Husband Cannot Invoke Muslim Personal Law For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights After Marrying Under Section 22 Special Marriage Act ; Jharkhand High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held that once a couple marries under the Special Marriage Act, the framework of Section 22 governing restitution of conjugal rights applies entirely, regardless of the personal law to which either spouse belongs. In dismissing the husband’s appeal, the Court rejected his assertion that, as a Muslim, he could lawfully have multiple wives and that the wife’s decision to leave the matrimonial home was therefore unwarranted The Bench found that he had concealed an existing marriage and children at the time of the marriage and that the wife had legitimate grounds to reside separately. The Family Court’s refusal to grant restitution was therefore affirmed
The matter concerns an appeal filed by the husband under Section 19(i) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the dismissal of his suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The parties were married on 04.08.2015 and lived together for a brief period at Amarpur. The husband claimed that the wife left the matrimonial home on 10.10.2015 without reasonable excuse, refused repeated requests to resume cohabitation, and pressured him to leave his profession and relocate to Deoghar as Gharjamai. Maintaining that he was ready to support and maintain her, he initiated the restitution suit asserting desertion without cause.
The wife contested the suit asserting that the husband had suppressed the existence of his prior marriage and his children from that marriage at the time of their marriage, and later pressurised her and her family to execute a gift of land in his favour after taking the original sale deed. She further alleged cruelty and danger to her life from the husband and his first wife, due to which she filed a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed directing the husband to pay ₹8,000 per month.
Both sides led oral evidence. The husband examined three witnesses, including himself, claiming the wife refused cohabitation without reason and was aware of his prior marriage. The respondent-wife and her mother testified to concealment of the earlier marriage and threats to her safety, asserting that compelling circumstances forced her departure from the matrimonial home and that resumption of cohabitation was unsafe. The Family Court dismissed the husband’s suit after holding that the wife proved sufficient cause to live separately. The present appeal challenges that dismissal.
The Division Bench recorded that the core issue was whether the wife had withdrawn from the husband’s society without reasonable cause. It noted that the suit was filed “on the ground of desertion,” making the factual justification for separation the central factor.
The Court analysed the evidence and “found that it has come on record sufficiently from the evidence of the petitioner’s witnesses as well as the witnesses of the opposite party also that the petitioner Akil Alam had a living spouse at the time of his marriage with the respondent.” The Court noted that the husband’s own cross-examination admitted that he did not disclose this fact in the marriage certificate. It recorded: “This statement of petitioner… itself goes to falsify his claim of disclosing about his previous marriage… otherwise there was no reason to conceal the said fact before the Marriage Registrar.”
The Court also referred to the earlier maintenance order and observed: “The respondent has filed the certified copy of the order… which goes to show that the petitioner… had taken a plea… that his marriage with the respondent… is an irregular marriage and hence, she is not entitled to get maintenance.” The Bench observed that this “clearly goes to show that he himself is not firm on his relation with the respondent… and he is changing his statement from time to time.”
The Bench noted that contracting a second marriage after concealing the first was relevant to determining reasonable cause: “Keeping of a mistress or contracting a second marriage by a husband is a sufficient ground for a wife to deny from accompanying with her husband.” It also recorded the wife’s apprehension regarding her safety: “The respondent… has deposed… that the petitioner has solemnized marriage with her by concealing his previous marriage and there is danger of her life… and this apprehension… seems to be quite reasonable in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
Regarding the challenge to the Family Court’s reasoning, the Bench said that arguments of perversity were untenable: “This Court… finds that the learned Family Court while passing the order impugned has taken care of the evidence of both the parties… as such, the contention… that there is element of perversity… is totally fallacious.”
The Court stated: “This Court… is of the view that the judgment dated 28.11.2023… passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar… requires no interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Case Title: Md. Akil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarty
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:30782-DB
Case Number: F.A. No. 24 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar
