Case Background
This case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife married according to Hindu rites. The husband filed Restitution Case No. 225 of 2012 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur.
In that case, he sought a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, asking the court to direct the wife to return to the matrimonial home and live with him as his wife.
On 22.05.2018, the Family Court dismissed the husband’s petition. The husband then filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 454 of 2019 before the Patna High Court challenging this dismissal.
There was a delay of about 43 days in filing the appeal. The husband filed I.A. No. 01 of 2019 seeking condonation of this delay. On 23.09.2024, the Patna High Court condoned the delay, allowed the interlocutory application and, with consent of both sides, took up the appeal for final disposal.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The High Court looked closely at what each side had stated in their pleadings and what they said in evidence, keeping Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in mind.
Under Section 9, if either spouse has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved spouse can seek restitution of conjugal rights. The court must be satisfied about the truth of the statements in the petition and that there is no legal bar to granting such a decree. The explanation to Section 9 places the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” on the spouse who has withdrawn from the other’s society.
The husband’s case in his petition was that, after marriage, the wife came to her sasural and stayed there for a few days. According to him, she then left for her father’s house without his consent or that of his family members. He stated that while at the sasural she did not live as a wife and refused to lead a conjugal life despite his best efforts.
He further alleged that the wife regularly demanded money. When he could not fulfil these demands, she allegedly threatened to implicate him in a false case. On 10.01.2011, she is said to have gone to her father’s house taking all her ornaments with her.
The husband claimed that from January 2011 to August 2012 he made several attempts to bring her back, but she refused. Finally, on 01.09.2012, she allegedly refused to return to the matrimonial home. He asserted that he remained willing to live with her with respect and dignity, and that his cause of action arose on 01.09.2012 when she refused to rejoin him.
The wife, in her written statement, opposed the petition and said it was not maintainable. She narrated a different story.
She stated that the marriage was solemnised on 23.05.2002 and was consummated when she went to the husband’s village the next day. At the time of marriage, her father allegedly gave Rs. 80,000 in cash and ornaments.
According to the wife, after marriage she felt that the husband had an improper intimacy with his bhabhi and expected his wife to live in a way that was very irritating and mentally disturbing for her. In 2003 she became pregnant, but suffered a miscarriage due to lack of proper care and medication. She said the husband did not take her to a doctor and started maintaining distance from her, following the advice of his bhabhi.
She also stated that the husband wanted to live away from the village, while she was left to look after her aged mother-in-law alone at the sasural. Later she came to know that he had settled in Obra, Uttar Pradesh. When she tried to join him there, she was insulted.
The wife said she was forced to stay at the sasural with her mother-in-law on maintenance from landed property, but when she protested, she was driven out. Since then she has been living with her parents at her father’s house. She maintained that she never left the matrimonial home of her own free will but was actually thrown out.
She further stated that she filed Maintenance Case No. 46/13 before the Principal Judge, Muzaffarpur. The husband appeared there, and the court tried to reconcile the matter on 15.04.2014, but without success. The Family Court granted her interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month from 17.12.2013.
The husband then filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6010/2014 before the High Court against the interim maintenance order dated 29.05.2014. The High Court referred that matter to mediation. Mediation failed, though the husband proposed a one-time settlement. The wife stated that the husband did not disclose the fact of this restitution case to the High Court while pursuing the criminal miscellaneous case.
She denied the husband’s allegation that the marriage was not consummated, stating that she never left his company and that it was he who deserted her at the instance of his bhabhi. She also said the husband left the earlier court proceedings pending even after proposing one-time settlement, left her at his native village to survive at the mercy of God, and never took her to Obra, Uttar Pradesh.
Given this background and her loss of faith in the husband’s conduct, she argued that he could not take advantage of his own wrongs and that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights should not be granted in his favour.
On appeal, the husband argued through his counsel that the Family Court had failed to appreciate that he had tried his best and that the wife was unwilling to live with him. He said the court did not consider that she kept demanding money and threatening to file false cases. He contended that she mainly stayed at her parental home without his consent despite his repeated efforts to bring her back. He also argued that the court failed to properly consider the evidence of P.W.2, who denied any illicit relationship between him and his bhabhi, and the evidence of P.W.4, who said the wife had been living separately for six-and-a-half years.
The husband further tried to rely on the fact that one of his legs was “half cut”, producing a photograph to that effect, and alleged that this aspect was ignored by the Family Court. He also claimed that the marriage had never been consummated because the wife did not cooperate in conjugal life.
The wife’s counsel, on the other hand, pointed out that in the husband’s petition under Section 9, he had not even mentioned the date of marriage. She reiterated the wife’s stand that she resided at the matrimonial home in the village while the husband lived at Obra, Uttar Pradesh, and that he never took steps to keep her where he was residing.
