The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that in suits for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the burden of proving withdrawal without reasonable excuse rests squarely on the petitioner. The court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of a restitution suit, emphasizing that mere allegations without credible, corroborated evidence cannot sustain such a claim.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Prabha Devi, filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against her husband, Gopal Sahu, seeking to restore cohabitation after their separation in December 2015. The marriage was solemnized on 03.07.1997, and four children were born during the union. The appellant alleged that the respondent and his mother subjected her to mental and physical torture, demanded Rs. 5,00,000 as dowry, and ousted her from the matrimonial home on 10.12.2015 after beating her. She claimed she then moved to her parents’ house and later to Tamil Nadu for livelihood, returning in August 2016 only to be again ousted.
Key Facts
- Marriage solemnized on 03.07.1997 in Lohardaga
- Four children born: two daughters, one son, one daughter
- Appellant alleged dowry demand of Rs. 5,00,000 starting after birth of first two children
- Appellant ousted from matrimonial home on 10.12.2015
- Appellant moved to her sister’s house in Choreya on 13.12.2015
- Appellant left for Tamil Nadu on 13.12.2015 with Sunita Munda, Soni Loharain, Rajmani Devi, and Chavi Devi
- Respondent lodged missing complaint at Chanho PS on 17.12.2015
- Respondent filed divorce suit (M.T.S. No. 02/2016) on 21.01.2016 and took custody of two children
- Divorce suit dismissed by Family Court on 08.03.2018
- Appellant returned from Tamil Nadu on 23.08.2016 and attempted to re-enter matrimonial home but was allegedly ousted again
- Appellant filed maintenance case (O.M.C. No. 29/2018) and DV Act complaint (No. 04/2018)
- Appellant filed suit for restitution on 2018 (Original Suit No. 36 of 2018)
- Appellant filed criminal case under Section 498A, 406, 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 21.11.2016
- Criminal case acquitted by trial court on merit
- Appellant’s daughters (DW-3 and DW-4) testified that she fled with Hemant Sahu
- Respondent filed S.T. Case No. 101/2018 against Hemant Sahu for abduction, pending trial
Procedural History
- 03.07.1997: Marriage solemnized
- 10.12.2015: Alleged ousting from matrimonial home
- 17.12.2015: Missing complaint lodged by respondent
- 21.01.2016: Divorce suit filed by respondent
- 21.11.2016: Criminal case (G.R. 672/2016) filed by appellant
- 08.03.2018: Divorce suit dismissed by Family Court
- 2018: Suit for restitution filed (Original Suit No. 36 of 2018)
- 27.08.2022: Family Court dismissed restitution suit
- 31.08.2022: Decree signed
- 12.03.2026: Jharkhand HC dismisses appeal (F.A. No. 169 of 2022)
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Wife): Claimed she was wrongfully ousted, subjected to cruelty, and had no reasonable cause to leave. Argued that the husband withdrew from conjugal society and thus she was entitled to restitution.
Respondent (Husband): Denied all allegations. Claimed wife voluntarily left, lived with Hemant Sahu, and filed false criminal complaints. Asserted that her conduct justified his withdrawal.
Relief Sought
Appellant sought reversal of the Family Court’s order dismissing her restitution suit and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, compelling the respondent to resume cohabitation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the appellant-wife had discharged the burden under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to prove that the respondent-husband withdrew from her society without reasonable excuse, and whether the Family Court’s factual findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Mrs. Kismanti Minz argued that the Family Court ignored overwhelming evidence of ousting, including the appellant’s testimony and the pendency of a criminal case under Section 498A. She contended that the husband’s refusal to cohabit, coupled with his failure to pay maintenance despite a court order, constituted withdrawal without reasonable cause. She cited Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh to argue that when the husband is the one who withdraws, restitution must be granted.
For the Respondent/State
Mr. Sumit Prakash countered that the appellant’s own testimony and the acquittal in the criminal case under Section 498A proved her allegations were false. He emphasized that the daughters’ testimony confirmed the appellant’s illicit relationship with Hemant Sahu, which constituted a reasonable excuse for the husband’s withdrawal. He argued that the appellant’s abandonment of four minor children and her prolonged absence in Tamil Nadu further negated any claim of reasonable conduct.
The Court's Analysis
The Jharkhand High Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, applying the legal standard that in a suit for restitution under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the respondent withdrew from the conjugal society without reasonable excuse. The court noted that the explanation to Section 9 explicitly places this burden on the person who has withdrawn.
"It is well settled that in a civil suit the case of the plaintiff stands on his own strength and he or she cannot take support from the weakness in the case of the opposite party."
The court found the appellant’s evidence to be weak and uncorroborated. PW-2 and PW-3, the two supporting witnesses, were held to be hearsay witnesses who had no independent knowledge of the events and merely testified because the appellant requested them to. PW-2 had only returned to the village in September 2020, long after the separation began in 2015, and admitted he had no knowledge of the litigation history.
The court further noted that the appellant’s criminal complaint under Section 498A was dismissed on merit, with the trial court acquitting both the husband and mother-in-law. This acquittal, the court held, provided sufficient justification for the husband to withdraw from the marital society. The testimony of the two daughters, DW-3 and DW-4, corroborated the husband’s version that the wife had left with Hemant Sahu, undermining the appellant’s claim of being ousted.
The court emphasized that the standard in civil suits is the preponderance of probability, and the appellant’s evidence failed to establish even a high degree of probability that the husband had withdrawn without cause. The Family Court’s detailed appreciation of evidence was upheld as neither perverse nor erroneous.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Jharkhand High Court upheld the Family Court’s order dated 27.08.2022 dismissing the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The court held that the appellant failed to discharge the burden under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to prove that the respondent withdrew from the conjugal society without reasonable excuse. No decree for restitution was granted. All pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Burden of Proof Is Non-Negotiable in Restitution Suits
- Practitioners must ensure that petitioners in restitution suits present credible, independent, and corroborated evidence of the spouse’s withdrawal
- Hearsay testimony or evidence from witnesses with no direct knowledge will not suffice
- Allegations unsupported by documentary or third-party evidence are insufficient to meet the preponderance standard
Acquittal in Criminal Cases Can Be a Reasonable Excuse
- A criminal case under Section 498A or Dowry Prohibition Act that ends in acquittal on merit may constitute a reasonable excuse for the other spouse to withdraw from conjugal society
- Courts will not grant restitution if the petitioner’s own conduct (e.g., false criminal complaints) justifies the respondent’s separation
- This principle reinforces that matrimonial remedies are not tools for harassment
Children’s Testimony Holds Weight in Matrimonial Disputes
- Testimony of minor children, even if given on affidavit, may be relied upon if consistent and uncontradicted
- Courts are increasingly willing to consider children’s perspectives in custody and restitution matters, especially when they are direct witnesses to family dynamics
- Practitioners should prepare children as witnesses early and ensure their testimony is recorded properly
