Wife’s Insistence To Continue Her Job Is Valid Reason For Desertion: Jharkhand High Court Upholds Order Dismissing Husband's Plea For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights

The Court observed that the modern marriage is a partnership of equals, and the respondent/wife had valid reasons for living separately due to her employment as a government teacher in a different city, especially since the husband was working as a daily-wage employee and had allegedly pressured her to quit her job.

​The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai observed, “As evident from record as also discussed hereinabove, the wife's insistence to continue with her service and at the same time to adjust her marital life cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. As we discussed hereinabove, the restitution of conjugal rights does not mean that it is only the responsibility and duty of the wife who must silently follow the husband, rather it is joint duty of both the husband and wife to find the suitable and proper path to carry their relationship, therefore it is considered view of this Court that the respondent/wife had deserted appellant/husband with valid/Sufficient reasons.”

Advocate Pankaj Srivastava appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Manoj Kumar Choubey appeared for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

An appeal was filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, whereby and whereunder, the suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by the Appellant/Husband, was dismissed.

The Appellant/Husband and the Respondent/Wife solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites. At the time, the husband worked as a daily-wage medical staff member, while the wife was a teacher at a private school. After the wedding, the wife lived at her matrimonial home for only a few days before returning to her workplace to continue her teaching duties.

It was the case of the husband that the wife eventually left his house permanently without notice, taking her ornaments with her. He alleged that she pressured him to live with her family as a “Ghar Jamai,” which he refused. He further discovered that she had secured a position as an Assistant Teacher in a government school without informing him. Additionally, the husband alleged that the wife had a previous marriage, which she had suppressed, though he stated he was still willing to live with her.

Tensions rose when the wife refused to attend a family wedding in June 2021, despite the husband's personal request. The husband also claimed the wife sent him WhatsApp messages leveling various allegations against his family and demanding a divorce. Consequently, the husband filed a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Family Court framed six issues to determine the maintainability of the suit and whether the wife had withdrawn from the husband's society without a reasonable excuse. After evaluating the evidence from both sides, the Family Judge dismissed the suit, ruling that the husband was not entitled to the relief of restitution. Dissatisfied with this decision, the husband filed the present appeal.

Contention of the Parties

The appellant-husband contended that the Family Court committed a grave error by failing to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record. He argued that he successfully proved that the respondent-wife withdrew from his society without any reasonable excuse. His counsel emphasized that the wife lived with him for only a few days before moving back to her sister’s house and eventually deserting him entirely with her ornaments. The husband maintained that despite discovering the wife’s suppressed first marriage and her refusal to attend important family functions, he remained willing to live with her with full dignity. He concluded that the trial court's judgment was perverse and should be set aside.

The respondent-wife defended the trial court's decision, asserting that she had a valid and sufficient reason to live separately. She claimed that after six months of marriage, the husband and his family began harassing her for a dowry of Rs. 10,00,000 to purchase a vehicle. She denied ever asking him to live as a "Ghar Jamai" and stated that she had been commuting for her job from the matrimonial home initially.

She argued that her husband pressured her to quit her government teaching job, which led to further disputes and physical or mental torture. She claimed she stayed silent and did not file a criminal case in hopes that the marriage would improve. The wife asserted that the husband's own conduct made it impossible to live together, and therefore, the Family Court rightly found that she did not desert him without cause.

Observation of the Court

The Court observed, “From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that if either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, before the court concerned, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and further taking into consideration the legal ground that why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly… Further, in explanation part of the said provision it has been prescribed that when a question arises whether there has been “reasonable excuse” for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.”

The Court also said in India it may be borne in mind that conjugal rights, i.e. right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse, are not merely a creature of the statute. Such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself. Thus, the restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded as a matrimonial remedy. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is a positive remedy that requires both parties to the marriage to live together and cohabit, the Court added.

The Court reiterated the requirements of the provision of restitution ofvconjugal rights, i.e., (i) the withdrawal by the respondent from the society of the petitioner; (ii) The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or excuse or lawful ground; (iii) There should be no other legal ground for refusal of the relief; and (iv) The court should be satisfied about the truth of the statement made in the petition.

“It is true that the orthodox concept of the Hindu wife is that she is expected to be Dharmpatni, Ardhangini, Bharya or Anugamini. The literal meaning is that she has to follow the husband and be in his company always as a part of his own body. This orthodox concept of wife and expectations from her to subject herself to husband's wishes has undergone a revolutionary change with education and high literacy in women and with recognition of equal rights to women in the constitution and abolition of sex distinction in all walks of life. She is a partner in marriage with equal status and equal rights with the husband”, the Court held.

The Court said that the question herein is whether a husband has an absolute right to insist that the wife should leave her service and live with him as his dependent only to discharge her marital obligations towards him, their children and the members of the husband's family. A similar proposition can be posed for the wife as to whether she has a right to insist that the husband should enjoy so much of married life as would be permitted by the nature of the wife in service at a place away from him.

Such problems between modern couples are on the increase naturally because there are large number of married partners who are educated and have a career of their own in service or profession, and they want to continue with them during the whole period of their married life, the Court remarked.

“From the above views expounded above, the test can be applied is of reasonableness. In other words, it is to be decided as to which party is unreasonable in its approach in the matter of joint living. As has been brought out in the evidence on record herein that the both parties are employed in different cities and they are not in a position to leave his/her service and place of work. Therefore, the test applied in such situations between married couples is of 'reasonableness,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court viewed that the impugned judgment requires no interference, and hence, dismissed the petition.

Cause Title: XXXX v. YYYY[Neutral Citation: 2026: JHHC:2356-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Pirappancode V.S. Sudhir, Akash S., Girish Kumar M S, Srividya K, Richu Theresa Robert and Rajalakshmi. R.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Lakshmi Narayanan. R and Advocates R. Ranjanie, Ajith Krishnan, T. Rajasekharan Nair, Meera M and Selva Jyothy A.

Click here to read/download the Judgment