The wife’s counsel argued that the allegations of illicit relationship with the bhabhi and the husband’s irritating conduct were clearly mentioned in the written statement, as was the fact of consummation of marriage and the pregnancy and miscarriage in 2003. He submitted that it was not believable that the husband would wait from 2002 to 2012 to raise a dispute about non-consummation, and that he had deliberately not mentioned the date of marriage in his petition.
It was also argued that the husband’s petition was vague because it did not mention important facts like the miscarriage and what efforts he had made to protect her health, and simply tried to create a false cause of action by stating that she had not joined the matrimonial home since 01.09.2012.
After considering the pleadings, the evidence of four witnesses from the husband’s side (including the husband as PW-1) and three witnesses from the wife’s side, the High Court identified the central question: whether the wife had deserted the husband and was living separately without reasonable cause.
The Court noted that the husband himself admitted in evidence that he married the respondent on 23.05.2002 according to Hindu rites and that she lived as his wife for eight years. He specifically stated that she was living at her father’s house since 2011. The Court observed that PW-2 and PW-3 had merely repeated the husband’s version like a “parrot version”.
The Court saw that the wife, in her evidence as OPW-1, had repeated her written statement and stated that she was assaulted for not bringing enough dowry, that the husband had illicit relations with his bhabhi, that he did not lead a conjugal life with her, and that he used to spend time with his bhabhi.
From the impugned judgment of the Family Court, the High Court found that the Family Court had already held that the wife had sufficient reasons not to live with her husband. It had found that the husband’s conduct was not conducive, that he maintained distance from her, and that she faced an irritating attitude at his behest. It also accepted that there was a reasonable threat to her life if she lived with him. The wife had clearly said she could not live with him and instead wanted one-time settlement. The Family Court therefore held that it could not force her to return to the matrimonial home.
The High Court then dealt with the husband’s attempt to bring in his leg injury as a factor. It noted that this fact did not appear anywhere in his Section 9 petition. Relying on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar, State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram, Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh, and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal, the Court reiterated an important procedural rule: evidence that goes beyond the pleadings cannot be considered, and relief cannot be granted on grounds not set out in the pleadings.
These authorities were cited to show that pleadings define the real dispute, bind the parties to a stand, and ensure that each side knows the case it has to meet. New facts cannot be introduced at the stage of evidence without proper amendment of pleadings. On this basis, the High Court held that the husband’s claim about leg injury, not having been pleaded, could not be taken into account.
Finally, after reviewing the statutory framework, the pleadings, and the evidence, the High Court held that the Family Court had passed a reasonable and proper order, and that there was no ground to interfere. It affirmed the judgment dated 22.05.2018 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur and rejected Miscellaneous Appeal No. 454 of 2019. Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for spouses involved in disputes over restitution of conjugal rights.
First, it shows that a court will not force a wife to return to the matrimonial home if there are reasonable grounds for her to live separately, such as ill-treatment, lack of care, or fear for her safety.
Second, it highlights that a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act must be clear and complete. If a husband or wife wants relief, they must state all material facts, including date of marriage, important events like miscarriage, and their own conduct. A vague petition can fail even if the other spouse is living separately.
Third, the judgment strongly reinforces that parties cannot bring in new grounds at the stage of evidence which were never mentioned in the petition or written statement. For example, the husband’s claim about his leg injury was ignored because it did not appear in his pleadings.
For ordinary readers, the message is that courts look at the real behaviour of both spouses. A spouse who has neglected or mistreated the other cannot easily use Section 9 to compel the other to come back and live with them.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Did the wife desert the husband and withdraw from his society without reasonable cause, so that he was entitled to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Answer: No. Both the Family Court and the Patna High Court found that the wife had reasonable cause to live separately due to the husband’s conduct, and therefore the husband was not entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. - Issue: Could the husband rely on facts not mentioned in his Section 9 petition, such as his leg injury, to support his claim in appeal?
Answer: No. The Court held that evidence cannot go beyond pleadings and that relief cannot be granted on grounds not pleaded.
Cases Cited by the Court
- National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 695
- Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235
- State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518
- Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi, (2011) 11 SCC 786
- Prakash Rattan Lal v. Mankey Ram, ILR (2010) III Delhi 315
- Ram Sarup Gupta by LRs v. Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987) 2 SCC 555
- Harihar Prasad Singh v. Balmiki Prasad Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 212
- Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491
Case Details
Case Number: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 454 of 2019
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar Sah v. Nitu Devi
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 355
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 23.09.2024
Impugned Order: Judgment dated 22.05.2018 passed in Restitution Case No. 225 of 2012 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur
Advocates: For the Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, Advocate; For the Respondent: Mr. Rajive Ranjan Singh, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Miscellaneous Appeal against dismissal of petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Link to the Judgment: Patna High Court judgment in M.A. No. 454 of 2019
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.
