Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 2140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
Jolina, D/o. Anilbhai Patel @ Devanshee, W/o. Pratik Champaneri - Appellant
Versus
Pratik Dhiraj Champaneri – Respondent
R/Second Appeal No. 482 of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2025
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Family Law
Act Referred
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT : S.9
Headnote
(B) Mental Cruelty - Acts of self-harm and public defamation - Repeated threats of self-harm, actual attempts at self-destruction, and the distribution of defamatory material against a spouse constitute mental cruelty. Such conduct provides a reasonable excuse for the aggrieved spouse to withdraw from the matrimonial society, as it creates an environment of perpetual anxiety and harassment. (Paras 18, 20, 21)
(C) Appellate Interference - Scope of Second Appeal - The High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact established by the lower courts unless such findings are perverse, based on inadmissible evidence, or contrary to settled law. (Paras 37, 38)
Facts of the case:
An appellant sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights after a period of separation. The respondent opposed the petition, contending that the appellant had attempted suicide and engaged in public defamation by distributing material labeling the respondent as missing. The respondent argued that these actions caused extreme mental distress and amounted to intentional cruelty. Both the lower courts concurrently dismissed the petition, finding that the appellant's conduct justified the respondent's decision to live separately.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellant admitted to attempting self-harm during cross-examination, which qualifies as a strong piece of evidence of mental cruelty. The court held that the mental anguish and public humiliation caused by the appellant’s actions made it impossible for the parties to maintain a dignified or peaceful marital life. Therefore, the withdrawal of the respondent from the society of the appellant was based on a reasonable and justified excuse.
Issues: Whether the respondent had a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the appellant, and whether the trial and appellate courts were correct in denying the relief of restitution of conjugal rights based on the proven acts of mental cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a spouse engages in extreme conduct, including repeated attempts at self-harm and public defamation, such behavior constitutes mental cruelty. This conduct renders the resumption of a peaceful matrimonial life impossible, providing a valid and reasonable excuse for the other spouse to live separately. Consequently, courts will not invoke the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights in situations where doing so would be inherently inequitable and detrimental to the mental health and safety of the other party.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr YH Motiramani, Mr. Divyesh G. Nimavat
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishvesh R. Acharya.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background underlying the restitution of conjugal rights petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. conflicting arguments regarding burden of proof and characterization of marital cruelty. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. mental cruelty from suicide threats constitutes a reasonable excuse for spousal withdrawal. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. judicial assessment of precedents regarding cruelty and the inadmissibility of restitution when cohabitation is impossible. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. non-interference in concurrent factual findings and dismissal of appeal due to lack of substantial questions of law. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
ORDER :
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
1. The present Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09.08.2024 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2023 whereby, the Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2023 passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 44 of 2017 by 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge Valsad under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been confirmed.
2. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to as Petitioners and Respondents.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Second Appeal are that the Petitioner filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”) for Restitution of Conjugal rights. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner and Respondent got engaged on 29.05.2016 and they got married on 13.02.2017 and after marriage, the Petitioner went to stay with the Respondent.
4. It is the Petitioner’s case that after sometime, the Respondent’s family had adopted a very unreasonable approach towards the Petitioner and therefore, on request of the Respondent the Petitioner went to stay at the address mentioned in the cause title of the Hindu Marriage Petition. It has been averred that time and again the Petitioner requested the Respondent to live with her and the Respondent did not adhere to the said request and ultimately, the Petitioner lodged a complaint before Valsad Mahila Police Station on 13.07.2017, when the Petitioner was not permitted to get inside her matrimonial house in order to fulfill her conjugal rights.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent had without any reasonable excuse withdrawn himself from the society of the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner filed Petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Respondent appeared in the said Petition and filed written statement vide exhibit 31. The main grievance of the Respondent was that no marriage was solemnized between the parties and that false complaint had been filed by the Petitioner in Valsad Mahila Police Station.
6. The Trial Court framed issues vide exhibit 42 as under:
(i) Whether the applicant proves that she is the legal wife of opponent?
(ii) Whether the applicant proves that opponent has without reasonable excuse, withdrawn himself from the society of herself?
(iii) Whether the applicant proves that she is entitles to get the decree of restitution of conjugal rights?
(iv) What order and decree?”
7. The Petitioner examined herself vide exhibit 50 and the witnesses of the Petitioner were examined vide exhibits 58 and 70 respectively. Whereas, the Opponent examined a witness at exhibit 75 and after going through the oral evidence of the parties and giving finding on all the issues, the Trial Court dismissed the Petition. aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2023. After re-appreciating the evidence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the said Appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 44 of 2017, hence the present Second Appeal.
CASE OF THE APPELLANT/ PETITIONER
8. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to
