Husband Cannot Rely On Muslim Personal Law For Restoring Conjugal Rights After Marrying Under Special Marriage Act: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has held that once parties marry under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, the provisions governing restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 apply in full, irrespective of the personal laws they otherwise follow. 

The Court rejected the husband's contention that, being a Muslim, he was entitled to marry up to four women and that his wife's departure from the matrimonial home was therefore unjustified.

A Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar observed that restitution of conjugal rights was not merely creature of the statute, and that such a right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself. 

The Court made these observations while hearing an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act challenging the dismissal of the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act.

The husband's case was that the respondent was his legally wedded wife, their marriage having been solemnised on 04.08.2015, and that she left the matrimonial home on 10.10.2015 without reasonable cause. He asserted that he was willing to maintain her with dignity and therefore sought restitution. 

The wife opposed the appeal, alleging that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was already married and had a child from his first wife. She further alleged cruelty and noted that she had already been awarded maintenance in separate proceedings.

The High Court outlined the object of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act. It noted that the purpose of a restitution decree is to restore cohabitation between estranged spouses and preserve the marriage. If either spouse withdraws from the society of the other without reasonable excuse, the aggrieved party may seek restitution, and the court may grant the decree upon being satisfied as to the truth of the pleadings and after considering whether any legal grounds exist to refuse relief. It held:

“32. 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 is not merely 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 live together and cohabit.”

The Court rejected the appellant's specific contention that, being a Muslim, he was entitled to marry up to four wives and that the respondent had married him under the Special Marriage Act with knowledge of his personal law. 

The Bench held that once the marriage is solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, personal law has no application. It further noted that the appellant had, in fact, concealed his earlier marriage and the existence of a child, and this suppression went to the root of the matter. The Court held:

48. Accordingly in the light of aforesaid settled position, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel that being a Muslim his marriage life will be governed by the personal laws even he had solemnized his marriage under Special Marriage Act 1954, is not tenable herein.

The High Court upheld the Family Court's judgment and declined to grant a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, affirming that the husband was not entitled to such relief in the facts of the case.

Cause Title: Md. Akil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarty

Case Number: FA No. 24 of 2024

Appearance: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha appeared for the Appellant. Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary appeared for the Respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order