Case at a Glance
A husband sought restitution of conjugal rights, saying his wife, a government school teacher, had left him and pressed him to live with her family. The wife said she faced demands for money and pressure to give up her job. The Family Court, Pakur, dismissed the husband's suit. The Jharkhand High Court held that the wife had valid reasons to live apart, noting that in a modern marriage both spouses are equal partners and the test, where both work in different places, is reasonableness. It dismissed the appeal.
Background
The parties married on 12 March 2018 at Barharwa. At the time the wife taught at a private school, and the husband worked on daily wages at a hospital. The husband said the wife stayed only a few days, left with her ornaments, pressed him to live as a "ghar jamai", and later became a government Assistant Teacher in Pakur without telling him. In June 2021 she declined to attend a family wedding. The wife said they lived happily for about six months, after which his family demanded ₹10 lakh for a vehicle and pressed her to leave her government job.
The husband filed Original Suit No. 79 of 2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife testified that she joined a government school in 2019, earns ₹60,000 a month against the husband's ₹10,000, and would return if he promised there would be no ill-treatment and no demand to give up her job. On 16 June 2023 the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur, dismissed the suit, holding that she was living apart under compulsion and had sufficient reason.
The Question Before the Court
Did the wife withdraw from the husband's society without reasonable excuse?
Equal Partners and Reasonable Excuse
The Court explained that restitution aims to preserve marriage, and that under the Explanation to Section 9 the burden of proving reasonable excuse lies on the spouse who withdrew. A decree requires withdrawal, the absence of reasonable cause, no other legal bar, and the court's satisfaction with the truth of the petition. It relied on Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh and the perversity test from Arulvelu v. State.
On the facts, the husband admitted little contact for about two and a half years, and the wife's account of the income gap, pressure to leave her job and money demands was corroborated by her brother. The Court observed that in a modern marriage both spouses are equal partners, and that where both work in different places the test is reasonableness, with joint responsibility on both. The wife had valid reasons to live apart, the Family Court's finding was not perverse, and the appeal was dismissed.
What the Court Held
- The burden of proving reasonable excuse lies on the withdrawing spouse, and the wife discharged it.
- Pressure to give up a government job and money demands were valid reasons to live apart.
- In a modern marriage both spouses are equal partners; where both work in different places, the test is reasonableness.
- The Family Court's dismissal was not perverse, and the appeal was dismissed.
Why It Matters
- A wife's career can be a legitimate factor in deciding where the couple lives.
- Restitution will not be ordered to force a spouse to give up employment.
- It reflects a modern, equal-partnership view of marriage.
For Litigants / For Counsel
For litigants
- Pressure to give up a job can be a reasonable excuse for living apart.
- Stay in touch and make genuine efforts; long silence weakens a restitution claim.
For counsel
- Lead corroborating evidence of the reasons for withdrawal.
- Frame restitution claims around reasonable arrangements where both spouses work.
Key Takeaways
- Restitution was refused.
- The wife's career pressures were a valid reason.
- Both spouses share responsibility for the marriage.
- No perversity was found.
FAQs
Can a husband force his wife to quit her job and live with him?
Not through restitution where, as here, the pressure to quit was itself a reasonable excuse for living apart.
Who must prove reasonable excuse?
The spouse who withdrew; the wife did so here.
What does "equal partners" mean in this case?
Both spouses share responsibility, and where both work in different places, arrangements are judged by reasonableness.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court refused to use restitution to make a working wife abandon her career, recognising marriage as a partnership of equals.
Practical takeaway: in Section 9 cases, a spouse's career and the other's conduct are central to whether living apart is reasonable.