Karnataka HC Upholds Restitution Order After Wife Denies Marriage, Citing Wedding Card, Photos And Records

The husband petitioned under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the parties married on 16 May 2010 and that the wife had withdrawn from his company.

He relied on a wedding card, photographs and documents identifying the wife as his spouse. The wife denied that any marriage had taken place and claimed the documents were fabricated.

The Family Court accepted the husband’s case and granted restitution of conjugal rights; the wife appealed.

The High Court considered the marriage issue although the Family Court had not framed a separate point on it.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for restitution of conjugal rights where one spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable excuse.

Under Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a Family Court may receive material that may assist it in dealing effectively with a dispute, including photographs even where a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has not been produced; the material must nevertheless be shown to be believable.

The Court further applied the evidentiary principle that, once the husband produced documents it considered believable, the burden of disproving them shifted to the wife.

The Court found that the wedding card, photographs showing the parties together and the wife wearing a mangalsutra, and documents including her voter identification, passbook, loan card and voter-list entries supported the husband’s claim of marriage.

It held that the wife’s later-issued Aadhaar and election identity cards, which used her maiden name, did not disprove those earlier materials.

Although the wife alleged fabrication, no police or other complaint had been made concerning the documents; the Court also noted that her separate suit alleging harassment had been dismissed for non-prosecution.

On the evidence, it upheld the finding that the parties were married and that the wife had left the husband’s company without valid reason.

The decree directing her to join the husband’s company to lead married life therefore remained undisturbed.