her objection was to the specific household, not the marriage itself. The Court criticized the Family Court for confining its reasoning to mere withdrawal without considering the wife's specific safety apprehension and willingness for alternative accommodation, stating it 'failed to appreciate the entire gamut of the case.'
Applying the 'perversity' standard from Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [(2009) 10 SCC 206], the Court concluded the Family Court's finding was not evidence-based, as it ignored vital defence aspects. The Court observed: 'The learned Family Court has not taken into consideration the entire factual aspect and evidences available on record in right perspective.' It emphasized matrimonial adjudication requires examining substance over formal rights, especially when safety and dignity are implicated.
The Verdict
The appeal succeeded; the impugned judgment dated 24.01.2025 and decree sealed and signed dated 12.02.2025, passed in Original Suit No. 173 of 2023 by the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh, were quashed and set aside. The appellant-wife was held to have withdrawn with lawful cause due to safety apprehension, and no restitution of conjugal rights decree could be sustained. The respondent-husband's claim for maintenance, custody, or other relief remains unaffected by this ruling.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Safety Apprehension Can Negate 'Without Lawful Cause' Requirement
Practitioners must now rigorously develop evidence of safety apprehension in restitution suits under Section 281 Mohammedan Law. Mere allegations of quarrels or desertion are insufficient; the wife must demonstrate reasonable apprehension for her dignity or safety in the matrimonial household, supported by conduct such as threats, abuse, or improper intentions by family members. Crucially, her willingness to reside with the husband in alternative accommodation where the source of apprehension is absent transforms the withdrawal from desertion to a justified objection to specific living conditions.
Holistic Evidence Appraisal is Mandatory in Matrimonial Appeals
First appellate courts cannot uphold restitution decrees based solely on the husband's willingness to resume cohabitation or the wife's separate residence. The Court must evaluate whether the withdrawal was 'without lawful cause' by assessing: (1) the wife's specific explanation for refusing cohabitation, (2) the husband's response to that explanation, and (3) the feasibility of her proposed alternative arrangement. Ignoring evidence of safety concerns, as the Family Court did here, renders the decree perverse and liable to be set aside.
Burden Shifts to Husband to Disprove Lawful Cause
Once the wife raises a specific safety apprehension supported by evidence, the burden shifts to the husband to prove her withdrawal was nonetheless 'without lawful cause.' He must demonstrate either that her apprehension was unfounded or that alternative accommodation would not resolve the dispute. Mere denial of allegations or assertion of marital performance is inadequate; affirmative proof that the wife's fear was unreasonable or irrational is required to sustain a restitution decree.
