1 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT MANCHERIAL
Present:- Sri D.Rama Mohan Reddy,
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.
Friday this the 11th day of April, 2025
H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2019
Between: Somashetti Srinivas, S/o.Ramulu, Age: 44 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.1-237/c/1, Gaddaragadi, Near Ladda Rice Mill, Mandamarri.
...Petitioner
//A N D//
Somashetti Vasavi @ Vijaya, W/o.Srinivas, D/o.Pitta Nandaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: House hold, R/o.H.No.18-101, Gowda Street, Near Chaitanya English Medium School, Parkala, Warangal District.
...Respondent
This petition coming on 02-04-2025 before me for final hearing in presence of Smt. G.Shailaja, Advocate for petitioner and Sri P.Bhadraiah and Sri N.Santhosh Goud, Advocates for respondent, matter having heard, stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: O R D E R ::
This petition is filed under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (in short 'the Act') praying to grant decree of restitution of conjugal rites against respondent and for costs.
2. The factual matrix of the petitioner‟s case is that respondent is the legally wedded wife of petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 13-02-2006 at Gowda Street, Parkala, Warangal District, as per
Hindu rites and customs. Soon after the marriage, respondent joined 2 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 the society of petitioner at Madaram Township of Tandur mandal and lived there for few months, during which period, petitioner worked as an employee in Sriram Chit Funds Private Limited at Mancherial.
Respondent always pressurizing petitioner to shift their residence to other place away from the parents of petitioner and always used to stay in her parents‟ house. Meanwhile respondent became pregnant and delivered a male child on 17-12-2007 and a cradle ceremony was performed at the house of parents of respondent, which was attended by petitioner and his parents. After three months of delivery, petitioner and his parents went to the house of respondent‟s parents to take back her, but respondent and her parents abused them and refused to send her. Subsequently, petitioner made several efforts to bring back the respondent, but in vain, which constrained petitioner to approach elders for panchayath. In that panchayath, respondent openly stated that she is ready to join the petitioner, if the petitioner is separated from his parents. Having no other alternative, petitioner shifted his residence to Mancherial in the year 2008. Subsequently, after three months, father of respondent took the respondent to his house and since then, respondent used to create nuisance by abusing the petitioner and his parents without any reason. The father and brother of respondent also used to abuse the petitioner in filthy langue and threaten him.
3 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
It is further submitted that respondent again conceived, but was willing to abort, which was not accepted by the petitioner, however, during 4th month pregnancy, respondent left the house of petitioner and forcefully aborted the pregnancy. Thereafter, two panchayaths were held before the elders, but the respondent refused to join the society of petitioner. Petitioner made all his efforts to bring back the respondent, but in vain. Petitioner got love and affection towards the respondent and intending to lead life with her. Hence the petition.
3. Respondent resisted the case of the petitioner by filing counter and submitted that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 13-12-2006, as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on the demand of petitioner and his family members, parents of respondent, presented an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, 10 tulas of gold, 10 tulas of silver ornaments and other household articles worth of
Rs.1,40,000/-. After the marriage, respondent joined the society of petitioner, led happy marital life and blessed with a son namely Nukala
Chandrahas. Thereafter, petitioner, his parents and sisters harassed the respondent by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and necked out her. Petitioner, his parents and sisters also are falsely alleging to get rid of the respondent that, she was found talking to others, beat her mercilessly and forced her to accept for divorce and when the same has not been accepted, made an attempt to kill her by 4 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 throttling. Respondent is apprehending danger to her life and limb. On 19-03-2019, petitioner, his parents and sisters came to her parents‟ house and beat her indiscriminately and tried to kill her, however neighbouring people rescued her.
It is further submitted that as petitioner failed in his attempt to get divorce with mutual consent even by resorting to criminal acts, filed the present petition by alleging falsely that respondent deserted him in the year 2009. Only after respondent filed the domestic violence case, maintenance case and also lodged a report before police, petitioner filed the present petition. This court is not having jurisdiction to entertain this petition, as per the very enactment. There are no merits in the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. At the event of enquiry, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and two other witnesses as Pws.2 and 3 and got exhibited Exs.P1 and P2 (sic. Exs.A1 and A2). However, at the request of petitioner counsel affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of PW3 was eschewed.
