Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar, JJ
Md. Akil Alam – Appellant
Versus
Tumpa Chakravarty – Respondent
F.A.No.24 of 2024 | Original Suit No.137 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha
For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary
Court affirms dismissal of petition for restitution of conjugal rights on grounds of prior marriage concealment and threats, establishing valid justification for separation.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(i) - Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 22 - Petition for restitution of conjugal rights - Dismissal by Family Court due to desertion - Respondent's valid cause established due to the concealment of prior marriage and threat to life - The court reaffirmed that the petitioner failed to prove just cause for restoration of conjugal rights and upheld the respondent's right to separate. (Paras 6, 25, 51, 58)
(B) Conditions for restitution of conjugal rights - The burden lies on the spouse withdrawing from society to prove reasonable excuse for such withdrawal - The right is inherent in the institution of marriage, necessitating joint living unless a lawful ground exists. (Paras 26, 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed his wife had deserted him without justification shortly after marriage in 2015 and filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent countered that the petitioner had concealed his prior marriage and posed a threat to her safety.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court found the respondent had valid reasons for her separation and thus dismissed the petitioner's claims.
Issues: The maintainability of the suit, existence of valid cause, and entitlement to relief were considered central.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that the concealment of a previous marriage and threats created a valid ground for the respondent to live separately, thus denying the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of appeal regarding conjugal rights (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's grounds against suit (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues framed by family judge (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of original suit (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. arguments by the appellant (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. arguments by the respondent (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. court's initial analysis (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. witness testimonies for both parties (Para 23 , 24) |
| 9. overview of legal provisions on conjugal rights (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. definitions and implications of conjugal rights (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. judicial interpretation of conjugal rights (Para 35 , 36) |
| 12. condition for marriage under special marriage act (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 13. implications of marriage under different laws (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 14. evidence on respondent's claims (Para 48 , 49) |
| 15. analysis of family court's findings (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 16. court's dismissal of appellant's claims (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 17. conclusion of court's judgment (Para 58 , 59) |
| 18. final dismissal of appeal (Para 60 , 61) |
Order No. 05/Dated: 6 th October, 2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 19(i) of the Family Courts Act , 1984 against the judgmentdated 28.11.2023 [decree signed on 11.12.2023] passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deogharin Original Suit No.137 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the Suit for restitution of conjugal right filed by the petitioner husband (appellant herein) under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act 1954 has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are referred herein as under:
The case of petitioner/appellant is that the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 04.08.2015. After marriage, both the petitioner and respondent had been living together as husband and wife at Amarpur. After some days of marriage, the respondent came to her parental house on 10.10.2015, without any reasonable excuse and she has left society of the petitioner.
The petitioner requested the respondent to lead conjugal rights on several occasions but the respondent always refused to accompany with the petitioner and she had stated to the petitioner to leave his profession and settle at the Deoghar, as Gharjamai. The petitioner is a Pathologist and he works at Govindpur. The petitioner is ready and willing to maintain the respondent with full dignity and honour and he has no alternative but to take recourse of this no Court for restitution of his conjugal rights. The cause of action for the suit arose on 27.12.2019, when the respondent refused to live with the petitioner.
3. Notice was issued to the respondent who appeared and filed her written statement stating therein that the instant suit is misconceived, unwarranted and not maintainable either on facts or material available on record.
4. It has further been stated that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was married since earlier and he had a child also from his first wife. The petitioner had taken away the original sale deed of the land belonging to the respondent’s father and he was pressurizing the respondent and he father to execute a Gift Deed of said land in his favour and when the said demand of petitioner was refused by the respondent, he started to treat the respondent with cruelty due to which the respondent had to file a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. being Original Maintenance Case No. 220 of 2018 which was allowed vide order dated 5.12.2019 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife.
5. It is further stated that there is threat of life of the respondent by the hands of the petitioner and his first wife. The instant case has been filed by the petitioner only to put undue pressure upon the respondent so that the petitioner may escape from the liability of paying maintenance.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, alt
