Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-Case law- Section9-Swaraj Garg vs. K.M. Garg
(Appeal allowed as the Respondent failed to prove the grounds for restitution of conjugal rights)
Bench: Justice V.S. Deshpande and Justice H.L. Anand.
Facts:
- The parties got married to each other in 1964 and the wife, herein the Appellant had a permanent job as a teacher in Punjab while the husband, herein the Respondent was unemployed at the time.
- At the time of marriage, the Respondent neither expected the Appellant to leave her job nor did he enter into any pre-marital agreement with her wherein she agreed leave her job after marriage to live with the Respondent.
- The Respondent after failing to seek a job near the Appellant’s workplace, moved to Delhi to find work.
- After he sought a decent job there, he insisted the wife to quit her job in Punjab and move to Delhi with him.
- The Appellant, however, continued to live in Punjab and hence, the Respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also asserted that the Appellant has deserted him.
Issues:
- Whether the husband holds the sole right to decide the matrimonial home even when both of them are gainfully employed at two different places from before their marriage?
- Whether the wife is under a legal obligation to resign from her job to live in the matrimonial home decided by the husband?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- The Appellant was left at her parent's place by the Respondent himself and the Appellant’s parents never wished to live on her income.
- There was no refusal on part of the Appellant to live with the Respondent’s aged father.
- The Appellant has suffered cruelty and emotional abuse. The Respondent also extracted a huge amount of dowry and deprived the Appellant of all the valuables given to her by her parents.
Contentions of the Respondent:
- Since the parents of the Appellantwere living on her income, they urged her to return to their home.
- The Respondent’s aged father posed a problem for the Appellant and she refused to cohabit with him.
- The Appellant did not consider herself capable of leading a married life and was abusive, short-tempered and quarrelsome.
Background:
The petition of the Respondent was dismissed by the Trial Court, but was allowed in appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Present Court. Aggrieved by the Decision of the Single Bench, the Appellant preferred an appeal to the Division Bench which passed its judgment given below.
Judgment:
The Court made reference to the Right to equality between husband and wife, enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. While disagreeing from the principles laid down in the case of Kailash Vati vs Ayodhia Prakash (ILR (1977) 1 P&H 642), the Court propounded that the wife shouldn’t always be compelled to resign from her job and live with the husband just to conform to her marital duties, even when the husband is not able to maintain himself and provide appropriate standard of living to her.
The Court while rejecting the contentions of the Respondent, held that the wife had a reasonable excuse for refusing to resign from her job and live with the Respondent in Delhi. It cannot be said that the Appellant withdrew from the society of the husband as the parties were unable to agree to the place of matrimonial home. The nonexistence of such agreement between them may be the fault of the Respondent but definitely, not the Appellant.
