Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Md. Akil Alam son of Md. Salim - Appellant
Versus
Tumpa Chakravarty wife of Md. Akil Alam - Respondent
F.A. No. 24 of 2024
Decided on : 06-10-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
The court affirmed that a husband concealing a previous marriage negates the validity of claims for restitution of conjugal rights, establishing the respondent had valid grounds for separation.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(i) - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 22 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Appeal against dismissal of husband's suit for restitution - Dismissed due to prior existing marriage of appellant not disclosed - Court found valid cause for respondent's separation - There was evidence of threat to life and the respondent's valid reasons for refusing cohabitation were established. (Paras 2, 10, 25, 54)
(B) Marriage - Validity and disclosure - The petitioner concealed previous marriage while solemnizing marriage under Special Marriage Act. - Full knowledge of circumstances is essential for the validity of marriage. (Paras 4, 39, 52)
(C) Evidence - Burden of proof - The court noted that the burden lies on the one declaring a reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society. (Para 26)
Facts of the case:
Appellant, a pathologist, married respondent on 04.08.2015. After some time, the respondent left citing the petitioner’s prior marriage and threats to her life. Court dismissed his suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
Findings of Court:
Respondent established valid reasons for non-cohabitation, including threats and prior marriage of the appellant, hence no decree for restitution could be granted.
Issues: 1) Validity of the suit filed; 2) Cause of action; 3) Desertion by respondent; 4) Entitlement for relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Court found that the appellant failed to establish no reasonable excuse for separation; respondent had sufficient reasons to live separately due to concealment of prior marriage.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case introduction and marriage details (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments by the appellant challenging judgment (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments by the respondent defending judgment (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. court analysis of the issues framed (Para 20 , 21) |
| 5. court's findings on evidence and decree (Para 25 , 26 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 57) |
| 6. legal principles governing special marriage act (Para 36 , 39 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 7. dismissal of the appeal and conclusion (Para 59 , 60 , 61) |
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 19(i) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 against the judgment dated 28.11.2023 [decree signed on 11.12.2023] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deogharin Original Suit No.137 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the Suit for restitution of conjugal right filed by the petitioner husband (appellant herein) under Section 22 of the SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT 1954 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are referred herein as under:
The case of petitioner/appellant is that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 04.08.2015. After marriage, both the petitioner and respondent had been living together as husband and wife at Amarpur. After some days of marriage, the respondent came to her parental house on 10.10.2015, without any reasonable excuse and she has left society of the petitioner.
The petitioner requested the respondent to lead conjugal rights on several occasions but the respondent always refused to accompany with the petitioner and she had stated to the petitioner to leave his profession and settle at the Deoghar, as Gharjamai. The petitioner is a Pathologist and he works at Govindpur. The petitioner is ready and willing to maintain the respondent with full dignity and honour and he has no alternative but to take recourse of this no Court for restitution of his conjugal rights. The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.12.2019, when the respondent refused to live with the petitioner.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent who appeared and filed her written statement stating therein that the instant suit is misconceived, unwarranted and not maintainable either on facts or material available on record.
4. It has further been stated that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was married since earlier and he had a child also from his first wife. The petitioner had taken away the original sale deed of the land belonging to the respondent’s father and he was pressurizing the respondent and he father to execute a Gift Deed of said land in his favour and when the said demand of petitioner was refused by the respondent, he started to treat the respondent with cruelty due to which the respondent had to file a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. being Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2018 which was allowed vide order dated 5.12.2019 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife.
5. It is further stated that there is threat of life of the respondent by the hands of the petitioner and his first wife. The instant case has been filed by the petitioner only to put undue pressure upon the respondent so that the petitioner may escape from the liability of paying maintenance.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, altogether four issues have been framed by the learned Family Judge which are as follows:
(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable for the relief claimed?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the opposite party/respondent has deserted the petitioner without any just cause?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as claimed or any other relief?
7. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. The petitioner husband had examined three witnesses in support of his claim namely P.W.1 Md. Akil Alam (petitioner/appellant), P.W.2 Sandeep Kumar and P.W.3 M
