False allegations and acquittal in criminal proceedings constitute reasonable excuse to deny restitution of conjugal rights.

The appellant (wife) and respondent (husband) were married on July 3, 1997, and have four children

The appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that she was ousted from her matrimonial home on December 10, 2015, following dowry demands of Rs. 5,00,000/- and physical torture

She subsequently worked in Tamil Nadu for several months

The respondent contested the suit, alleging the appellant abandoned the family to live in an adulterous relationship with one Hemant Sahu

He further noted that the appellant had previously filed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC against him and his mother, which resulted in an acquittal

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Lohardaga, dismissed the appellant's suit on August 27, 2022

Whether the respondent ousted the appellant from her matrimonial home without reasonable excuse

Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

The court applied Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for the restitution of conjugal rights when a spouse withdraws from the society of the other "without reasonable excuse," placing the burden of proving such excuse on the withdrawing party

The court relied on the precedent set in *Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh (2017)*, establishing that a decree is warranted only if the respondent withdrew from the petitioner's company without reasonable cause

The court also applied the civil standard of "preponderance of probability" for evaluating evidence in matrimonial disputes

The High Court observed that the appellant failed to provide cogent evidence to support her claim of forced ouster.

The court noted that the appellant's witnesses (P.W.-2 and P.W.-3) were hearsay witnesses who lacked first-hand knowledge of the alleged dispute and only testified based on information provided by the appellant

Conversely, the daughters of the parties (D.W.-3 and D.W.-4) testified against the appellant, stating she fled with another man and expressed fear for their safety if she returned

Crucially, the court found that the appellant had initiated a false criminal prosecution under Section 498A IPC, which ended in the respondent's acquittal; the court determined that such false litigation constitutes a "reasonable excuse" or sufficient justification for the husband to live separately

Applying the principle of preponderance of probability, the court concluded the appellant did not establish that the respondent withdrew from her society without cause

The court found the respondent's withdrawal justified by the appellant's conduct and the filing of false criminal charges

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court's judgment dated August 27, 2022, refusing the decree for restitution of conjugal rights