Husband cannot force wife to return after allegations of cruelty: Jharkhand High Court

“It has to be borne in mind that the decision in a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights does not entirely depend upon the right of the husband,” the court said on August 7.

The order added that it is a settled position of law that if the wife has suffered serious cruelty that makes it unsafe for her to return to her husband, the court can refuse to order her to go back and live with him.

The court held that if the family court, after a review of the evidence, finds that the Muslim husband has harassed or treated his wife badly, making it unfair or unsafe to force her to live with him, it can refuse to order her to resume living with him.

Even if there is not enough proof that the husband was cruel, the court can refuse to order the wife to live with him if doing so would be unfair or unjust based on the circumstances, it said.

“It is the considered view of this court that in the cases of the present type, more particularly, matrimonial disputes, the family court owes a duty to read something in between the lines to try to understand the root cause of the discord between the parties rather than going by the strict rules of evidence,” the court remarked.

Wife alleged cruelty, assault after marriage

A couple married under Muslim law on May 27, 2013. According to the husband, marital disputes began after about two years, with Rani allegedly insisting that they live separately from his parents. The couple later lived in Bengaluru for around two years before returning to the matrimonial home.

Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad heard the matter on August 7.

The husband alleged that the wife later left the matrimonial home in 2022 and refused to return despite attempts by him, community elders and a panchayat to reconcile them. He therefore filed a plea before the family court seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Muslim law.

The wife denied the allegations and accused her husband and in-laws of cruelty, physical assault and harassment. She claimed that she had a lawful reason to live separately and also stated that she had obtained Khula through the Qazi-e-Shahar in November 2023.

The family court, however, directed the wife to resume conjugal life with her husband. She challenged that decision before the high court.

Subjected to cruelty, harassment: Wife

Appearing for the petitioner, advocates Prabhat Kumar Sinha and Mayank Mridul submitted that the respondent-husband was having cruel behaviour towards the wife and as such, the wife has not withdrawn herself from the society of the respondent-husband without any reasonable cause.

They alleged that her husband and in-laws subjected her to cruelty and harassment, giving her a lawful reason to live separately. It was further argued that the husband had publicly divorced her and that she subsequently obtained Khula in November 2023.

Husband guilty of unnecessary harassment: Order

The court observed that a plea for restitution of conjugal rights by a Muslim husband cannot be granted merely because the wife has left the matrimonial home. The court must examine the circumstances and evidence of the case.

It held that where the husband’s conduct involves unnecessary harassment or cruelty, making it inequitable to compel the wife to live with him, the court can refuse restitution of conjugal rights.

The court noted that the wife had made serious allegations of cruelty, including physical assault and a deadly attack, and that her complaint resulted in the registration of a criminal case against her husband and in-laws.

“It is equitable proposition of law that in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by a husband against his wife, if the court after a review of the evidence feels that the circumstances reveal that the husband had been guilty of unnecessary harassment caused to his wife or of such conduct as to make it inequitable for the court to compel his wife to live with him, it will refuse the relief,” it added.

The bench underscored that the wife has alleged a serious act of cruelty against the respondent husband and had particularly stated that the respondent and his family members beat up the appellant badly, attacked her deadly and she somehow saved her life and went to her sister’s house and gave written information to the police station; then a case was registered against the husband and the respondent’s family members.

The court found that the family court had failed to properly appreciate the factual circumstances and evidence and had passed the restitution decree without applying the test of reasonableness.