IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.120 of 2023 Sunita Kumari, aged about 38 years, w/o Rajmanish Kumar, D/o late Maharaj Kumar, R/o East Basuria, Road No.2, Indira Gandhi Chowk, Bhuli Nagar, PO and PS: East Basuria, District: Dhanbad, Jharkhand.

.… … Appellant/Respondent Versus Rajmanish Kumar, S/o Vijay Bhushan Prasad, R/o Kurmidih Bazar, Near Peepal Tree, PO-BS City-10, PS Balidih, Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand. … … Respondent/Petitioner -------

CORAM:HON’BLEMR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI -------

For the Appellant :Mr. Soumitra Baroi, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Debarsi Mondal, Advocate ---------

Order No. 08/Dated:30 th October, 2025

1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order/judgmentdated 8.5.2023 and the decree dated 12.5.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in connection with Original Suit No. 111 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant-wife for restitution of conjugal rights, has been allowed.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the respondent/petitioner needs to be referred herein which is as under:

The marriage of the respondent/petitioner with the appellant-

wife was solemnized on 12.12.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, a male child was born on 06.9.2020. It has been alleged that the behavior of the appellant-wife during her stay in her matrimonial house was not good. She used to quarrel on trivial matters and also used to go to her parent’s house frequently. She pressurized the respondent-husband to live as gharjamai. When he did not agree, the appellant-wife and her family members threatened him to implicate in a false dowry case. Lastly, on 20.1.2020, she left her matrimonial home taking away her jewelleries including stridhan. Thereafter, on several times, the respondent-husband went to bring her back but he was abused. Thereafter, respondent-husband had filed suit being Original Suit No. 111 of 2021 for restitution of his conjugal right before the Family Court.

3. The learned Family Judge has called upon the appellant-wife. The wife has filed written statement wherein it has been stated that save and except what are expressly admitted in this written statement all the allegations levelled against her are vehemently denied.

4. The Learned Family Court based upon the pleading made by the parties had framed altogether four issues for its deamination which are as follows:

(i) Is the suitmaintainable in its present form ?

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the petitioner has been able to prove that the respondent has withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner without any reasonable cause?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?

5. The evidences have been laid on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the judgment has been passed allowing the suit in favour of petitioner husband and the respondent was directed to join company of her husband/petitioner and lead conjugal life to perform her marital duties/obligations, within one month from the date of the order. The petitioner husband was also directed to keep the respondent/wife and their son with him with full honour and dignity.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant/wife:

7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the judgment passed by the learned court below is grossly perverse, whimsical and incorrect, as such, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law as well on facts, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

8. It has been submitted t