The Madras High Court has held that a Family Court cannot grant judicial separation in a petition filed solely for restitution of conjugal rights, stating that such relief lies outside the statutory framework of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Dr. Justice A.D. Maria Clete delivered the ruling while allowing two connected appeals filed by a husband challenging the Family Court’s common order that had rejected his divorce petition and instead granted judicial separation in both his and his wife’s petitions.
Background
The appellant-husband and respondent-wife, both in their second marriage, were married on 6 June 2011. Owing to marital discord, the husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 423 of 2013 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. The wife subsequently filed H.M.O.P. No. 1228 of 2014 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
After trial, the Family Court rejected both petitions but invoked Section 13A to grant a decree of judicial separation in both matters.
Contentions
Appearing for the husband, Advocate Mr. K.S. Karthik Raja argued that the Family Court had erred in granting judicial separation — a relief that was not prayed for by either party — especially in a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, where such power is not contemplated under the Act.
The husband alleged instances of cruelty, including physical abuse by the wife, harassment of his aged parents, and baseless accusations such as alleging he had entered into a second marriage. A photograph of scratch injuries was also produced as evidence. However, the Family Court discounted this due to non-examination of his parents.
The wife, represented by Advocate Mr. T.K.S. Gandhi, admitted during cross-examination that her allegations of second marriage were based only on hearsay and not direct knowledge. She had also expressed willingness to hand over custody of the minor daughter to the husband without even reserving visitation rights.
Court’s Observations
The High Court observed that:
“While the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to grant a decree of judicial separation in a petition filed for divorce, no such power is contemplated in a petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights.”
The Bench held that the Family Court acted beyond jurisdiction in granting judicial separation under the wife’s petition, which was solely for restitution.
Addressing the allegations of cruelty, the High Court ruled that the appellant had proved mental cruelty by way of verbal abuse, baseless police complaints, and the wife’s expressed disinterest in cohabitation.
Relying on precedents including Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511] and Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan [(2023) 4 SCC 555], the Court emphasized that long-standing separation and sustained mental harassment constitute sufficient grounds for divorce.
“The respondent’s conduct—marked by repeated verbal abuse, unfounded allegations, and institution of baseless complaints—amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both appeals and issued the following directions:
- The Family Court’s common order dated 23 February 2021 was set aside.
- The husband’s divorce petition (H.M.O.P. No. 423 of 2013) was allowed, and the marriage solemnized on 6 June 2011 was dissolved under Section 13(1)(ia).
- The wife’s petition for restitution (H.M.O.P. No. 1228 of 2014) was dismissed.
- The monthly maintenance awarded earlier at ₹30,000 was enhanced to ₹40,000, taking into account inflation and the child’s current age.
