##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1980/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.24713330322759397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NO. 1980 of 2025 In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION/756/2026

In F/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/30533/2024 =====================================================

MOHANBHAI PRAGJIBHAI RATHOD Versus

MIRABEN MOHANBHAI RATHOD D/O THAKARSHIBHAI RATNABHAI PARMAR

=====================================================

Appearance:

MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MS AKSHITA MOHNOT(12118) for the Respondent(s) No. 1

=====================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 23/03/2026

ORDER

ORDER IN CA NO. 1980 OF 2025 Considering the averments made in the application,

present application is allowed and delay caused in filing the aforesaid MCA is hereby condoned. ORDER IN MCA NO. 756 OF 2026

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Kirti S. Pathak appearing for the applicant.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, though being served, none remained present for the respondent.

3. This is an application for restoration of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner challenges the order below Exhibit-1 in Execution Petition No.5 of 2021 where the learned Family Court, Jamnagar, in essence, disposed of the Execution Petition on the

Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 01:26:13 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1980/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.24713330322759397

ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the prayer made in the execution.

4. It is relevant to observe that the execution of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been sought by way of Execution Petition No.3 of 2019 and whereby the petitioner preferred an application under Order 22 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the respondent – wife to obey the order of decree and to start residing with the petitioner, and in the alternative, it is requested to attach her property be it movable or immovable and further to send her in jail for non-

compliance of the decree of conjugal rights.

5. The learned executing Court dismissed the execution petition solely on the ground that the judgment debtor lives beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamnagar. It is evident that the respondent is living in Village Bhanvad, Taluka & District: Devbhoomi Dwarka. Thus, the family Court, Jamnagar has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution of the decree. According to this Court, the learned Family Court Judge has not committed any error in

passing the impugned order.

6. Moreover, apposite to note that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be executed, whereby wife cannot be directed to live with the husband against her wish and she cannot be compelled to continue the matrimonial life with the husband. The attachment of her movable or immovable property or sending her to jail is a relief beyond imagination and cannot be granted in a execution of decree for restitution of

conjugal rights.

Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 01:26:13 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/CA/1980/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/03/2026

0.24713330322759397

7. Apt to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, reported in

1984 AIR 1562, whereby it was held as under:-

“It is significant to note that unlike a decree of specific performance of contract, for restitution of conjugal rights the sanction is provided by court where the disobedience to such a decree is willful i.e. is deliberate, in spite of the opportunities and there are no other impediments, might be enforced by attachment of property. So the only sanction is by attachment of property against disobedience of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights where the disobedience