Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This case deals with a matrimonial dispute where the wife sought restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Patna High Court, in its judgment dated 28.09.2020, upheld the Family Court’s decision that the husband had withdrawn from the company of his wife without reasonable excuse, thereby affirming the decree in the wife’s favour.
The marriage between the husband (appellant) and wife (respondent) took place in June 1997 according to Hindu rites. The couple was later blessed with a daughter in March 1998. Over time, the relationship soured.
- The husband filed a Marriage Case No. 17 of 2005, seeking annulment of marriage on the ground that the wife was of unsound mind.
- The wife, on the other hand, filed Matrimonial Case No. 48 of 2005 under Section 9, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, alleging cruelty and wrongful withdrawal from the marital relationship.
The Family Court initially dismissed both cases: the annulment petition filed by the husband and the restitution petition filed by the wife. However, on appeal by the wife (M.A. No. 741 of 2009), the High Court remanded the matter, pointing out that once annulment had been rejected, the wife’s plea for restitution could not be dismissed simultaneously on inconsistent reasoning.
On remand, the Family Court found that:
- The husband had deliberately withdrawn from the society of his wife.
- The wife was not suffering from any incurable or severe mental illness, as confirmed by medical certificates from RINPAS (Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Sciences), Ranchi.
- Allegations that the wife was of unsound mind were unsupported by credible evidence.
Accordingly, the wife’s case for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. The husband then challenged this decree in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 235 of 2015, leading to the present High Court ruling.
The Patna High Court emphasized two key points:
- Burden of Proof on Husband: Since the husband had withdrawn from his wife’s company, it was his responsibility to prove that he had a “reasonable excuse” for doing so. His only defense was the claim of unsoundness of mind, which he failed to substantiate.
- Consistency with Earlier Orders: The husband’s annulment petition had already been dismissed earlier, and that dismissal was never challenged. Therefore, he could not keep relying on the same allegation (unsoundness of mind) to justify withdrawal.
The Court reiterated that under Section 9, restitution of conjugal rights is permissible where one spouse withdraws from the company of the other without sufficient cause. In this case, the evidence showed that the wife was willing to continue marital life, while the husband avoided reconciliation.
Finding no illegality in the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- Strengthens Section 9 Relief: The judgment reinforces that restitution of conjugal rights remains a viable remedy when one spouse unjustifiably deserts the other.
- Burden of Proof on Deserting Spouse: If a spouse claims a “reasonable excuse” for separation, they must prove it convincingly with evidence. Mere allegations, especially regarding health or mental state, will not suffice.
- Consistency in Judicial Findings: The case underscores that contradictory outcomes (annulment dismissed but restitution also denied) cannot coexist in law. Once annulment fails, restitution gains stronger footing unless other valid grounds are proven.
- Message for Matrimonial Disputes: Courts expect genuine efforts at cohabitation, and unjustified withdrawal may invite decrees for restitution.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the husband had withdrawn from his wife’s society without reasonable excuse?
✅ Yes. The Court held that the husband deserted his wife without proving valid justification. - Whether the wife was of unsound mind, justifying annulment or refusal of restitution?
❌ No. Medical reports from RINPAS confirmed that she was normal, and no evidence of incurable mental illness was produced. - Whether the Family Court’s decree of restitution was correct?
✅ Yes. The High Court upheld the decree, finding no error in law or fact.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Medical certificates from CMC, Vellore were cited by the husband, but they were not proved in evidence.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- The Court referred to its earlier ruling in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 741 of 2009 (Judgment dated 11.04.2014), where it had remanded the restitution case, pointing out contradictions in the Family Court’s earlier dismissal.
Case Title
Santosh Kumar Gupta @ Bhola Babu v. Radha Devi
Case Number
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 235 of 2015
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 15
Coram and Names of Judges
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava
(Oral Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, dated 28.09.2020)
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the Appellant (Husband): Mr. Sunil Kumar
- For the Respondent (Wife): Mr. Mrityunjay Pd. Singh
Link to Judgment
MiMyMzUjMjAxNSMxI04=-UG1Hj9iAx8M=
“If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.”
