The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has allowed an appeal filed by a wife, quashing a lower court’s decree that had granted her husband the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 281 of the Mohammedan Law. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai ruled that courts have the power to refuse such relief if the surrounding circumstances indicate that the husband has been guilty of unnecessary harassment, making it inequitable to compel the wife to live with him.
Background of the Case
The case, Farah Tabassum v. Mohammad Mojmail Haque (F.A. No. 255 of 2023), arose from a matrimonial dispute between the parties whose marriage was solemnized on 25.11.2017 as per Muslim rites at Bokaro. They had no children from the wedlock.
The husband (respondent) filed Original Suit No. 451 of 2021 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, under Section 281 of the Mohammedan Law, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. He claimed that his wife lived properly for a few days but later insisted on living separately from his joint family. He alleged that she left the matrimonial home on her own will on multiple occasions.
Conversely, the wife (appellant) alleged severe cruelty. She stated that the husband brutally assaulted her and attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil, which led her to file Mahila P.S. Case No. 08 of 2021 under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Despite her claims of cruelty and apprehension for her life, the Family Court allowed the husband’s petition on 28.08.2023, passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife consequently appealed to the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant-wife argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of cruelty on record. It was contended that the husband had not taken sincere steps to restore the married life but instead subjected the wife to torture. The appellant highlighted her valid apprehension of being killed at the hands of her husband, which justified her denial to resume conjugal life.
The counsel for the respondent-husband defended the Family Court’s judgment, arguing that the wife was uncooperative since the beginning, teased him for her higher education, and unreasonably pressured him to live separately from his parents. The respondent argued that she had withdrawn from his society without any cogent reason and refused to join him despite his multiple attempts to bring her back.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court extensively analyzed the scope of the appellate court’s power, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi, which established that the High Court can reappraise both questions of law and fact.
Examining Section 281 of Mulla’s Principles of Mohammedan Law, the Court observed that while it deals with restitution of conjugal rights, it does not detail the circumstances under which the decree can be granted or declined. The Court noted:
“It is equitable proposition of law that in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by a husband against his wife, if the Court after a review of the evidence feels that the circumstances reveal that the husband had been guilty of unnecessary harassment caused to his wife or of such conduct as to make it inequitable for the Court to compel his wife to live with him, it will refuse the relief.”
The Court also emphasized Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which allows Family Courts to receive any evidence that assists in effectively dealing with a dispute, independent of the strict rules of relevancy under the Indian Evidence Act.
Noting the serious allegations of cruelty, including the attempt to pour kerosene oil on the wife, the Court observed:
“If on account of all such problems, one fine day if she decided to walk out of her matrimonial home, could it be said that the husband straightway is entitled to have a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.”
“As long as there is no such rule, it would be just and reasonable for the Court to deny the said relief to the plaintiff-husband (respondent herein) if the surrounding circumstances indicate that it would be inequitable to do so.”
The Bench further relied on the judgment in Anis Begum v. Muhammad Istafa Wali Khan, which in turn cited the Privy Council case Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonnissa Begum, reiterating that in passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the Court has the power to take all circumstances into account and impose terms considered fair and reasonable.
Analyzing the Family Court’s decision, the High Court characterized the lower court’s findings as “perverse.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s definition of “perverse” in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State, the Bench concluded that the Family Court passed the order without properly appreciating the factual aspects and the wife’s valid apprehension of danger to her life.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the Family Court’s findings were based on no evidence and were passed without due deliberation of the factual aspects and evidences laid by both parties.
Declaring the lower court’s judgment to suffer from perversity, the Division Bench allowed the appeal. The High Court ordered that “the impugned judgment dated 28.08.2023, decree signed on 05.09.2023, passed in Original Suit No.451 of 2021 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro is hereby quashed and set-aside.”
