Restitution of Conjugal Rights in Hindu Marriage Act,1955 Reasonable grounds on which petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights can be rejected. what do you mean by restitution of conjugal rights. explain its essential condition and effect of the restitution of conjugal rights decree.

 

Introduction:

If your spouse has left you without giving any reasonable ground, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 gives you remedy in the form of Section 9 under the restitution of conjugal rights. The section 9 of the HMA reads that when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply for restitution of conjugal rights.

What the aggrieved party needs to do is file a petition to the district court and 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, the judge may decree restitution of conjugal rights in his favor.

Meaning of Restitution of conjugal Rights:The term “conjugal” means “matrimonial”. It refers to the relationship between a married couple. Conjugal rights are matrimonial rights of both of the spouses. One spouse is entitled to the society, comfort and consortium of each other. The expression “Restitution of conjugal rights” means the restoration of matrimonial rights. Provisions regarding restitution of conjugal rights are provided in various Personal Laws such as:

Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 22, Special Marriage Act, 1954

Section 32, Indian Divorce Act, 1869

Three essential conditions for Section 9 of HMA

Firstly, one party must have withdrawn from the society of the other; secondly, the withdrawal must be without any reasonable reason, and thirdly, the aggrieved party applies for the restitution of conjugal rights. Once these conditions are fulfilled, the district court may decree of restitution of conjugal rights to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties.

If the aggrieved party is unable to convince the district court and it founds that the petitioner is guilty then the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not granted. An added advantage from this is that if the parties are not following the decree for cohabitation after the passing of the decree, continuously for one year, it becomes a ground for divorce under Section 13.

Reasonable grounds on which petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights can be rejected

First, if the respondent has a ground on which he or she can claim any matrimonial relief;

Second, if the petitioner is guilty of any matrimonial misconduct;

Third, if the petitioner is guilty of such act, omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the respondent to live with him; for instance, husband’s neglect of his wife or the constant demand for dowry, etc. are some reasonable ground for wife not to join the company of her husband.

Burden of proof under Section 9 of the HMA

Burden of proof operates at two levels. Firstly, burden of proof is on the aggrieved/petitioner who needs to prove that the respondent has withdrawn from his society. Once that burden is discharged by the petitioner, it falls on the respondent to prove that there exists a reasonable excuse for the withdrawal.

Effect of the Decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights:

If the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is passed by the court than it is compulsory for the respondent to resume cohabitation with the plaintiff and if the respondent fails to do so within one year then it can act as a ground for divorce for the plaintiff.

In the case of Sushil Kumari Dang vs. Prem Kumar, the appeal of a wife against the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was allowed by the court. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights because the wife has left his matrimonial home against his wish and consent and is living separately and she is not ready to come back. But the court through facts and circumstances of the case found that the intention of the husband behind this petition is not genuine. So the court allowed the appeal of the wife.