Husband’s Own Exhibit Linked Wife’s Separation To Alleged Harassment; Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Rejection Of His Restitution Plea

The parties married on 7 May 2017, and their daughter was born on 9 September 2019.

The husband alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home with their daughter on 1 March 2020 and did not return despite his efforts.

He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The wife was proceeded against ex parte before the Family Court, which dismissed the petition.

The husband appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The High Court noted that the husband’s own exhibit indicated that the wife had been living separately due to alleged harassment.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 permits a decree for restitution of conjugal rights where one spouse has withdrawn from the other’s society without reasonable excuse, and the court is satisfied that the petition’s statements are true and no legal ground bars relief.

Under the Explanation to Section 9, the spouse who has withdrawn bears the burden of proving reasonable excuse; however, the spouse seeking restitution retains the initial burden of establishing the grounds for relief.

Unchallenged testimony does not, by itself, establish entitlement: the court must assess whether the evidence proves the statutory requirements.

The Court rejected the husband’s contention that his uncontroverted evidence required the Family Court to grant relief, holding that the husband still had to establish the statutory basis for restitution.

His own exhibit indicated that the wife was living separately because of alleged harassment, while the Family Court had found that the petition was brought to avoid criminal proceedings and maintenance liability and noted the delay in seeking relief.

In light of that material, the Court concluded that the husband had not shown that the wife withdrew without reasonable excuse or justifiable cause; her ex parte status did not compel acceptance of his testimony.

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment and decree affirmed, and no order as to costs was made.