Cruelty and dowry-harassment allegations, supported by surrounding circumstances, constitute reasonable excuse under Section 9.

The parties married on 7 February 2022 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Their relationship was initially cordial, but the respondent-wife went to her maternal home on 19 October 2022 after information regarding her mother’s illness.

The appellant-husband alleged that, despite repeated visits and efforts to bring her back, she refused to resume cohabitation. He also initiated proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Officer and issued a legal notice seeking restoration of the matrimonial relationship.

The respondent-wife contended that she had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty, dowry demands for a Creta vehicle and ₹5,00,000, assault, and harassment by the appellant and his family members.

She alleged that the ill-treatment had resulted in a miscarriage and that the appellant had retained her educational and personal documents.

The Family Court, Jashpur, rejected the appellant’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by judgment and decree dated 20 November 2023 in Civil Suit No. 30-A/2023. The appellant challenged that decision in the present appeal.

Whether the respondent-wife had withdrawn from the society of the appellant-husband without reasonable excuse within the meaning of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Whether the Family Court erred in rejecting the appellant-husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights?

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for restitution of conjugal rights where one spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable excuse.

The party seeking restitution must establish not merely the fact of withdrawal, but also that such withdrawal was without sufficient or reasonable cause.

The court must assess the parties’ pleadings, evidence, complaints, conduct, and surrounding circumstances cumulatively in determining whether the spouse living separately had reasonable justification.

The High Court accepted that the respondent-wife was residing separately but held that the appellant failed to prove that her withdrawal was without reasonable excuse.

The allegations of dowry demands, ill-treatment, physical assault, and circumstances relating to the miscarriage were considered significant because they were supported, at least contextually, by complaints and proceedings concerning domestic violence.

The appellant’s retention of the wife’s educational and other personal documents, despite repeated requests for their return and the Family Court’s direction to return them, was treated as an additional circumstance supporting her case that the matrimonial relationship had become strained.

The court further held that the appellant’s repeated visits and legal notice expressing willingness to resume cohabitation did not, by themselves, prove that the wife’s refusal lacked reasonable cause; those acts had to be assessed against the parties’ overall conduct and the prevailing matrimonial circumstances.

Finding no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity in the Family Court’s decision, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20 November 2023 rejecting the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.