On the other hand, respondent herself examined as RW1, but no documents were exhibited.
5. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that if really RW1 was subjected to harassment by PW1, she ought to have lodged report in the year 2009 itself, but lodged report only after 5 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 receiving notices in this petition. She would further submit that testimony of PW2 remained intact as he was not cross examined by respondent counsel. RW1 clearly admitted that she filed DVC after filing of this petition, as such, allegations of harassment is false.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would submit that the present petition is filed on false averments only in order to evade payment in DVC.
6. Now the point for consideration is:-
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree of
restitution of conjugal rites against the respondent as
prayed for?
7. POINT: In support of his case, petitioner who is the husband of respondent filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief by almost reiterating his case and relied upon Exs.P1 and P2 (sic. Exs.A1 and
A2). Ex.P1 is the wedding card. Ex.P2 is the marriage certificate along with photographs. Since marriage is not in dispute between petitioner and respondent, as such, Exs.P1 and 2 (sic. Exs.A1 and A2) do not serve much purpose to the petitioner. During the course of cross examination, nothing material could be elicited by the learned respondent counsel, except putting suggestions. PW1 denied that though panchayaths were held and convinced him to behave properly, I did not change my attitude and that we forced her to give divorce and that for said reason respondent filed a criminal case against them in 6 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
Parkala Police Station on 17.03.2019. But he volunteered that he was called by police for counselling and no case was registered. The testimony of PW1 almost remained uncontroverted.
8. Petitioner also examined an independent witness namely Jakkula
Rajam as PW2, who testified that respondent is legally wedded wife of petitioner and their marriage was performed in the year 2006 at Gowda street, Parkala, being arranged marriage and that after the marriage, respondent joined the petitioner, lived happily for some months and later respondent became pregnant. He further testified that as per information of petitioner to him, respondent always used to stay in her parents‟ house and instigated the petitioner to shift his residence to other place from her in-laws house and that after the birth of male child, respondent was not willing to come back to the society of petitioner, her parents also did not invite petitioner for cradle ceremony and subsequently after three months of delivery when parents of petitioner went to the house of respondent at Parkala to take her back and on repeated requests she was sent with petitioner. He also testified that petitioner informed him that thereafter also she did not change her behaviour and picked quarrel with petitioner and in-laws, finally in the year 2009, she left the company of petitioner and in spite of several efforts to bring back her, she refused to join his society and threatened him to foist false criminal cases.
7 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
He further testified that there was a panchayath held between the parties at a function hall, Parkala in the month of March, 2015 in the presence of elders of both parties for resolving dispute between parties and on behalf of petitioner, he and Mohd. Saheb Jani, Bade
Kotesh and family members of petitioner were present and that in the panchayath petitioner expressed his willingness to take back the respondent and son, but respondent did not accept and severely abused the petitioner and his family members and also that in spite of their efforts to convince the respondent to join petitioner at least for the welfare of the child, she did not accept. He further testified that as per their observations and circumstances in the panchayath, they came to know that respondent without just and reasonable cause left the society of petitioner and in spite of another panchayth in the month of
February, 2017 also, respondent refused to join petitioner and threatened the petitioner and his family members to foist false criminal cases, if they ask for reunion. Since respondent counsel failed to cross examine PW2, cross examination of PW2 recorded „nil‟. As stated supra, testimony of PW3 was eschewed on the request of petitioner counsel.
9. While on the other hand, Respondent examined herself as RW1 and in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief, she reiterated her case. During the course of cross examination, certain information 8 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 is elicited by the learned counsel for petitioner, as such, the same is excerpted for better appreciation as follows:
“I am staying at my parents‟ house at Parkala for the last 15 years. I filed police case and DVC case after receiving notices in this case. Earlier I did not file any case against the petitioner.
Except on the death of my brother, the petitioner did not visit my parents‟ house during the last 15 years. My brother died in the year 2011. I am not aware whether the petitioner underwent surgery for liver problem about one year ago and incurred expenditure of Rs.8,00,000/- which he borrowed as a debt. I have no hope to stay with the petitioner at present. I did not make any efforts to join the society of petitioner during the last 15 years.”
