Court dismisses husband's plea for restitution of conjugal rights, emphasizes equal responsibilities in marriage.
In a landmark judgment, the Jharkhand High Court has upheld the decision of the Family Court dismissing a husband's petition for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case, Jitendra Azad v. Meena Gupta, involved the appellant Jitendra Azad challenging the Family Court's verdict, which had rejected his plea to compel his wife, Meena Gupta, to live with him despite her professional commitments.
The division bench, comprising Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Arun Kumar Rai, emphasized the importance of mutual respect for professional aspirations within marital relationships. The court ruled that Meena Gupta's decision to continue her government job and maintain her professional commitments cannot be deemed unreasonable. It highlighted that both spouses have equal responsibilities to accommodate each other's professional and personal obligations.
The bench noted that Meena Gupta had valid reasons to live apart, including dowry demands and pressure from her husband to leave her employment, which were considered sufficient grounds for her withdrawal from the matrimonial society. The court underscored that a wife has the right to pursue her career and professional goals along with her marital responsibilities.
The judgment further elaborated on the objective of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, stating that the provision aims to preserve marriage and ensure cohabitation, rather than enforce orthodox expectations of the wife as a dependent partner. The court recognized the equal status of spouses, asserting that marriage partners should mutually respect each other's career choices and adjust their marital life accordingly.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by Jitendra Azad, affirming the Family Court's decision and supporting Meena Gupta's stance. It reiterated the test of "reasonableness" in cases where both spouses are employed in different cities, asserting that the wife's insistence to continue with her job does not constitute unreasonable withdrawal from the society of her husband.
The judgment marks a significant step in reinforcing gender equality within marital relationships, advocating for women's autonomy and the acknowledgment of their professional obligations. Legal experts have hailed the decision as a progressive interpretation of matrimonial laws, promoting harmonious coexistence between professional and personal lives in marriage.
Bottom Line:
Restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Wife's refusal to leave her government job and live with her husband does not amount to unreasonable withdrawal from society if there are valid and sufficient reasons, including financial independence and professional obligations.
Statutory provision(s): Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Jitendra Azad v. Meena Gupta, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2846350
