SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(AP) 264

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAGHUVIR, K.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Pillaiamarri Vara Prasada Sarma - Appellant
Versus
Pillalamarri Seshalakshmi - Respondent
Decided On : 12-30-75

A wife is not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights if she has withdrawn from the society of the husband without just cause.

Headnote:

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9 - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - WIFE S RIGHT TO CLAIM RESTITUTION - WIFE S DUTY TO LIVE WITH HUSBAND - WIFE S REFUSAL TO RESIGN JOB AND LIVE WITH HUSBAND - WIFE S WITHDRAWAL FROM HUSBAND S SOCIETY WITHOUT JUST CAUSE - WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS.

Fact of the Case:

The wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband contested the petition, alleging that the wife had withdrawn from his society without just cause by refusing to resign her job and live with him. The wife claimed that she had offered to resign her job, but the husband insisted on her obtaining a certificate that she was relieved from service as a condition precedent to his living with her.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the wife was not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights because she had withdrawn from the society of the husband without just cause. The court found that the wife's insistence on continuing in service at a distance place away from her husband amounted to withdrawing from the society of the husband without just and sufficient cause.

Issues: 1. Whether the wife is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights when she has withdrawn from the society of the husband without just cause? 2. Whether the wife's refusal to resign her job and live with the husband amounts to withdrawing from the society of the husband without just cause?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the wife is not entitled to restitution of conjugal rights when she has withdrawn from the society of the husband without just cause. The court relied on the following rulings: (i) Smt. Tlrath kaur V. Kirpal Singh (AIR 1964 Punjab 28) (ii) Gaya Prasad v. Mst. Bhagavati (AIR 1966 M. P. 212) (iii) Smt. Surrinder Kaur v. Gurdeep Sing (AIR 1973 Punj. 134) 2. The court held that the wife's refusal to resign her job and live with the husband amounts to withdrawing from the society of the husband without just cause. The court relied on the following ruling: V. Pothuraju v. V. Radha (AIR 1965 A. P. 407 (D.b.)

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the lower court, and dismissed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a husband s appeal against the order of restitution of conjugalrights passed by the III Addl. judge City civil Court, Secunderabad in O. P No. 134 of 1969. The Appellant-husband and the respondent wife were marriel on 9-3-66. The husband is an Assistant engineer, Structural Design office, employed in the Heavy Engineering Corporation at Ranchl. The wife, a graduate was employed as Asst. Instructress in Grama sevika Training Centre at Samalkot. After a couple of years of the marriage some disputes arose between the parties and the wife went away to Samalkot where she was employed as Grama Sevika. The husband then filed a suit, T. S. No. 1315 of 1968 on the file of the court of the Munsif, Ranchi for granting a decree directing the wife to come and live with him permanently and render him conjugal rights. That suit ended in a compromise on 4-12-1968 and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed directing the wife to live with the husband at Ranchi and she also undertook not to join service.

( 2 ) HOWEVER, this petition. O. P. No. 134 of 1969, out of which this appeal arises was filed by the wife under S. 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 for a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. In the petition it was alleged that the husband is not a strong willed person and is liable to be easily influenced by his mother and sisters that his eldest sister was having considerable Influence ever the respondent and that she was expressing dlsiatisfication with the wife as the marriage was performed without her approval. It is further alleged that at the time of the marriage the wife was employed and she offered to resign her job; but the husband persuaded her to stay on and she continued in service for some time and that she was applying for leave and was staying with the husband The husband s mind was poisoned against the wife by his eldest sister and there was a lot of Ill-treatment by the husband s mother and sisters and the wife was ultimately deserted. The husband was aggrieved that the wife is educated and emp oyed and he was Insisting upon her resigning her job and also obtaining a certificate that she was relieved from service as a condition precedent to his living with her The obvious idea is to make the wife help ess and utterly dependent upon him so that she would be completely at the mercy of the husband to be abused or beaten according to his pleasure. It was further alleged that the last attempt was made by the wife by going to the husband in october 1968 and living with him. According to the wife, there were then no extraneous influences a,id the husband lived in terms of love and affection with the wife and she became pregnant and was brought to Samalkot, her father s place for confinement by rhe husband himself and was left there for confinement in 1969. The wife further states that the husband obtained a chance of going to the States as an immigrant for five years and so encouraged the wife to resign her job and she resigned her job on 5-5-1969. But again the husband began to insist on the wife securing a certificate that she was relieved from service and that he would then only think of sending her to Akividu their native place. She states that the husband was suffering from a complex that a Hindu wife should economically be helpless and live only at the mercy of the husband. It was also alleged that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her husband at ranchi was withdrawn as the wife was only too anxious to live on amicable terms with the husband and that did not even help the husband in changing his outlook and that petition seems to have been conceived by the persons behind the husband as a stepping stone for securing the ultimate dissolution of the marriage by divorce and was not at all bona fide. She therefore filed this petition under Sec. 9 for restitution of conjugal rights alleging that the cause of action for the petition arose on 1-9-1969 when the husba









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top