RW1 denied that she underwent abortion at her parents‟ house and that in the panchayath, her parents, herself and her brother abused the petitioner and refused to join the society and that petitioner made efforts to bring back her to his society and that she threatened the petitioner to file police case against him. RW1 also denied that after filing of police case against the petitioner, he proposed to take her to his society and that she gave police report with false allegations. She also denied that petitioner made efforts during the said period of 15 years. On such suggestion, she volunteered that petitioner offered her 9 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 money to give divorce. RW1 denied that she demanded the petitioner to pay lakhs of rupees for giving divorce.
The statement of RW.1 that petitioner, his parents, sisters harassing her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and that they necked her out from the house by beating blue and black and attempted to kill is not particularly in dispute during the course of cross examination, as such, the same is otherwise admitted by petitioner.
The statement of RW1 that after the death of her brother, petitioner did not visit her parents‟ house during the last 15 years and that her brother died in the year 2011 is not disputed. Similarly, voluntary statement of respondent that petitioner offered him money to give divorce is also not disputed during the further course of cross examination and from the suggestion that respondent demanded the petitioner to pay lakhs of rupees for giving divorce also goes to clarify that petitioner is of the intention to obtain divorce from respondent, which supports case of respondent that petitioner has been harassing her to accept for divorce. It is also trite law that admitted facts need not be proved.
10. Before appreciating the evidence of both the sides, it is apt to extract Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act.
10 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
9. Restitution of conjugal right. When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly”.
[Explanation.— Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society]
From the bare perusal of above provision makes it amply clear that the court on being satisfied the truth of the statement of the petitioner, may order for restitution of conjugal rights, as such, initial burden is on the petitioner to establish that in spite of his efforts, respondent failed to join him without any reasonable excuse and on such proof, burden would shift to respondent to prove that she has withdrawn from the society of petitioner having reasonable excuse and that petitioner cannot depend on the weakness of the respondent. The same is held by the Hon‟ble High courts in the following decisions.
Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Calcutta in a case initiated by wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights, between Sandhya
Bhattacharjee v. Gopinath Bhattacharjee, reported in AIR 1983 Cal 161, observed that:
3. The principal point in this appeal is whether or not the respondent, Gopinath, had withdrawn from the society of his wife, Sandhya. The respondent denied that he had withdrawn 11 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 from the society of his wife and according to him, his wife had deserted him without any reasonable excuse. In the instant case, undoubtedly the initial burden was upon the appellant, Sandhya, to satisfy the Court about the truth of the statements made in her petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956.
Gopinath did not plead any excuse for withdrawal from her wife's society. Therefore, the explanation to Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act was not attracted to the facts of the present case
Also Hon‟ble High court of Madhya Pradesh in a case between
Sushilabai Prem Narayan v. Prem Narayan Shamlal Rai, reported in
AIR 1986 MP 225, observed on the aspect of onus in a petition filed
U/Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act:
8. ....In order to sustain a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, it is necessary to establish that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner. The society means conjugal society. Thus, the onus is on the petitioner who can succeed only on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence set up. The Explanation added to
Section 9 by the amending Act of 1976, has merely provided for a rule of evidence by laying down the burden of proof in regard to a question whether there has been a reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the petitioning spouse on the party pleading excuse. This burden of proof is very light since the spouses are always supposed to live together and if he or she 12 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 lives separately, it is for that person to prove the conditions which have necessitated such a course, to be taken. Thereafter, that burden would shift to the other party to show that he or she has withdrawn from the society of the other for a reasonable excuse.
Further, Hon‟ble High court of Jharkhand in a case reported in
AIR 2017 Jhar 41 between Smt. Rita Prajapati @ Rita
KumariVs.Sanjay Kumar, son of Late Moti Ram Kumar, observed as follows :
20. On the strength of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the explanation to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not make any change in the concept of Indian Evidence Act and the Civil Procedure Code and the initial burden to prove the allegation on the basis of which restitution of conjugal rights is sought is on the person who comes to the Court.
