Case Note & Summary
The appellant-husband, K.S. Siva Das, and the respondent-wife, Dr. K. Lekha, were married on 15.09.2000 at Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, according to Hindu rites. The husband worked in Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, while the wife worked as a professor at SDM Dental College, Dharwad. After marriage, the wife stayed with the husband for only a week before returning to Dharwad to resume her duties. The husband claimed he visited her occasionally but she refused to cohabit with him. The wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed by the Family Court, Dharwad, on 20.04.2015. The husband appealed, arguing that the wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable excuse and that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to her cruelty. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the wife had indeed withdrawn from the husband's society. The husband's allegations of cruelty were not supported by any evidence; he merely stated that the wife was rude and did not treat him properly. The court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a defence under Section 9 of the Act. The burden was on the husband to prove a reasonable excuse for withdrawal, which he failed to do. The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Restitution of Conjugal Rights - Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Proof of Withdrawal from Society - The court held that to succeed under Section 9, the petitioner must prove that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse. The burden then shifts to the respondent to show reasonable excuse. The appellant's allegations of cruelty were not proved, and the wife's refusal to cohabit was without reasonable excuse. (Paras 2-10) B) Family Law - Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Not a Defence under Section 9 - The court held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a statutory defence under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court cannot refuse restitution merely because the marriage has broken down irretrievably, unless the respondent proves a legal ground such as cruelty or adultery. (Paras 11-15) C) Family Law - Cruelty - Burden of Proof - The appellant alleged cruelty but failed to produce any evidence. The court noted that mere allegations without proof cannot constitute a reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society. The wife's conduct did not amount to cruelty. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Family Court was justified in granting restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and whether the appellant's defence of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage was established.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Law Points
- Restitution of conjugal rights
- irretrievable breakdown of marriage
- cruelty as defence
- Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- burden of proof on spouse opposing restitution
