Back
Rules Husband's Efforts Not Enough to Prove Wife's
The has dismissed a husband's appeal seeking , ruling that his repeated visits to his wife's parental home and a legal notice expressing willingness to resume cohabitation do not, by themselves, establish that her refusal to return was under .
A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput affirmed the 's rejection of the husband's petition, emphasizing that the court must assess whether the wife's withdrawal from the marital society was justified, not merely whether she had withdrawn.
Case Background
The marriage between Praveen Kumar Yadav and Priyanka Yadav was solemnized on . The husband claimed that after his wife visited her maternal home on due to her mother's illness, she refused to return despite his repeated attempts on several dates in October and November 2022, as well as a legal notice sent in . He also filed an application under , which was rejected.
The wife, however, alleged severe ill-treatment and dowry demands. She claimed that soon after the marriage, the husband and his family demanded a Creta car and ₹5 lakh in cash. She stated that she suffered a miscarriage due to physical assault and harassment, and that the husband had an illicit relationship with another woman, which she discovered through photos and messages on his phone. She also alleged that the husband retained her educational certificates, Aadhaar card, caste certificate, and bank passbook despite her requests. She filed complaints at the , and initiated proceedings under the .
Arguments Presented
The husband's counsel argued that the wife's allegations were false and afterthought, unsupported by reliable evidence. He contended that the husband had always been willing to discharge his matrimonial obligations and had made all possible efforts to restore the relationship.
In response, the wife's counsel submitted that she was compelled to reside at her parental home due to continuous ill-treatment, physical assault, and dowry demands. The counsel pointed to the husband's conduct during the Diwali visit, which was not conducive to restoration of marital life, and argued that she had sufficient and reasonable cause to live separately.
Legal Analysis
The court clarified that the core question under Section 9 is not whether the wife had withdrawn from the husband's society, but whether such withdrawal was . The bench observed that the wife's allegations—when considered cumulatively with the complaints and domestic violence proceedings she initiated—could not be brushed aside.
A significant factor noted by the court was the husband's retention of the wife's essential documents. The had directed him to return these documents, and the High Court remarked that this withholding, particularly when return had been repeatedly sought, was an additional circumstance supporting the wife's case that her decision to live separately was justified.
The court explicitly rejected the argument that the husband's repeated visits and legal notice sufficed to prove , stating that such subsequent expressions of willingness must be evaluated in the context of the prevailing circumstances and evidence already on record.
Key Observations
"The mere fact that the appellant/husband made repeated visits to the parental home of the respondent/wife or issued a legal notice expressing his willingness to resume matrimonial cohabitation cannot, by itself, establish that her refusal to return was ."
"The withholding of documents belonging to the respondent/wife, particularly when their return had been repeatedly sought, constitutes an additional circumstance which cannot be ignored while assessing the overall conduct of the parties."
"The material available on record… indicates that the respondent/wife has succeeded in furnishing a reasonable and plausible explanation for remaining apart from the company of the appellant/husband."
Court's Decision
Finding no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity in the 's judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the rejection of the husband's restitution petition. The decision underscores that a spouse's unilateral expressions of willingness to cohabit are insufficient to compel the other spouse's return when credible allegations of ill-treatment, dowry demands, and misconduct are supported by contemporaneous complaints and proceedings.
