01Facts
The parties married on 9 April 2017.
The wife alleged that after the husband went to Dubai for work, disputes arose between her and his parents, and she was made to leave the matrimonial home.
¶ 4–6, 10The husband maintained that the wife left without justification and alleged, among other things, that she had failed to care for his parents and had made false dowry-harassment complaints.
¶ 4–6, 10The wife petitioned for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
¶ 5, 7–8The Family Court allowed her petition, finding that the parties’ difficulties principally concerned the husband’s parents and that reconciliation remained possible.
¶ 5, 7–8The husband appealed under Section 28(1) of the Act.
¶ 1–202Issues
i.1. Whether the husband established reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the wife, such that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights should be set aside.
¶ 12, 26ii.2. Whether the Family Court’s order granting restitution of conjugal rights disclosed any ground for appellate interference.
¶ 12, 2703Law Applied
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for restitution of conjugal rights where one spouse withdraws from the society of the other without reasonable excuse; the court must assess whether the withdrawing spouse had reasonable cause.
¶ 26In N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326, the Supreme Court cautioned against attaching undue importance to matrimonial “trifles” arising from the ordinary wear and tear of married life.
¶ 21Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 28Section 9Section 13
04Reasoning
The Court found that the parties’ relationship was cordial when they lived together and that their disputes arose mainly during the husband’s absence in Dubai, particularly in connection with his parents.
¶ 13–15, 20Their families had attempted reconciliation, and the wife remained willing to resume married life.
¶ 16, 22, 24The husband did not establish that the wife’s police complaints were false, and the evidence did not substantiate his allegations that she neglected his mother or attempted black magic.
¶ 17–19Considered cumulatively, the evidence showed ordinary matrimonial disagreements, not a reasonable excuse for the husband’s continued withdrawal from the wife’s society.
¶ 20–2605Holding
The Court held that the husband had not proved reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the wife and that the Family Court’s decree was not affected by any infirmity.
¶ 26–27The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 30 September 2022 granting restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 were confirmed.
¶ 28Original Court PDF
SRI T H CHETAN KUMARvsSMT S R SHWETHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
