The court, while hearing the 27-year-old woman’s appeal, set aside the family court’s September 2022 order directing her to resume her marriage with her husband. The Christian couple started living separately a few months after their marriage and have been living apart since 2019, after the woman left her matrimonial home while five months pregnant.
“The appellant (wife) clearly establishes repeated demands of dowry of Rs 10 lakh, acts of mental torture and abandonment of the appellant during pregnancy. These depositions demonstrate that the appellant-wife had reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the respondent-husband. By disregarding these material aspects and focusing narrowly on the husband’s assertions, the family court overlooked these vital aspects,” the September 23 order read.
Separated within few months of marriage
The Christian couple got married in 2018, and after marriage, they lived together as husband and wife for the next three months. The husband claimed that the wife then started quarrelling with him, saying that she did not want to live with him and wanted to live at her parents’ home.
The husband claimed that the wife left the marital home in August 2019 when she was five months pregnant. Later, she had a daughter in December 2019.
The wife, however, alleged that soon after marriage, she was subjected to mental torture and harassment for dowry demands. She also claimed that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home when she was five months pregnant and later had to lodge complaints for cruelty, and also reported threats and abuse through electronic communication.
Story continues below this ad
The husband, on the other hand, instituted the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, asserting that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause.
The family court later decided the case in favour of the husband, holding that the wife had not proved any evidence regarding the alleged dowry demands by the husband. Aggrieved by this order, the wife moved the Jharkhand High Court challenging the order.
The woman was represented through advocate Mukesh Kumar, while the husband’s counsel was advocate Sarweshwari Kumari.
‘No compromise with dignity’
The court mentioned that in a case concerning resuming married life, it is the primary duty of the family court to look into the evidence of the spouse and determine whether she or he intends to live with the partner or not, peacefully and with all dignity.
Story continues below this ad
“If one of the spouses utters that she or he cannot live together due to the reason as stated by the spouse in his/her evidence, the court cannot compel such party to live together, compromising with the dignity and subjecting to mental torture,” the court added.
The court also mentioned that the evidence placed on record pointed out that the wife was not comfortable at her matrimonial home on account of various instances of mental torture and dowry demand. It held that “if on account of all such problems, one fine day if she decided to walk out of her matrimonial home, could it be said that the husband straightway is entitled to have a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.”
It also pointed out that apart from the question of physical cruelty, torture or assault by any member of the family, if the circumstances are such that the wife cannot live as a wife with self-respect and dignity in the house of the husband, then she is entitled to separate maintenance and residence.
The court mentioned that the wife cannot be compelled to resume married life with the husband, in the face of such mental torture and dowry demands. It also emphasised that the couple had been living separately since 2019 and the order to resume married life would not be “justified or feasible”.
Story continues below this ad
“This court is of the considered opinion that the appellant-wife had sufficient and reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of the respondent-husband,” it added.
Accordingly, the court allowed the wife’s appeal and set aside the family court’s order directing her to resume married life with her husband.
Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava held that the wife could not be compelled to resume matrimonial life at the “cost of her dignity”. (AI-generated image)