Further more, Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in a case between
Radha v. Appu, reported in 1986 KLT 1334, also observed the purport of explanation to Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act, as follows:
2. It is true that after the insertion of Explanation to S. 9 by
Act 68 of 1976, the burden to prove reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the other spouse is upon the person who has so withdrawn. It is for the wife to show, in the present case, that she had reasonable excuse to withdraw from 13 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 the society of her husband. Nevertheless, an order for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be had for the mere asking of it. The husband must show that he has a bona fide case, his allegations are true, and there is no ground why his application should not be granted.
3.That burden is indeed upon him. But once he has discharged that onus, it would then shift to the wife to show that she has reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the husband. The husband has no burden to prove the contrary.
That is the purport of the Explanation.”
11. Now it is to be seen whether the petitioner discharged the initial burden casted on him.
According to PW1, respondent used to make nuisance and abuse him and his parents without any reasons and that father and brother of respondent also used to threaten and abuse him in filthy language, but interestingly the parents of the petitioner were not examined to show that respondent used to abuse his parents also. It is nowhere whispered by petitioner/PW.1 as to how and where father and brother of respondent used to abuse him in filthy language and for what and in which way they used to threaten petitioner. It is not as if father and brother of respondent are residing along with petitioner in his house. It is also not even whispered under what mode and through which 14 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 medium they have abused petitioner and threatened him. It is also not clear that for what purpose they have threatened him.
12. It is also further alleged by PW1 that respondent conceived second time and as he refused for abortion, as such, respondent increased her quarrels with petitioner and at the fourth month pregnancy, respondent left his house and never turned back, as such, two panchayaths were held in the presence of elders, but respondent and her parents along with brother refused to send her and also abused and beat him and in spite of all his best efforts, to bring back respondent, same went in vain. Here it is pertinent to mention that there is no whisper by PW1 as to where and when panchayaths were held and who are the elders for the panchayaths. Though he stated that he made all his best efforts to bring back respondent, but it is no where whispered by PW1 as to what are the efforts made by him to bring back respondent into his fold. Hence, the omnibus and vague allegations do not inspire confidence to believe his version.
13. With regard to PW2, in the very chief examination it is stated that as per the information of petitioner given to him, respondent always used to stay in her parents‟ house and instigated the petitioner to shift his residence to other place. It is also further testified during the further course of chief examination that the petitioner informed him that thereafter also she did not change her behaviour and picked up 15 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 quarrels with the petitioner and in-laws, finally in the year 2009 respondent left the company of petitioner, which means he came to know about the said allegations only through PW.1, as such, the testimony of PW2 is in the nature of hearsay evidence.
His evidence do not inspire confidence for yet another reason.
PW1 did not state at all that PW2 was the elder in the panchayath. PW1 also never stated that panchayath was held in the month of March, 2015 and also in the month of February, 2017. Nor the petition discloses the same. Hence, the testimony of PW2 is without basis. It is the prime allegation of PW1 that respondent conceived second time and that petitioner was not willing for the abortion of the second child as respondent is not willing to give birth to second child, as such, respondent picked up quarrel and left the society of the petitioner during the fourth month of pregnancy. If really PW2 was the elder in the panchayath, he certainly ought to have stated the said aspect in the examination in chief, but there is no whisper about the same except a bald statement that petitioner expressed his willingness to take back the respondent and son and that respondent did not accept. PW.2 did not whisper at all about PW.1 shifting residence to Mancherial, after panchayath. Also PW.1 did not whisper about the about presence of
PW.2 in panchayath, but PW.2 stated that PW.3 was present. Both affidavits were filed at a time with identical statements and 16 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 subsequently, PW.3 failed to appear, as such, his examination in chief was eschewed at request of petitioner counsel, which goes to show that
PW.3 subsequently, failed to cooperate with petitioner and testify as per the wish and will of petitioner and it is apparent that they were examined on behalf of petitioner only at the instance of petitioner and under his instigation to depose as per his say.
In addition to that, according to PW1, since 2009 respondent deserted him, in such an event mediations and panchayaths before village elders would be naturally held around 2009 i.e., either 2010 or 2011. Very strangely PW2 testified that panchayath was held on the month of March, 2015 and later again in the month of February, 2017, as such, his testimony is highly ambiguous and cannot be relied upon.
