Gujarat High Court Denies Restitution Of Conjugal Rights | Holds Suicide Attempt And Public Defamation Are Mental Cruelty Amounting To Reasonable Excuse For Withdrawal
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker held that an attempt to commit suicide constitutes mental cruelty and amounts to a reasonable excuse for a spouse to withdraw from the society of the other. The Court dismissed the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts. The Court directed that no decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, could be granted when the petitioner had admitted to attempting suicide and publicly defaming the respondent by distributing derogatory posters.
The present Second Appeal arose from a Petition initially filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 13.02.2017 following an engagement ceremony held on 29.05.2016. The petitioner claimed that the respondent's family adopted an unreasonable approach towards her post-marriage, which forced her to leave the matrimonial home upon the respondent's request.
Despite repeated requests by the petitioner to resume cohabitation, the respondent refused to comply. This ultimately led to a police complaint lodged by the petitioner at the Valsad Mahila Police Station on 13.07.2017, alleging that she was denied entry into her matrimonial home.
The petitioner further contended that the respondent had withdrawn from her society without reasonable excuse, prompting her to initiate proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent appeared in the proceedings and filed a written statement denying the solemnization of marriage and asserting that the petitioner had filed a false complaint at the Valsad Mahila Police Station.
The Trial Court framed four issues: (i) whether the petitioner proved she was the respondent's legal wife, (ii) whether the respondent had withdrawn without reasonable excuse, (iii) whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and (iv) the final order.
The petitioner examined herself and produced two witnesses. The respondent examined a witness as well. Upon considering the evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the petition. The petitioner filed a Regular Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2023, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court, affirming the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner preferred the present Second Appeal.
The petitioner argued that the Trial and Appellate Courts erred in considering the period of separation during the pendency of the litigation and failed to apply the explanation to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act correctly. It was contended that the burden to prove a reasonable excuse lay on the respondent, who did not even enter the witness box, warranting an adverse inference.
The petitioner also referred to a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was decided in her favor, granting compensation. Judgments including Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, (2012) 5 SCC 370, Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476, and Sonprabha Manwani v. Govind Manwani, 2024 SCC OnLine Chh 1514, were cited.
In response, the respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner admitted to attempting suicide and defaming the respondent by circulating derogatory posters, which constituted mental cruelty and justified the respondent’s withdrawal from her society. The respondent asserted that such behaviour left him mentally distressed and unable to continue the marital relationship.
The Court recorded that "a restitution of conjugal rights does not entirely depend upon the right of the party. While deciding a petition under the said provision, the court shall have to consider whether it would make it inequitable for it to compel the husband to live with his wife."
The Court further noted the undisputed facts that "the Petitioner–Wife has attempted suicide and distributed posters of the Respondent alleging that he was missing." It observed that such conduct amounted to extreme and coercive behaviour, intended to emotionally manipulate and mentally distress the respondent.
Quoting extensively from the Supreme Court’s judgment in Narendra v. K. Meena, MANU/SC/1180/2016, the Court held that "such acts constitute cruelty. Our aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of this Court in the case of Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal, (2011) 12 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to cruelty."
Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker further stated: "In a marriage, both the individuals are expected to nurture the bond with compassion and patience. When there is disagreement, like the present case, the Petitioner resorts to self-harm by attempting to commit suicide. The same is an act of desperation which often exerts psychological control over the Respondent."
The Court stated that while the burden of proving a reasonable excuse rested with the respondent, the petitioner’s own admission of attempting suicide served as the best piece of evidence, as established by law in Thiru John v. The Returning Officer and Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 540.
Referring to Anil Yashvant Karande v. Mangal Anil Karande, MANU/MH/3431/2015, the Court concluded that "once the cruelty committed by the wife is proved by the husband, no relief for restitution of conjugal rights can be granted by the Court."
The Court concluded that "the Respondent has proved that there is reasonable excuse for the Respondent to withdraw from the society of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has tried to commit suicide and there are defamatory posters printed by the Petitioner."
It further directed that "this Second Appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law. Both the learned Trial Court and First Appellate Court have rightly decided the issue between the parties in the right perspective and as stated above no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal."
The Court held that "the petitioner has failed to prove her case before the learned Trial Court as well as before the First Appellate Court. This Court does not find any substance in the present Second Appeal as the same is devoid of any merit both on facts and law and the same is dismissed."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Y.H. Motiramani, Mr. Divyesh G. Nimavat
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishvesh R. Acharya
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Case Number: R/Second Appeal No. 482 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker
[Read/Download order]
