Jharkhand HC Upholds Rejection Of Husband’s Bid To Bring Wife Back, Citing Evidence Of His Cruelty

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights was perverse or otherwise legally infirm so as to warrant appellate interference

The court held

The High Court held that the husband had not established entitlement to restitution of conjugal rights and that the Family Court’s decision disclosed no perversity or legal infirmity warranting appellate interference.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, and any pending interlocutory application was disposed of.

01Facts

The parties married on 22 January 2014 and had a son. The husband alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause and sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶ 3–11

The wife denied his allegations and asserted that she had been subjected to dowry-related and physical cruelty and was forced to leave the matrimonial home in June 2018. The Family Court dismissed the husband’s suit after considering the parties’ evidence. He appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

¶ 1, 3–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights was perverse or otherwise legally infirm so as to warrant appellate interference

¶ 45–58, 78

ii.2. Whether the husband established that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse, entitling him to relief under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

¶ 59–67, 75–77

03Law Applied

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act permits restitution of conjugal rights where one spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable excuse, provided the court is satisfied as to the truth of the petition and that no legal ground bars relief; under its Explanation, the spouse who has withdrawn bears the burden of proving reasonable excuse.

¶ 59–65

Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act provides an appeal to the High Court on facts and law, allowing the appellate court to reappraise the evidence.

¶ 45–48 · Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497

Civil disputes are determined on a preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

¶ 49–51 · A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, (2005) 2 SCC 22

A factual finding is perverse where it ignores or excludes relevant material, relies on irrelevant material, or is so irrational that no reasonable person could have reached it; mere inadequacy of evidence or a different view is insufficient.

¶ 52–57 · Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 · Damodar Lal v. Sohan Devi, (2016) 14 SCC 197

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Family Courts Act, 1984 Section 19 Section 7

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 9 Section 13

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 96

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the husband had not convincingly substantiated his allegations that the wife and her parents pressured him to live as a Ghar Jamai, or that she left without reasonable cause.

¶ 69–70, 76

The wife’s evidence of cruelty was supported by medical records and complaints, including an emergency prescription recording a history of assault, and the court noted that the mediation proceedings had failed.

¶ 72

The husband’s unsubstantiated allegations concerning the wife’s character also cast doubt on the bona fides of his stated wish to resume cohabitation.

¶ 73–74

On the evidence as a whole, the court held that the essential requirements for relief under Section 9 had not been established and that the Family Court had properly assessed the record.

¶ 75–78