Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, Prem Chand Jain and S.C.Mital JJ.
Pritam Kaur
Versus
Surjit Singh
First Appeal First Order No. 106 of 1978,
Decided On : OCTOBER 31, 1983
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - BINDING PRECEDENT - FULL BENCH DECISION - RATIO DECIDENDI - RECONSIDERATION - GROUNDS - EQUALITY CLAUSE - ART.14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-wife challenged the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted in favor of the respondent-husband by the trial court. The appellant-wife argued that the ratio of the Full Bench in Smt. Kailash Wati's case (1977-79 Pun LR 216) was not binding on the learned single judge and that the Full Bench decision needed reconsideration by a still larger Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the ratio of the Full Bench in Smt. Kailash Wati's case (1977-79 Pun LR 216) was binding on the learned single judge and that no question for its reconsideration could arise before the single Bench. The court further held that the present reference did not arise and the case had to be sent back to a single Bench for a decision on merit in accordance with the law laid down in Smt. Kailash Wati's case (supra).
Issues: 1. Whether the ratio of the Full Bench in Smt. Kailash Wati's case (1977-79 Pun LR 216) was binding on the learned single judge? 2. Whether the Full Bench decision needed reconsideration by a still larger Bench?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The binding nature of precedent is the kingpin of our judicial system. It is the bond that binds together what otherwise might well become a thicket of individualistic opinions resulting in a virtual judicial anarchy. 2. A single Judge of a High Court is ordinarily bound to accept as correct judgments of Courts of Co-ordinate jurisdiction and of Division Benches and of the Full Benches of his Court and of this Court. 3. The ratios of the Full Benches are and should be rested on surer foundations and are not to be blown away by every side wind. 4. It is only within the narrowest field that a judgment of a larger Bench can be questioned for re-consideration. 5. The challenge to the rationale and reasoning of a larger Bench is not a valid ground for unsettling it and seeking a re-opening and re-examination of the same thus putting the question in a flux afresh.
Final Decision: The reference was answered accordingly, and the case was sent back to a single Bench for a decision on merit in accordance with the law laid down in Smt. Kailash Wati's case (supra).
S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The linchpin of our justice system - the doctrine of precedent and its binding nature - is the significantly spinal issue in this reference by the learned single Judge recording a frontal dissent from the ratio of the Full Bench in Smt. Kailash Wati V/s. Avodhia Parkash. (1977) 79 Pun LR 216 and seeking its reconsideration by a still larger Bench. This jugular issue inevitably calls for adjudication at the very threshold.
2. The issue aforesaid stems from a broken-down marriage. The respondent-husband had preferred a petition under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the restitution of conjugal rights against the appellant-wife. It was averred that the parties were married way back in July, 1967 and a daughter born out of this wedlock had died within a few days of her birth. The couple resided together for a year or less and that too sporadically and thereafter on the 17th of August. 1972. the appellant-wife withdrew from the society of the respondent-husband without any reasonable cause and despite repeated requests and entreaties of the respondent-husband Nod the members of his family she declined to return and live with him. Ultimately, a panchayat along with the family members of the respondent-husband had approached and requested for the return of the appellant-wife to the matrimonial home but she flatly refused to return and stay with him at Bhatinda. The respondent-husband was then compelled to resort to the service of a registered legal notice to the wife in February. 1974. reiterating his request to come and reside with him. Pursuant thereto the appellant-wife made a show of returning to the husband s house at Bhatinda for a few days and then again vent away to her parents house on the 16th of May. 1974. Persistent attempts thereafter to persuade the appellant-wife to return to the matrimonial home having failed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was hence presented on the 27th of July, 1974.
3. In contesting the petition the appellant-wife admitted the marriage but pleaded that she was serving as a teacher in another State in Raiasthan, where she was posted at different places after her marriage. It was alleged that she had continued in service of the Rajasthan Government with the consent of the respondent-husband. She pleaded that she had been occasionally visiting the respondent-husband during the leave periods since she was continuing in service in Rajasthan at her various places of postings. In the replication filed by the respondent-husband, it was stoutly denied that the appellant-wife was continuing in the service of Rajasthan Government with his consent and instead it was averred that she was doing so against his categoric wishes to the contrary. The other allegations made in the written statement were also controverted.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed a solitary issue in the following terms:-
"Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable excuse?"
After an elaborate consideration of the evidence led by both the parties, it arived at the following categoric finding of fact:-
In the case in hand the petitioner is employed at Bhatinda while the respondent has been serving in the State of Rajasthan. In these circumstances they cannot visit each other even at the week-end or an alternative week-end or when they have only few holidays. They can reside together only when the respondent gets vacations once a year. Such an arrangement, in my opinion is directed against the basic concept of marriage which requires both the spouses to live together and discharge the matrimonial obligations."
Holding rightly that on the aforesaid premises the ratio of the Full Bench in Smt. Kailash Wati s case (1977-79 Pun LR 216) (supra) was directly attracted the petition was allowed and a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the husband.
5. Aggr
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
