Back
1998 Supreme(MP) 284
V.K. Agarwal, J.
Devendra Singh Thakur
vs
Beena Bai
Decided on : 27 March, 1998
The burden of proving reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the other spouse lies on the person who withdraws.
Headnote:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 9 - RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - BURDEN OF PROOF - MENTAL ILLNESS - FRAUD - REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM SOCIETY.
Fact of the Case:
Husband appealed against a decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted to his wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He claimed that his wife suffered from mental illness from before the marriage, which was fraudulently concealed by her family, and that this constituted a reasonable excuse for him to withdraw from her society.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the husband failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that his wife suffered from mental illness before the marriage or that there was any fraud played by her family. It also held that the husband had the burden of proving reasonable excuse for withdrawing from his wife's society, and that he had failed to discharge this burden.
Issues: 1. Whether the wife suffered from mental illness from before the marriage, which was fraudulently concealed by her family. 2. Whether this constituted a reasonable excuse for the husband to withdraw from her society.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The burden of proving reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the other spouse lies on the person who withdraws. 2. The husband failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that his wife suffered from mental illness before the marriage or that there was any fraud played by her family. 3. Therefore, the husband failed to discharge the burden of proving reasonable excuse for withdrawing from his wife's society.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted to the wife was upheld.
V.K. Agarwal, J.
1. The appellant/husband being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.7.1996 in Civil Suit No. 6A/90 of IVth Additional Distt. Judge Bilaspur, whereby the petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act of the respondent/wife for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, was allowed; has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. The facts no longer in dispute are that the parties are Hindu and were married in May, 1984 at Village Padaria, District Bilaspur, in accordance with Hindu religious rites and customs. The respondent/ wife Beena Bai thereafter, went to her matrimonial home at Tamerpara, District Durg and stayed there for a few days. Thereafter, she went to her parental home and returned back after some time again to her matrimonial home in the month of 'Chaitra' 1985. However, the respondent/wife was sent back two days thereafter to her parental home to Padaria, and the parties continued to live separately.
3. The respondent/wife Beena Bai filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act praying for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. It was alleged therein that the family members of the present appellant/husband were dis-satisfied and critical about the inadequacy of dowry given in the marriage of the parties. However, on being pursuaded by the father of the respondent/wife and their other relations, the appellant/husband had taken her back in the month of 'Chaitra' 1985. However, there was again criticism regarding the inadequacy of dowry and only after two days the respondent wife-Beena Bai was again sent back to her parental home. In the year 1987, the father of the appellant/husband died, but no intimation in that regard was sent to the respondent Beena Bai. However, on getting the information, she went alongwith her brothers to her matrimonial house and took part in the post cremation ceremonies. On account of refusal by the appellant/husband to keep her in his house, she was forced to return back to her parental home at Padaria. An offer for reconciliation was made by her father, and thereafter a petition in the Caste Panchayat was also filed by him. Caste-Panchayat gave decision in favour of respondent-Beena Bai and the appellant/husband was directed to take her back. Since the appellant/husband did not do so, an application under Section9 of Hindu Marriage Act for 'Restitution of Conjugal Rights' was filed by the respondent/wife Beena Bai.
4. The appellant/husband denied the above allegations. He denied that there was any dis-satisfaction or criticism by his family members regarding the dowry given in his marriage. According to him his marriage was performed with the respondent/wife by playing fraud. She was suffering from mental ailment from before the marriage which was not disclosed by her parents and other family members. Moreover, though she was said to be educated upto Matriculation Standard but it was infact not so. It was further averred that the respondent Beena Bai behaved abnormally from the very beginning after the marriage and despite request by appellant/husband avoided to perform her marital obligations. It was also averred by the appellant/husband that on account of the fraud played on them as above, his father suffered a shock and died on 5.3.1987. The appellant/husband further alleged that the decision of the Caste Panchayat was given as a result of undue pressure exerted by persons who were favourably inclined to the father of his wife Beena Bai. It has been averred by appellant/husband that in view of the mental sickness of his wife Beena Bai, it is not possible for him to have marital relations with her. He also averred that his marriage with Beena Bai should be declared null and void. He prayed that the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for 'Restitution of Conjugal Rights' filed by his wife Beena Bai be dismissed.
5. The learned Trial Court framed issues as to whether the respondent/wife was suffering from mental ailment and he