14. As stated supra, the statement of RW1 that except on the death of my brother, petitioner did not visit my parents‟ house during the last 15 years and that her brother died in the year 2011, is not disputed during the further course of cross examination, as such, the same is deemed to have admitted by the petitioner. The said statement and admission goes to clarify that the same is contrary to the version of
PW1 that he made all his best efforts to bring back respondent into his fold. Had he made efforts to bring back respondent, he ought to have at least visited respondent at her parents house.
17 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
15. Further, the voluntarily statement of respondent that petitioner offered money to give divorce also remained undisputed during the further course of cross examination and the suggestion put to respondent that she demanded the petitioner to pay lakhs of rupees for giving divorce also goes to support the version of respondent that petitioner and his family members pressurised respondent to obtain mutual consent in order to obtain divorce. Therefore, it can be held that petitioner failed to discharge the initial burden casted on him.
16. Even, otherwise also it can be held that respondent is justified in staying away with petitioner, the reasons for which are elucidated, henceforth. It is true that respondent did not lodge any report immediately after being necked out by petitioner as alleged by her, but as stated supra, the same is otherwise admitted by petitioner, as it is not disputed, during the course of cross examination. Further, no woman who is blessed with children would walk out of her matrimonial house unnecessarily without there being any ill treatment or disregard to her feelings. Hence, it can be said respondent is successful in establishing reasonable excuse, for staying away with petitioner, due to cruel acts of petitioner and his family members.
17. Hon‟ble Chattisgarh High Court in a case between Rajesh Kumar
Rathore vs Priti Rathore in FAM No.186 of 2015, reported in 2017 (4)
Civil LJ 333 (Chatt) observed that if wife is successful is establishing 18 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 prima facie that she was treated with cruelty, she is justified for staying away from husband.
11. Once it is prima facie established that the wife was treated with cruelty, which was grave and serious, she was justified in refusing to resume the conjugal obligations.
12. If the appellant and his family members were ill treating the respondent-wife, the wife has every right to refuse to join his company and in such eventuality, the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has rightly been refused by the trial Court.
18. The specific words “reasonable excuse” has been interpreted and their Lordships, upheld the decision of trial court, in concluding that wife has “reasonable excuse” to stay away from her husband as he failed to deny the same during correspondence between wife and husband and also believing the testimony of wife and her father. The words “reasonable excuse” do not require any stringent condition to be satisffied, as same is not reasonable cause or reasonable justification.
These crucial words were interpreted by their Lordships of our erstwhile Hon‟ble High Court in a case between P. Radha Krishna
Murthy v. P. Vijayalakshmi, reported in AIR 1983 AP 380 :
5.The fact that these very acts of cruelty had been found mentioned in the lawyer's notice issued from Bombay by the wife and were not denied specifically by the husband in his reply 19 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 would lend credence to them. In this state of the record we are prepared to believe the evidence given by the wife and her witnesses to the effect that she was being treated by her husband and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law very badly at Hyderabad.
We accordingly agree with the lower court and its finding that the husband had been treating the wife with cruelty within the meaning of the above Act.
6.The above conclusion is sufficient to afford ample justification for the wife to stay away from the husband. A wife is neither husband's chattel nor his slave to suffer any acts of cruelty and indignity at the hands of (sic) wife with her husband can only be possible on the basis of male domination over the female. In this case it has been amply proved that the husband had been treating her badly and so badly as to deny her even food and medical aid. This is more than enough for justifying the wife to keep away from the husband.The language of Sec. 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act does not require any reasonable justification or even reasonable cause for a spouse to stay away from the company of the other spouse. Sec. 9 is satisfied if there is a reasonable excuse for staying from the matrimonial home. The word „reasonable excuse‟ is interpreted in Sadhu Singh v. Jagdish Kaur (AIR 1969 Punj & Har 139) as meaning as something less than justification, but something more than a mere whim, fad, or 20 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 brain-wave of the respondent. That judgment held that “it is a fact which has to be determined with reference to the respondent's State of mind in the particular circumstances of each case.”..Act 68 of 1976 had been enacted deleting sub-sec.
