In Muslim law restitution suits, courts refuse decree if husband's proven cruelty or conduct creates life apprehension, making cohabitation inequitable; family court reversal warranted for perverse evidence disregard.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2023, decree signed on 05.09.2023, passed in Original Suit No.451 of 2021 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the petitioner-husband (respondent herein) under Section 281 of the MOHAMMEDAN LAW , for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner/husband (respondent herein) as narrated before the learned Family Court, is that his marriage with the respondent (appellant herein) was solemnized on 25.11.2017 as per Muslim rites and custom at Bokaro.

3. After marriage, they lived together as man and wife. They have no issue from the wedlock. It is the case of the respondent/ plaintiff/ husband that the appellant/ defendant/wife lived few days properly in her matrimonial home. After that, she on some pretext or the other, insisted to go to her parents’ home, for which she became aggressive. She does not want to live in his joint family. She pressurized him to live separately from his family, for which she used to quarrel.

4. On 14.05.2019, she sent her all belongings with her uncle, including all ornaments and on 15.05.2019, she on her own will went to her parents’ home with her father, for which husband had made online information to Chas Police Station on the same day.

5. After mediation in Mahila Thana, Bokaro, on 19.05.2019, they started living separately in a rented house. In spite of that there were no changes in her behaviour. Lastly, on 09.02.2021, she again went to her parents’ home with her father. After that, he left no stone unturned to bring her back but she denied.

6. On 13.02.2021, she had filed Bokaro Mahila P.S.Case No. 08 of 2021 against them under Dowry Prohibition Act, which is still pending. In spite of living separately with the respondent, from his family members, she denied to live with him. He is still ready to keep her with him with full honour and dignity.

7. Consequent to issue of notice, wife/defendant (appellant herein) had filed written statement wherein she had stated that she wanted to live with her in-laws but her in-laws did not want to keep her with them. The plaintiff (respondent herein) assaulted her brutally in presence of her uncle on 14.05.2019 and even tried to kill her on 15.05.2019, for which she had filed Mahila P.S Case No. 08 of 2021. The Petitioner (respondent herein) hatched conspiracy, tried to kill her on fire, confined her in a room. The Petitioner/husband is man of cruel nature. She apprehends her life in the hands of the petitioner. Therefore, the instant suit of the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed by the learned Family Judge for just and final decision of the case :-

(i) Is this suit maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the petitioner has been able to prove that the respondent has withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable