Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Parth Prateem Sahu, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ
Mona Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Vijay Yadav – Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 251 of 2024
Important Points
Subject
Family Law - Restitution of Conjugal Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appellate Review - Family Court matter - Dismissal of restitution petition on hyper-technical grounds (failure to state exact date of cause of action) when matrimonial discord and separation are established is unsustainable - Where parties are willing to resume life, the court must facilitate reconciliation.
Facts of the case:
The appellant-wife filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging harassment and dowry demands. The Family Court dismissed the application, noting that the wife failed to specify the exact date of the cause of action and that she refused to live with the husband's parents. Concurrently, a divorce petition filed by the husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed by the trial court.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the dismissal of the restitution application on hyper-technical grounds was contrary to the legislative intent of Section 9. Since the husband's allegations of cruelty and desertion were not proved in the separate divorce proceedings, the wife's withdrawal could not be termed unreasonable.
Issues: Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights based on procedural defects and whether there was a reasonable excuse for the wife to live apart.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 9 is intended to preserve marriages and avoid breakdown. In matrimonial proceedings, courts should focus on the possibility of reconciliation and the overall conduct of parties rather than rigid adherence to technical pleadings, especially when the spouse seeking restitution is willing to resume cohabitation.
Result: Appeal allowed; application for restitution of conjugal rights decreed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Divy Jha, Anubhuti Marhas
For the Respondents: Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Utkarsh Patel
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute and lower court background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellate arguments regarding procedural vs substantive failures. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence analysis and factual determination of matrimonial discord. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. legal interpretation of section 9 and the objective of restitution. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. application of precedents and final ruling on reconciliation. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
Order on Board
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J
18.06.2026
1. Present appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by appellant-wife assailing the judgment dated 10.5.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir in Civil Suit No.51A/2023 whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) for restitution of conjugal rights was rejected.
2. Factual matrix of case in short is that marriage of the parties was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 03.03.2019. After a few days of marriage, the respondent and his parents started harassing and torturing her for demand of dowry. Parents of her husband used to torture her saying that they have been cheated and black skin colour girl of poor father has come to their house. They used to say that unless a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is paid by parents of appellant, they will not keep her with them. Parents of respondent, with a view to arrange second marriage of their son, conspiratorially created Ideological differences between appellant and respondent which resulted into matrimonial discord between them, leading to filing of a divorce petition by respondent against appellant. It was further alleged that the parents of respondent-husband to quench their greed of money unnecessarily interfered in their matrimonial life and by fostering discord, they succeeded in separating them. It was further pleaded that appellant is a responsible lady, she loves her husband and wants to live with him, therefore, a decree of restitution of conjugal rights be granted in her favour.
3. Respondent – husband filed reply to application denying the averments made therein and by way of special submissions pleaded that appellant, by showing-off her family’s political influence and financial condition, insulted and humiliated him and his family members in the public and community. Appellant used to avoid doing household work and whenever his parents asked her to do household work, she quarreled with them. Despite repeated persuasion by respondent to behave properly with his parents, appellant was not treating his parents nicely. Appellant was not subjected to any torture or harassment during her stay in matrimonial home. Appellant is an educated lady and had the allegation of harassment etc. being made by her been true, she would have lodged report in Police Station Balco Nagar. Appellant used to pressurize the respondent to leave his parents and live separately, but respondent being the only son of parents it was not possible for him to leave his parents. Appellant is stubborn and quarrelsome lady. Hence, application filed by appellant for restitution of conjugal rights be dismissed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed three issues, afforded opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties and on the basis of evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, dismissed the application filed by appellant-wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 seeking decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-wife would argue that appellant is residing separately from the respondent due to sufficient reason that, she was harassed and tortured for demand of dowry and also treated as untouchable by respondent and his family members. However, learned Family Judge failed to appreciate material facts of the ca
