Husband's Visits To In-Laws' House Doesn't Prove Wife Refused To Cohabit 'Without Reasonable Cause': Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the mere fact that a husband made repeated visits to his wife's parental home or issued a legal notice expressing willingness to resume matrimonial cohabitation cannot, by itself, establish that the wife's refusal to return was without reasonable cause under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court observed that such subsequent expressions of willingness have to be considered in the context of the circumstances prevailing between the parties and the evidence already brought on record.
A division bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the judgment and decree of the Family Court, which had rejected his application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the husband, he had dropped his wife at her maternal home, after having received information of her mother's illness. He stated that she refused to come back despite repeated requests for the same.
The wife, however, alleged that she had been subjected to ill-treatment, manhandling and demands for a Creta car and ₹5 lakh in cash by the husband and his family members. She stated that she had suffered a miscarriage, and alleged that the husband had an illicit affair with another woman.
The Court found that although the wife was admittedly residing separately, the husband had failed to establish that her withdrawal from his society was without reasonable excuse within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. It observed that the question was not merely whether the wife had withdrawn from the company of the husband, but whether such withdrawal was without sufficient and reasonable cause.
The Court observed that the allegations regarding ill-treatment, manhandling, demand of dowry and the circumstances surrounding the wife's miscarriage assumed significance when considered along with the complaints and domestic violence proceedings initiated by her.
“These aspects, taken cumulatively, cannot be brushed aside or treated as wholly irrelevant to the question of whether the respondent/wife had reasonable justification for living separately. This Court also finds it material that the appellant/husband had retained in his custody the educational and other public documents of the respondent/wife…,” the Court remarked.
The Court observed that the respondent/wife has furnished a reasonable and plausible explanation for remaining apart from the company of the appellant/husband. It held:
“The mere fact that the appellant/husband made repeated visits to the parental home of the respondent/wife or issued a legal notice expressing his willingness to resume matrimonial cohabitation cannot, by itself, establish that her refusal to return was without reasonable cause.”
Finding no perversity, illegality or material infirmity in the Family Court's judgment and decree, the Court affirmed the same and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Praveen Kumar Yadav v. Smt. Priyanka Yadav [FA(MAT) No. 5 of 2024]