SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(P&H) 1134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RAJAN GUPTA, MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ.
Geeta Rani - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 6462 of 2018
Decided On : 26-07-2019

Advocates Appeared:
J.P. Sharma, Adv., Minkal Rawal, Adv.

The importance of proving reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the respondent-husband in cases of restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Headnote:

Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9; Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 498A; Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act - Section 12; Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the evidence presented in relation to allegations under Sections 406, 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. The court emphasized the importance of proving reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the respondent-husband and considered the acquittal of the respondent-husband in the criminal case as a significant factor in the decision.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a petition filed by the respondent-husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant-wife refuted the allegations and accused the respondent-husband and his family of mistreatment and dowry demands.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant-wife had withdrawn from the society of the respondent-husband without any just or reasonable excuse, and failed to prove her allegations of domestic violence and dowry demands. The court upheld the judgment and decree of the Ld. Family Court, dismissing the appeal.

Issues: The issues framed by the Ld. Family Court included the entitlement to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, maintainability of the petition, and relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the respondent-husband and considered the acquittal of the respondent-husband in the criminal case as a significant factor in the decision.

Final Decision: The present appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the Ld. Family Court was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.09.2018, passed by the Ld. District Judge (Addl. Family Court), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. Family Court'), whereby, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act'), seeking restitution of conjugal rights, was allowed.

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as narrated in the petition filed by the respondent-husband (appellant therein) before the Ld. Family Court, may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.11.2007 as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village Ramba, Distt. Karnal. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born in the year 2009. The marriage was simple in nature sans any dowry and only customary gifts were exchanged between the parties. The respondent-husband cared for his appellant-wife and showered her with love and affection but the same was not reciprocated by the appellant-wife who would often quarrel and insult the respondent-husband and his family on some pretext or the other. The appellant-wife would many a times leave the house in the morning and not return till late in the evening. When questioned, she would threaten the respondent-husband and his family to falsely implicate them in a case of dowry. It was also averred that the appellant-wife was an educated lady wanting to lead a life of luxury, who had gone to the extent of even telling the respondent-husband that she felt suffocated in their house and was unable to live with him and his family. Several Panchayats were convened by the respondent-husband and his family to bring about a reconciliation between them, but in vain. Finally, in January, 2011, the appellant-wife went to her parental house along with the minor child on the pretext of attending her cousin's marriage. While going, she took along all her jewellery, clothes and costly articles. When the respondent-husband went to bring her back from her parental home, she refused to accompany him, and rather threatened that he would be falsely implicated in criminal cases. Soon thereafter, the appellant-wife lodged an FIR bearing No. 800, dated 12.11.2013, under Sections 406, 498A IPC, against the respondent-husband. She also filed a complaint under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (in short 'the DV Act') against the respondent-husband and his family. A petition under the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of their minor son was also filed by the respondent-husband.

3. Per contra, the appellant-wife (respondent therein) in her written statement filed before the Ld. Family Court, refuted and categorically denied the averments made in the petition filed by the respondent-husband by submitting that in fact, it was the respondent-husband, who had himself thrown her out from the matrimonial home after subjecting her to harsh treatment including severe beatings. She submitted that the respondent-husband and his family were dissatisfied with the dowry articles given to her at the time of the marriage, even though her parents had spent about Rs. 10.00 lakh on her marriage. She further submitted that the entire expenses at the time of the birth of her son were borne by her parents and a lot of gifts were given. She was mercilessly beaten up by the respondent-husband at the behest and instigation of his parents when her father expressed his inability to accede to their demand of a car. Besides this, the appellant-wife levelled serious allegations against the respondent-husband and his family running a prostitution den in a portion of their house and on her objecting to the same, she was subjected to merciless beatings. As per her submissions, the respondent-husband behaved well for sometime after the birth of their child, but the same was short-lived and finally in January, 2011, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home after being assaulted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top