Restitution of Conjugal Rights

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai in the case of Jitendra Azad v. Meena Gupta (2026) dismissed a first appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act filed by the husband against the dismissal of his petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, holding that a wife's employment in a different city constitutes reasonable excuse for living separately. 

What was the Background of Jitendra Azad v. Meena Gupta (2026) Case? 

• The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 12 March 2018. 
• At the time of marriage, the wife was employed as a teacher at a private school, while the husband was employed as a daily-wage medical staff member at a hospital. 
• The parties lived together only for two to three days after the marriage and thereafter stayed separately since their places of work were in different cities. 
• Subsequently, differences arose between the parties. 
• The husband alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home without informing him, took her ornaments and belongings, insisted that he should live as a "ghar jamai", and asked him to prepare divorce papers. 
• The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 
• The wife submitted that while she was willing to continue the matrimonial life, she was unwilling to leave her employment. 
• The wife alleged that her husband and his family demanded Rs. 10 Lakhs to purchase a Scorpio vehicle for a side business, and upon her refusal, disputes arose. 
• During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the husband was earning Rs. 10,000 per month on a contractual basis, whereas the wife was earning approximately Rs. 60,000 per month as a government teacher. 
• The Family Court dismissed the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights, following which the husband filed an appeal before the High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Conditions for Restitution of Conjugal Rights: 

• The Court reiterated that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be granted only when:  
• (i) The respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner.  
• (ii) Such withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or lawful excuse. 
• (iii) There is no other legal ground for refusing the relief. 
• (iv) The Court is satisfied about the truth of the statements made in the petition. 

Revolutionary Change in Concept of Hindu Wife: 

• The Court held that the orthodox concept of a Hindu wife as Dharmpatni, Ardhangini, Bharya or Anugamini—expected to follow the husband always as part of his own body—has undergone a "revolutionary change" with education, women's literacy, constitutional recognition of equal rights, and abolition of sex distinction.  
• A wife is now a partner in marriage with equal status and equal rights with the husband. 

Equal Rights of Marriage Partners: 

• The Court held that neither spouse can claim superior or better rights over the other. Where both spouses are employed or engaged in professions of their choice, the nature of their married life must be shaped by the requirements of their respective employments.  
• The Court rejected the notion that a husband has an absolute right to insist that the wife should leave her service and live with him as his dependent only to discharge marital obligations. 

Test of Reasonableness: 

• The Court applied the test of "reasonableness" to determine which party adopted an unreasonable approach towards joint living.  
• Since both spouses were employed in different cities and neither could leave their service, the wife's insistence on continuing her employment while adjusting her marital life was held to be not wholly unreasonable. 

Wife's Right to Financial Independence and Valid Reasons for Separation: 

• The Court recognized the wife's right to stand financially on her own feet, pursue professional goals, and contribute to society as a working professional.  
• It emphasized that restitution of conjugal rights is a joint responsibility of both spouses to find a workable path to sustain their relationship, not just the wife silently following the husband.  
• Considering the evidence of demand for money and vehicle, and the fact that parties worked in different cities, the Court held the wife had valid and sufficient reasons to live separately and dismissed the husband's appeal. 

What is the Restitution of Conjugal Rights? 

About: 

• The expression restitution of conjugal rights means the restoration of conjugal rights which were enjoyed by the parties previously.  
• Restitution of Conjugal Rights provided under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).  
• The objective of Section 9   is to protect the sanctity and legality of the institution of marriage. 
• The aggrieved party may apply to the District Court for restitution of conjugal rights if the husband or wife is withdrawn from the other partner's company without any reasonable ground. 
• The burden of proof is on the person who has withdrawn from society of the other person to prove that there has been a reasonable excuse to withdraw. 

Essential Requirement for Seeking Relief under Section 9: 

• The parties must be legally married to one another. 
• One should exclude themselves from another's social circle. 
• This withdrawal has to be made without a valid justification. 
• The assertion that there is no legal justification for rejecting the decree must be proven to the court's satisfaction. 

Where to File an Application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights: 

• Every petition filed under HMA must be filed in the Family Court of the original civil jurisdiction where: 
• The marriage was solemnized. 
• The respondent resides. 
• The parties to the marriage last lived together.  
• If the wife is the petitioner, where she has been residing on the date of filing the petition.  

Effect of Restitution of Conjugal Rights: 

• A decree for restitution of conjugal rights, if passed, makes it obligatory for the respondent to resume cohabitation with the plaintiff.  
• If this is not done within one year from the date of the decree, either party is entitled to seek divorce. 

Case Law: 

In the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), the Apex Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of HMA as this section does not violate any fundamental right.