Wife's Willingness to Cohabit Prevails; Husband's Desertion Plea Dismissed: Jharkhand High Court Upholds RCR Decree Under S.9 HMA - 2025-08-08

Jharkhand High Court Upholds Wife’s Plea for Reunion, Dismisses Husband’s Divorce Petition for Desertion

Ranchi, Jharkhand - The Jharkhand High Court, in a significant ruling on matrimonial law, has dismissed a husband’s appeals against orders that granted his wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights and rejected his petition for divorce on grounds of desertion. A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar affirmed the Family Court's finding that it was the husband who had withdrawn from the marriage without reasonable cause, not the wife who had deserted him.

The court emphasized that when a spouse consistently expresses a willingness to cohabit and the other party fails to provide a "reasonable excuse" for living separately, a decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR) is justified.

Case Background

The case involved two appeals filed by the husband, Shivesh Kumar Jha, against his wife, Meenu Jha @ Golden. The couple married in February 2008 but had been living separately since August 2008.

1. F.A. No. 70 of 2023: The husband challenged a Family Court order from February 2023 that granted the wife's petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. F.A. No. 135 of 2023: He also appealed the dismissal of his separate petition for divorce, which was filed on the grounds of desertion by the wife.

The High Court strategically decided to hear the RCR appeal first, noting that its verdict would directly determine the fate of the divorce appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

The Wife's Counsel argued: - The wife was forcibly driven out of her matrimonial home in 2008 due to dowry-related harassment. -

Despite the ill-treatment, she has consistently been ready and willing to resume her marital life, a fact she stated in multiple court proceedings and mediations. -

The husband had previously filed an RCR case in 2008, where the wife agreed to return, but the husband imposed undisclosed conditions, leading to a failed mediation.

The Husband's Counsel countered: - The wife never intended to live with him and had filed multiple (16 in total) litigations, including criminal complaints, making cohabitation impossible. -

He claimed the relationship had deteriorated beyond repair and that the wife's RCR suit, filed 12 years after separation, was malicious. -

He argued that the wife's long absence amounted to desertion, entitling him to a divorce.

Court's Legal Analysis and Findings

The High Court meticulously analyzed the legal principles governing Restitution of Conjugal Rights (Section 9) and Desertion (Section 13) under the Hindu Marriage Act.

On Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR):

The bench reiterated the purpose of Section 9, which is to preserve the institution of marriage. It highlighted the Explanation to the section, which places the "burden of proving reasonable excuse" for withdrawal from the spouse's society on the person who has withdrawn.

The court found the husband’s claims unconvincing. It pointed to crucial evidence from the Family Court record:

“...as per order sheet dt. 14-07-2008 and onwards it appears that respondent Meenu Jha was fully cooperative in Mediation Centre and was very much inclined to lead her conjugal life with her husband/petitioner Shivesh Kumar Jha. But respondent has stated that he will take his wife only on fulfill of some terms and condition.”

The court also dismissed the husband's claim that his wife never lived with him, noting, "...it has come in the evidence of witnesses that after marriage respondent got pregnant and handicapped child was also born which falsify the version of respondent that petitioner never resided in her sasural."

Based on this, the High Court concluded that the husband had failed to show a "reasonable excuse" for his withdrawal from the marriage.

On the Plea of Desertion:

Having upheld the RCR decree in the wife's favor, the court ruled that the husband's plea for divorce on grounds of desertion was untenable. It explained that for desertion to be established, the deserting spouse must have both the factum of separation and the intention to permanently end cohabitation (animus deserendi) .

The court observed:

"...there is no desertion on the part of respondent-wife as she in her evidence also has deposed that she is very keen and desirous to live and stay with her husband all through her life and perform her duties."

Since the wife was always willing to return, the essential element of desertion was absent. The court found no perversity in the Family Court's decision to dismiss the husband’s divorce petition.

Final Judgment

The Jharkhand High Court dismissed both of the husband's appeals, thereby confirming the Family Court's judgments. The decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the wife stands, legally requiring the parties to attempt to resume cohabitation. Consequently, the husband's claim of being deserted was rejected, and his petition for divorce was dismissed.