2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 751

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Neha Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Kunal Kumar – Respondent
First Appeal No.145 of 2024

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted if there is evidence of cruelty or conduct rendering cohabitation impossible with dignity. The court must ensure, under Section 23(1)(a), that the petitioner is not taking advantage of their own wrong, and findings must be based on a holistic assessment of evidence.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7 and 19(1) - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Appeal against grant of relief - Appellate court power to review both facts and law under Section 19(1) is parallel to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure - High Court as first appellate court can reappraise and review entire evidence. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

(B) Restitution of conjugal rights - Ingredients and burden of proof - Requirement to prove that spouse has withdrawn from society without reasonable excuse - Burden of proof lies on the person who has withdrawn - Purpose of decree is to preserve marriage, not perpetuate wrong - If husband's conduct, even if not meeting threshold of legal cruelty, makes cohabitation impossible with self-respect and dignity, petition must fail - Court must be satisfied that petitioner is not taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a). (Paras 32, 33, 34, 47, 49, 50)

(C) Appellate interference - Perverse findings - Findings of trial court ignored relevant material, relied on evidence in isolation, and failed to apply test of reasonableness - An order based on no evidence or one that defies logic is perverse and liable to be set aside. (Paras 31, 44, 46, 53)

Facts of the case:
A petition was filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that the wife withdrew from his society without reasonable cause. The wife contested the suit, asserting instances of physical and mental torture, unmet dowry demands, and misrepresentation of marital status existing since the time of marriage. The trial court permitted the petition based on selective examination of testimony, leading to the instant appeal by the wife.

Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court observed that the trial court ignored allegations of cruelty and failed to interpret evidence as a whole. The findings were deemed perverse as the trial court relied on isolated statements while ignoring the broader context of the marital breakdown, including the filing of criminal proceedings and specific allegations of violence.

Issues: Whether the wife withdrew from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse and whether the trial court was justified in granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted when a spouse is forced to live separately due to the other's harsh, unbearable, or cruel behavior. The court must evaluate the entirety of the evidence to ensure that the petitioner is not benefiting from their own wrongful conduct and that the partner can reside in the matrimonial home with dignity. Failure to properly assess these aspects renders a judgment perverse.

Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the lower court quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding the suit for restitution of conjugal rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. summary of contentions by the parties in the appeal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. appellate jurisdiction of the high court in family matters. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. review of oral and documentary evidence presented in trial. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. defining the threshold for a perverse judgment of the trial court. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
6. scope of restitution of conjugal rights and burden of proof. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. evaluating whether withdrawal of society was justified by cruelty. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
8. setting aside the incorrect order of restitution of rights. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1.The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 10.05.2024 and decree dated 20.05.2024 passed in Original Suit No.459 of 2022 by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family Court No.II, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the petitioner-husband (respondent herein) under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

(i) The petitioner (respondent herein) and the respondent (appellant herein) are legally married husband and wife.

(ii) Their marriage was solemnized on 12-12-2013 at Baiju Batika Deoghar, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, both the petitioner and respondent had been lived together as husband and wife. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with two children. After the birth of her son, her behavior was changed and she always started quarreling with the petitioner and his family members without any cogent reason and she always left the house of the petitioner. The respondent put pressure upon the petitioner to live at her father's house but the petitioner refused to live at in-laws’ house. On 30-04-2018 the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner and she left the house of the petitioner without any cogent reason.

(iii) It is the further case that the petitioner made several attempts to bring the respondent but she always refused to come and join the society of the petitioner.

(iv) Cause of action of the suit arose on 30-04-2018 when the respondent withdrew from the society of the petitioner and finally arose on 07- 02-2021 when the respondent flatly refused to come and live with him. On the aforesaid pleadings, petitioner has sought relief to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

(v) Consequent to issue of notice, wife/respondent (appellant herein) had filed written statement wherein she had stated that the present suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the suit. The case for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed against the respondent (appellant herein) without any rhyme and reason and just only to take benefit in the C.P. Case No.1119/21, under Section 498A IPC which is pending in the Civil Court, Dhanbad. The entire allegation made in the plaint are totally denied by the respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner is a criminal minded person and he has on several times beaten the respondent mercilessly.

(vi) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed by the learned Family Judge for just and final decision of the case.

(I) Whether the respondent has sufficient cause to live separately from the petitioner?

(II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act?

3. In order to substantiate the case his case, the petitioner (respondent herein) has produced and examined altogether two witnesses, i.e., P.W.1, Kunal Kumar and P.W.2, Sanjay Chouras

Click Here to Read the rest of this document