Justified legal proceedings by a spouse do not constitute reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society.

The parties married on 28 April 1996 according to Hindu rites and had two sons. The wife alleged that the husband left the matrimonial home around 2010 and developed an improper relationship with a former student, Rani. She subsequently initiated proceedings for maintenance, partitionary relief on behalf of the children, and criminal action under Section 498A IPC. The husband denied the allegations, asserted that the wife and her relatives had subjected him to assault and false litigation, and contended that the parties had been living separately since 2010.

The husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage in M.C. No. 167/2015 was dismissed on 31 October 2017. The wife thereafter filed M.C. No. 274/2017 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family Court dismissed her petition on 16 September 2019, holding that the husband had a reasonable excuse to live separately because of the wife’s allegations and litigation. The wife preferred the present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Whether the Family Court erred in holding that the husband had a reasonable excuse under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to withdraw from the society of the wife?

Whether the wife was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights despite the criminal complaint, maintenance proceedings, partition suit, and the parties’ prolonged separation?

Whether the judgment and decree dated 16 September 2019 warranted interference in appeal?

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for restitution of conjugal rights where one spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable excuse; the burden lies on the withdrawing spouse to justify the separation. Section 23(1)(a) requires the court, while granting matrimonial relief, to consider whether the petitioner is taking advantage of his or her own wrong.

The Court relied on Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, (2017) 14 SCC 194, which holds that mere filing of complaints does not constitute mental cruelty where there are justifiable reasons for doing so; however, patently false and reckless accusations may amount to cruelty.

The Court further applied the principle that a spouse who is responsible for the underlying matrimonial wrong cannot rely on the other spouse’s bona fide legal remedies as a “reasonable excuse” for continued withdrawal from cohabitation.

The High Court held that the Family Court had improperly treated the wife’s criminal complaint, maintenance proceedings, and partition suit as establishing a reasonable excuse for the husband’s withdrawal. Applying Raj Talreja, it found that the wife’s proceedings were not shown to be patently false or malicious, but were connected to the husband’s alleged abandonment and failure to provide financial support.

On examination of the connected divorce proceedings, the Court found that the husband had voluntarily left the wife and children, had allegedly cohabited with Rani, and had failed to provide financial support, while the criminal investigation had resulted in a charge-sheet naming Rani as an accused. The wife’s maintenance and partition proceedings were therefore treated as necessary legal measures for the protection and support of herself and her children, rather than acts of cruelty.

The Court further held that the husband could not invoke the consequences of his own alleged desertion and adultery to justify continued separation, particularly when the wife had expressed willingness to resume cohabitation after the dismissal of his divorce petition.

The Family Court’s judgment dated 16 September 2019 was set aside, M.C. No. 274/2017 was allowed, and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the wife. The husband was directed to rejoin the wife and resume matrimonial cohabitation.