The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a 26-year-old man seeking the restitution of conjugal rights with his estranged wife, ruling that his routine visits to her parental residence and formal legal notices were insufficient to prove she lived apart without reasonable cause. A division bench comprising Justice Parth Prateem Sahu and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput upheld a November 2023 family court ruling that had rejected the husband’s plea, emphasizing that serious allegations of domestic harassment and the retention of the woman’s personal identity and academic records could not be overlooked.
The bench observed that a husband’s repeated visits to his in-laws’ residence or the dispatch of legal notices expressing a willingness to resume married life do not, by themselves, establish that a spouse’s refusal to return lacks justification. The judges noted that such overtures cannot be viewed in isolation and must be weighed alongside the broader circumstances of the marriage and the evidence presented by both sides.
High Court Highlights Spousal Grievances
The court found that the 22-year-old wife had placed significant evidence on record regarding her treatment during the marriage. Specifically, the bench underscored her allegations of physical abuse resulting in a miscarriage, ongoing demands for additional dowry, and the domestic violence proceedings she had initiated against her husband and his family. The judges stated that these factors, assessed cumulatively, provided reasonable grounds for the woman to reside separately.
The bench also flagged the husband’s failure to return the woman’s educational credentials, Aadhaar card, caste certificate, and bank passbook despite her repeated requests. Describing this as an essential consideration, the court held that withholding crucial personal documents could not be ignored while evaluating the breakdown of the relationship.
Wife Alleges Dowry Demands And Misconduct
The couple married in February 2022. Represented by advocate Madhunisha Singh, the wife submitted that she had not abandoned the marital home arbitrarily but was forced to seek refuge with her parents due to persistent mistreatment, physical assault, and unlawful financial demands.
According to her submissions, relatives of the husband—including his parents, brother, and maternal uncle—began pressing for a Creta car and Rs 5 lakh in cash within a week of the wedding, allegedly disparaging the Swift vehicle gifted by her family as inferior. She further stated that she was assaulted and manhandled on February 19, 2022, which resulted in the termination of her pregnancy. The woman also accused her husband of maintaining an extramarital relationship, stating that she discovered objectionable photographs and text messages on his mobile phone and faced physical violence and threats whenever she confronted him.
Husband Denies Harassment Claims
The husband, appearing through advocate Navneet Kumar Yadav, contended that he had fulfilled his marital responsibilities and made consistent attempts to restore the marriage. He argued that the allegations of dowry demands, physical cruelty, and assault were fabricated afterthoughts unsupported by evidence.
According to the husband, the marriage remained harmonious until October 2022, when his wife departed for her parents’ home upon hearing about her mother’s illness. He claimed that he arrived to bring her back three days later, but following the Diwali festival, she refused to accompany him to his place of work. He stated that despite repeated visits to her parental home, she declined to return, behaved discourteously, and threatened his family with false criminal complaints.
The man had earlier moved an application to bring her back from her parents’ residence, which was rejected in March 2023, followed by a formal legal notice that went unheeded.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court concluded that the husband failed to demonstrate that his wife had withdrawn from the marriage without reasonable excuse, thereby affirming the family court’s order.