(2) of Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and dismantling this high standard of justification for separation. It would clearly show that our Parliament did not, intend that the hitherto stringent conditions need be satisfied by a spouse for keeping herself away from the society of the other. Even at a time when sub-sec. (2) of 9 was on the Statute Book the Madras High Court ruled in
Kanna v. Krishna Swami AIR 1972 Mad 247 “A woman of modem times is entitled to insist that Tier husband should treat her with dignity and self-respect befitting the status of a wife and that her life with her husband will be peaceful and happy. Even if the husband satisfies the conditions stipulated in Sec. 9(1) the Court will still have a discretion to grant or deny the relief of restitution depending upon the circumstances of each case, whether the misbehaviour or misconduct of the husband is such as will entitle the wife to refuse to cohabit with him.” In that case the
Madras High Court ruled that when it had become a practical impossibility for the parties to live together it would be totally improper for the court to order restitution of conjugal rights. We 21 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 find that there is more than a reasonable excuse in this case for the wife to stay away with her husband.”
19. Therefore, in view of observation of their Lordships, it can be held that respondent is successful in establishing the reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the conjugal society of petitioner.
20. As discussed supra, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that he made efforts to bring back respondent into his fold and that his statement is true and bonafide, but as held supra, he failed to substantiate the same.
21. More significant factor which is detrimental to the case of petitioner is that, according to the petitioner himself, respondent deserted him in the year 2009. Borne by record the present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2019 i.e., almost after 10 years of separation, which itself goes to show that petitioner is not really interested in taking respondent and their son into his fold to lead matrimonial life. Had he been anxious of taking respondent into his conjugal society, he would have certainly taken recourse to law around the year 2009 itself or so, but could not have waited for such a long period of 10 years almost. This inordinate delay in initiating proceedings seeking restitution of conjugal rights is apparently to pave a way for divorce, as held by Hon‟ble High Court of 22 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
Punjab and Haryana in a case between Satya Devi v. Sat Pal reported in AIR 2003 P&H 181 wherein his Lordship found fault with the decision of trial court in granting decree for restitution of conjugal right, when petition was filed with inordinate delay of 7 years and dismissed the petition:
8.It appears that the husband was not anxious to have the wife back. Were he was anxious to have the wife back, he would have sought restitution of conjugal rights with her after April 1, 1976.
He sought restitution of conjugal rights in December, 1983.
There is thus inordinate delay in the filing of this petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband. In my opinion, the grant of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Barnala was misconceived. If the decree for restitution of conjugal rights remains, that would only pave the way for divorce. Why should they be stamped with being divorcees at this stage....
9. For the reasons given above, this appeal is allowed. In consequence, petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband against the wife under section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act is dismissed.”
Also Hon‟ble High court of Madras in a case reported in AIR 1973 Mad 279 between P.S. Rama Rao v. P.R. Krishnamani Ammal, 23 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019 upheld the order of trial court in dismissing the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, where there was a delay of 6 years.
7. The lower appellate Court has dismissed the application of the husband also on the ground that the application was filed after an inordinate delay. The compromise decree was in 1960. The attempts made to secure a house for joint living of the husband and wife was in 1961 After the failure of the efforts to secure all house for joint living of them in 1961 till 1967 there were no attempts made and there was a delay of six years. The lower appellate Court has rightly found that there was a considerable delay in filing the application for restitution of conjugal rights and this would, disentitle the husband from getting the relief of restitution of conjugal rights
22. The synthesis of the above discussion is that petitioner failed to establish that in spite of his best efforts, respondent failed to join him and that respondent without any valid excuse or reasonable excuse deserted him and also the truth of his statement. While on the otherhand, respondent is successful in establishing reasonable excuse for staying away, as such, this court is not inclined to accede to the request of petitioner. Accordingly this point is answered against the petitioner.
24 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019
In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected on the desktop and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 11th day of April, 2025.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MANCHERIAL
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner:
PW-1 Somashetti Srinivas PW-2 Jakkula Rajam PW-3 Mohammad Saheb Jani
For Respondent: -None-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Petitioner:
Ex.P1 Original wedding card Ex.P2 Marriage certificate along with photographs, dated: 25-01- 2019.
For Respondent:
RW-1 Somashetti Vasavi @ Vijaya
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
MANCHERIAL
25 of 24 HMOP 19 of 2019