Back
1974 Supreme(AP) 187
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, V.MADHAVA RAO
Challa Sarojini - Appellant
Versus
Challa Veeralah - Respondent
Decided On : 12-11-74
The burden of proof in a suit for maintenance and an application for restitution of conjugal rights shifts to the wife or husband, as the case may be, to show that she or he has withdrawn from the society of the other, for a reasonable excuse.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 9 - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - BURDEN OF PROOF - WIFE WITHDRAWING FROM SOCIETY OF HUSBAND - JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE - REASONABLE EXCUSE - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed a suit for maintenance and residence alleging cruelty and ill-treatment by her husband and his mother. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, claiming that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause. The trial court dismissed the suit for maintenance and allowed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the wife had failed to prove cruelty or ill-treatment by the husband and that the suit for maintenance was rightly dismissed. The court also held that the husband had not proved that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse and that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights should have been dismissed.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife had proved cruelty or ill-treatment by the husband? 2. Whether the husband had proved that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving cruelty or justifiable cause for withdrawing from the society of the husband lies on the wife who claims maintenance. 2. The burden of proving that the wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse lies on the husband who applies for restitution of conjugal rights. 3. In a case where a suit for maintenance and an application for restitution of conjugal rights are heard together, the burden of proof shifts to the wife or husband, as the case may be, to show that she or he has withdrawn from the society of the other, for a reasonable excuse.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed, but each party was directed to bear its own costs.
Key Points: - The burden of proving cruelty or justifiable cause for withdrawing from the husband's society lies on the wife who claims maintenance (!) (!) . - The burden of proving that the wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse lies on the husband who applies for restitution of conjugal rights (!) (!) . - In cases where both a suit for maintenance and an application for restitution of conjugal rights are heard together, the burden of proof shifts to each party respectively to show reasonable excuse for withdrawal (!) (!) . - The court must be satisfied about the truth of the statements made in the petition for restitution of conjugal rights (!) (!) . - The evidence as a whole was considered by the court, leading to the conclusion that the wife's father took her away and the husband was unwilling to take her back without repayment of disputed amounts (!) (!) . - Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the appeals (!) (!) .
What is the burden of proof in a suit for maintenance under Hindu matrimonial law?
What is the burden of proof in an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Hindu matrimonial law?
How are conflicts in the burden of proof resolved when both a suit for maintenance and an application for restitution of conjugal rights are heard together?
( 1 ) THE appellant in both the appeals, Is the wife, and the respondent in the Civil MIscellaneous Appeal and the 1st respondent in the appeal, Is the husband. The 2nd respondent In A. S. 445 of 1972, Is the husband s mother.
( 2 ) A. S. 445 of 1972 arises of out o. S. 8 of 1969 on the file of the Sub Court vijayawada filed by the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, being, made up of the annual maintenance of rs. 1800/-, arrears of maintenance amounting Rs. 1200/-, Rs. 3,000/- befng the amount gifted to the plaintiff by her parents towards her pasupu Kumkuma and taken by the 1st defendant, and various other amounts being the value of household articles, etc. The suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff has preferred the appeal.
( 3 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against an order directing restitution of conjugal rights on a petition, O. P. 9 of 1968 filed by the husband. The petition as well as the suit were heard together and disposed cf by a common Judgment, both the appeals have also been heard together, and are being dealt with by this common judgment.
( 4 ) THE parties will be referred to according to the array in the suit, and In a. S. 455 of 1972.
( 5 ) THE case of the plaintiff, who is the wife is that the 1st defendant and the plaintiff were married In 1962. She joined her husband in his village Pallempalll. Ever since she Joined her husband, she was never given a treatment due to a wife she was always subjected to til-treatment and made to suffer humiliation at the hands of her husband and his mother. She was treated more like a servant maid, rather than a wife. The 1st defendant neglected her and was guilty of cruelty towards her. He refused conjugal society and denied the sexual pleasure which she was entitled to as a wife. This resulted in the impairment of her health. On several occasions, the husband beat her without any provocation. While the matters stood thus, a rumour gained currency in the village that the 1st defendant was impotent. Suspecting that the plaintiff was responsible for this rumour, he began to beat her Insplte of protestations of innocence on her pare. Finally, 8 months before the suit, he mercilessly beat her and drove her from her house with her wearing apparel alone. Later, her brother brought her back and left her twice in the house of the Ut defendant, but he turned her out of the house, on both the occasions. Finally, one Nageila Ramalah brought her to the house of the 1st defendant and left her there but he beat her and sent her out of the house after 2 or 3 days. Insplte of the request of the father, brother of the plaintiff and others, he refused to take her back. She was therefore, entitled to claim separate maintenance, which she claimed at the rate of rs. 150/- per month having regard to the status of the 1st defendant. She claimed also a charge on the properties. As some of the properties stood In the name of the 1st defendant s mother, though It really belonged to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff added her as the 2nd defendant to the suit. The plaintiff further contended that Rs. 3,000/- were given to her towards pasupukumkuma . which she entrusted to her husband. He was bound to return that amount to her. Several other amounts were also claimed which, need not be set out of this stage.
( 6 ) IN the written statement filed by the 1st defendant it was contended that he and his wife were living peacefully in his house, but misunderstandings and disputes arose between the defendants and plaintiff s father in respect of monies owing by the plaintiff s father to the 2nd defendant and other matters As the is defendant s mother had demanded the money payable by the plaintiff s father, the pleintlff s father took away the plaintiff to his house in August, 1967 and did not allow her to come back. Though the 1st defendant sent several mediators, the plaintiff continued to live in her father s house. The 1st defendant is always ready and willing to ta
