A Marriage That Never Found Its Ground

In the corridors of the Patna High Court, a deeply personal
story unfolded in September 2024 – one that speaks to the complexities of
modern marriages, the weight of tradition, and the limits of legal intervention
in matters of the heart. The case of Mukesh Kumar Sah vs. Nitu Devi
represents more than just a legal dispute; it’s a window into the struggles
that can tear apart the fabric of matrimonial relationships.

The Heart of the Dispute

At its core, this case revolves around a husband’s desperate
attempt to legally compel his wife to return to their matrimonial home through
a petition for “restitution of conjugal rights” under Section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act. Mukesh Kumar Sah, married to Nitu Devi since May 23,
2002, found himself in the peculiar position of asking the courts to order his
wife to live with him as a proper spouse.

The irony is palpable – when love fails, can law succeed?
This question haunted the proceedings from the family court level to the High
Court of Patna.

Two Sides, Two Stories

The Husband’s Narrative

Mukesh painted a picture of himself as a wronged husband who
made every reasonable effort to maintain his marriage. According to his
version:

• His
  wife Nitu came to live with him after marriage but stayed only briefly
• She
  frequently returned to her paternal home without his consent
• Despite
  his best efforts to bring her back, she refused to fulfill her conjugal
  duties
• She
  constantly demanded money and threatened to implicate him in false cases
  when he couldn’t meet her demands
• The
  final rupture occurred on September 1, 2012, when she definitively refused
  to return

Mukesh portrayed himself as a patient, suffering spouse who
deserved legal intervention to restore his marital rights.

The Wife’s Counter-Narrative

Nitu’s story painted a dramatically different picture – one
of neglect, abandonment, and betrayal:

• She
  alleged that Mukesh had developed an inappropriate relationship with his
  sister-in-law (bhabhi)
• She
  claimed he followed his sister-in-law’s advice in treating her poorly
• In
  2003, she suffered a miscarriage due to lack of proper care and medical
  attention
• Mukesh
  allegedly settled in Obra, Uttar Pradesh, leaving her alone to care for
  his elderly mother
• When
  she tried to join him in Obra, she was insulted and rejected
• She
  was eventually driven out of the matrimonial home
• She
  had already filed a maintenance case and was receiving ₹3,000 per month as
  interim maintenance

Her defense was simple yet powerful: she didn’t abandon her
husband – he abandoned her.

The Legal Framework: Section 9 Explained

The case hinged on Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
which deals with “restitution of conjugal rights.” This colonial-era
provision allows either spouse to petition the court when the other has
“without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other.”

The law places a crucial burden of proof: the person who has
withdrawn from matrimonial society must prove they had “reasonable
excuse” for doing so. This burden shifted to Nitu to justify her
separation from Mukesh.

The Family Court’s Wisdom

The Principal Judge of the Family Court, Vaishali, dismissed
Mukesh’s petition on May 22, 2018. The court found that:

• Nitu
  had reasonable grounds for not living with her husband
• Mukesh’s
  conduct was not conducive to matrimonial harmony
• He
  had maintained distance from his wife and created an irritating atmosphere
• There
  was a reasonable threat to her well-being while living with him
• She
  had expressed her inability to continue the marriage and sought a one-time
  settlement

The family court essentially concluded that you cannot force
someone to live in a marriage where they feel threatened, neglected, or
unwanted.

The High Court’s Affirmation

When Mukesh appealed to the Patna High Court, Justices P.B.
Bajanthri and Alok Kumar Pandey upheld the family court’s decision. The High
Court’s analysis revealed several critical insights:

The Evidence Problem

The court noted that Mukesh’s witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3)
merely repeated his version “like a parrot,” offering no independent
corroboration. More importantly, Mukesh had tried to introduce new evidence
about a leg injury that was never mentioned in his original petition.

The Pleading Principle

The High Court extensively cited Supreme Court precedents to
establish a fundamental principle: courts cannot consider evidence that goes
beyond the pleadings. Since Mukesh never mentioned his disability in his
original petition, the court couldn’t consider it as grounds for sympathy or
relief.

This principle serves a crucial purpose – it prevents
parties from surprising each other with new facts during trial and ensures that
litigation remains focused on clearly defined issues.

The Timeline Tells a Tale

The court found it suspicious that if the marriage was truly
never consummated (as Mukesh claimed), why did he wait from 2002 to 2012 to
file for restitution of conjugal rights? The evidence showed that Nitu had even
become pregnant in 2003, further contradicting claims of non-consummation.

The Deeper Legal Philosophy

This judgment reflects several important legal principles:

1. Marriage is a Partnership, Not Ownership: The
court recognized that marriage should be based on mutual respect and consent,
not legal compulsion.

2. Women’s Agency Matters: Nitu’s reasons for leaving
– allegations of her husband’s inappropriate relationship, neglect during her
pregnancy, and abandonment – were taken seriously rather than dismissed.

3. Evidence Must Match Pleadings: The technical
ruling about pleadings serves justice by ensuring fair play in litigation.

4. Context Over Technicality: While Mukesh
technically proved that his wife had left him, the court looked at the broader
context of why she left.

The Human Cost

Behind the legal technicalities lies a human tragedy. A
marriage that began in 2002 with hope and ceremony had deteriorated to the
point where spouses were fighting in courts rather than rebuilding their
relationship. The case reveals the limitations of legal remedies in addressing
complex emotional and social problems.

The maintenance case that Nitu had filed, awarding her
₹3,000 per month, suggests that despite their disputes, Mukesh had financial
obligations that courts could enforce – but love, respect, and companionship
cannot be legally mandated.

Conclusion: When Law Meets Life

The Patna High Court’s decision in Mukesh Kumar Sah vs. Nitu
Devi represents a mature understanding of matrimonial law in contemporary
India. Rather than mechanically applying Section 9 to force a reunion, the
courts recognized that some marriages cannot and should not be salvaged through
legal compulsion.

The judgment sends a clear message: while law can dissolve
marriages and regulate their financial consequences, it cannot and will not
force two people to live together when one party has reasonable grounds for
separation. In this case, the courts chose wisdom over technicality, humanity
over harsh application of law.

This case stands as a reminder that behind every
legal proceeding are real people with real pain, and sometimes the most
compassionate legal decision is to allow them to find peace apart rather than
mandating they remain together in misery