Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Case law- Section 9- Kailash Vati vs Ayodhia Prakash
(Appeal dismissed and Court held wife cannot unilaterally withdraw from marital home)
Bench: Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, Justice S.S. Sidhu and Justice S.P. Goyal.
Facts:
- The parties got married to each other in 1964 and were employed as village teachers at different places.
- After marriage, Kailash Vati, herein the Appellant was transferred to the station of Ayodhia Parkash’s posting, herein the Respondent and they lived together for nine months.
- Kailash Vati got transferred back to the previous village against the will of the Respondent and hence he filed an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
Issue:
Whether the Hindu Marriage Law sanctifies the concept of matrimonial home be whittled down to a weekend marriage at the unilateral desire of the wife to live separately?
Contentions of the Appellant:
- The Respondent at the time of marriage, with his eyes open, had accepted the Appellant as a working wife. Hence, she had a right to live at the place of her posting and not obliged to live with her husband.
- The Appellant had never refused to honour her matrimonial obligations or to stay with her husband. So, she is justified in not resigning from her job to accompany the Respondent-husband.
Contentions of the Respondent:
- The Appellant manoeuvred to get herself transferred back to the previous village and has been residing there with her parents against his wishes, virtually ever since.
- The Appellant had unilaterally withdrawn from the matrimonial home for a continuous period of six years and has denied the Respondent the society and sustenance of conjugal life.
- The Respondent is in a position to maintain his wife in dignified comfort at his place of posting with his salary, income from agricultural land and also from other sources.
Background:
The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent-husband. On an appeal preferred by the wife the learned Single Judge, upheld the findings and the decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the decision of the Single Bench, the Appellant moved the Division Bench, which referred the case to the Full Bench for decision of an important question of law.The same is enumerated below.
Judgment:
The Full Bench while referring to “general principles” of ancient Hindu law, passed a decree in favour of the Respondent for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.
The Court observed that a marital home is the basis of the concept of marriage and the “bundle of indefinable rights and duties which bind the husband and the wife can perhaps be best understood only in the context of their living together in the marital home.”
The husband and wife may, consensually, live separately without jeopardising their marriage and violating their marital duties.
In context of the present case, the Court held that any working woman solemnizing a marriage, by necessary implication consents to the marital duty of living with her husband. There shall be a violation of such duty when she unilaterally and unreasonably withdraws from the matrimonial home and society of the husband by accepting employment away from the matrimonial home against the wishes of her husband. The wife cannot claim a legal right to withdraws from the matrimonial home on the ground of being employed before marriage or having procured employment afterwards.
