Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, adjudicated a first appeal arising from the dismissal of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The appellant, the husband, and the respondent, the wife, were married on 04.11.2016 and the marriage was registered. Both were employed in the paramedical field; the husband worked at Pune and the wife at Aurangabad. The husband alleged that one day before the marriage reception, a person named Prakash David Ghule informed him that the wife was already married to him, but the husband ignored this. After marriage, the couple resided in Amravati and later Pune. The husband claimed that the wife's behaviour changed, she stayed away from home, abused him, stopped maintaining marital relations since January 2017, and admitted her previous marriage to Prakash Ghule, stating she could not live without him. On 10.04.2017, the wife allegedly left the house on the pretext of withdrawing money from an ATM. The husband lodged a report with Frezarpura Police Station and filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on 22.04.2017 before the District Court, Amravati. He also filed a criminal complaint on 24.04.2017 under Sections 493, 495, 496, 497, 498 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the wife, her family members, and Prakash Ghule, alleging extra-marital relations. The wife filed a written statement denying the allegations and alleging that the husband's conduct was improper, he snatched her salary, quarrelled for money, mentally and physically harassed her, doubted her chastity, and filed a false criminal complaint, making it difficult for her to rejoin his company. The trial court dismissed the restitution petition on 01.10.2019. In the appeal, the High Court observed that under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the court must be satisfied of the truth of the statements in the petition and that the spouse withdrew without reasonable excuse. The court noted that the appellant's own criminal complaint alleging adultery directly contradicted his stance of forgiving the respondent and wanting to cohabit, causing a serious dent to the truthfulness and veracity of his evidence. The court found that the appellant and respondent were blaming each other, and the allegations of extra-marital relations were not substantiated. The court concluded that the proved facts convinced it that a dent had been caused to the core of the marriage, and it was not possible to accept that the respondent withdrew without reasonable excuse. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the first appeal and upheld the trial court's dismissal, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Requirement of Satisfaction of Truth and Absence of Reasonable Excuse - The court held that before granting a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, it must be satisfied of the truth of the statements in the petition and that the spouse withdrew from society without reasonable excuse; if a reasonable excuse exists, the decree should not be granted. The appellant's own criminal complaint alleging extra-marital relations caused a dent to the truthfulness of his claim that the respondent withdrew without reasonable excuse, leading to dismissal of the appeal. Held that the appeal lacked merit (Paras 9-12). B) Evidence - Credibility of Petitioner - Criminal Complaint Alleging Adultery Contradicts Willingness to Cohabit - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 34, 493, 495, 496, 497, 498 - The court noted the undisputed fact that the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent and Prakash Ghule within two days of filing the restitution petition, alleging extra-marital relations; this contradicted his stance of forgiveness and willingness to cohabit. The court held that this self-contradictory conduct caused a serious dent to the truthfulness and veracity of the appellant's evidence, and no interference was warranted. Held that the respondent had reasonable excuse to withdraw and restitution could not be granted (Paras 7-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to a decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 when he had filed a criminal complaint alleging adulterous conduct by the respondent, and whether the respondent had a reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the appellant's society.
Final Decision
The First Appeal was dismissed; no order as to costs. The High Court upheld the judgment and decree dated 01.10.2019 passed by the District Judge, Amravati in Special Marriage Petition No.6/2017 dismissing the petition for restitution of conjugal rights.
Law Points
- Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act
- 1869 requires satisfaction of truth of statements and absence of reasonable excuse for withdrawal
- A spouse's criminal complaint alleging adultery contradicts willingness to resume cohabitation and undermines credibility
- Reasonable excuse to withdraw includes other spouse's conduct causing dent to core of marriage
- Fresh appreciation of evidence in first appeal may lead to dismissal if trial court considered all aspects
- Self-contradictory statements disentitle petitioner to discretionary relief of restitution of conjugal rights
