1 2026:CGHC:24826-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 251 of 2024 1. Smt. Mona Yadav W/o. Vijay Yadav Aged About 30 Years Caste - Yadav, R/o. Village Ward No. 36, Beside New Arvind Jweller, Bhadrapara Balco, Thana Balco, District - Korba (C.G.) Present Address- Infront Of Railway Station, Champa, Thana And Tahsil - Champa District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant/Applicant versus 1. Vijay Yadav S/o. Jai Yadav Aged About 32 Years Caste - Yadav, R/o. Village - Ward No. 36, Beside New Arvind Jweller, Bhadrapara Balco, Thana Balco, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Divy Jha, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel along with Mr. Utkarsh Patel, Advocate DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu,J & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 18.06.2026 1. Present appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by appellant-wife assailing the judgment dated 10.5.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.06.24 12:33:30 +0530 2 Judge, Family Court, Janjgir in Civil Suit No.51A/2023 whereby appellant’s application filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) for restitution of conjugal rights was rejected. 2. Factual matrix of case in short is that marriage of the parties was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 03.03.2019. After a few days of marriage, the respondent and his parents started harassing and torturing her for demand of dowry. Parents of her husband used to torture her saying that they have been cheated and black skin colour girl of poor father has come to their house. They used to say that unless a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- is paid by parents of appellant, they will not keep her with them. Parents of respondent, with a view to arrange second marriage of their son, conspiratorially created Ideological differences between appellant and respondent which resulted into matrimonial discord between them, leading to filing of a divorce petition by respondent against appellant. It was further alleged that the parents of respondent-husband to quench their greed of money unnecessarily interfered in their matrimonial life and by fostering discord, they succeeded in separating them. It was further pleaded that appellant is a responsible lady, she loves her husband and wants to live with him, therefore, a decree of restitution of conjugal rights be granted in her favour. 3 3. Respondent – husband filed reply to application denying the averments made therein and by way of special submissions pleaded that appellant, by showing-off her family’s political influence and financial condition, insulted and humiliated him and his family members in the public and community. Appellant used to avoid doing household work and whenever his parents asked her to do household work, she quarreled with them. Despite repeated persuasion by respondent to behave properly with his parents, appellant was not treating his parents nicely. Appellant was not subjected to any torture or harassment during her stay in matrimonial home. Appellant is an educated lady and had the allegation of harassment etc. being made by her been true, she would have lodged report in Police Station Balco Nagar. Appellant used to pressurize the respondent to leave his parents and live separately, but respondent being the only son of parents it was not possible for him to leave his parents. Appellant is stubborn and quarrelsome lady. Hence, application filed by appellant for restitution of conjugal rights be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court framed three issues, afforded opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties and on the basis of evidence, oral and documentary, available on record, dismissed the application filed by appellant-wife under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 seeking decree of restitution of conjugal rights. 4 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-wife would argue that appellant is residing separately from the respondent due to sufficient reason that, she was harassed and tortured for demand of dowry and also treated as untouchable by respondent and his family members. However, learned Family Judge failed to appreciate material facts of the case in proper perspective and arrived at a wrong conclusion that appellant-wife failed to establish that respondent-husband had withdrawn himself from the conjugal society of appellant-wife. He further submits that learned Family Judge further failed to appreciate that appellant was/is always ready and willing to live with her husband and it is respondent-husband, who is not ready and willing to keep her with him, as is evident from statement of respondent recorded before the Family Court wherein, he has admitted that during conciliation proceeding, he has refused to take appellant wife with him. Respondent has also admitted that maintenance has been awarded in favour of appellant-wife and he is not paying any amount. Furthermore, the respondent-husband has filed a divorce petition under Section 13 (a) of the Act of 1955 to get divorce from appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty alleging that she has flatly denied to discharge her matrimonial obligations, and left his company without any sufficient cause, which was dismissed on 29.07.2025. She next contended that the learned Judge, Family Court erred in 5 observing that appellant failed to disclose exact date on which cause of action arose in her favour. Pleadings made in the application for restitution of conjugal rights explicitly disclose the circumstances leading to the parties living separately and continued deprivation of conjugal companionship to appellant wife. Once the fact of separation and continued withdrawal from the society of spouse is pleaded, mentioning of an exact calendar date is not necessary. Based upon aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity, therefore, needs interference. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-husband opposes submissions of learned counsel for appellant-wife and submits that appellant-wife went away from matrimonial home without any reason. She did not return back to respondent despite best efforts being made, not only by him, but also by his parents to bring her back. He submits that learned Family Judge has rightly recorded finding that appellant-wife has not been able to prove that respondent has ousted her from matrimonial house and he has withdrawn himself from the conjugal society of appellant. There is no error or perversity in the judgment which is passed by learned Family Judge taking into consideration evidence brought on record by the parties, warranting interference by this Court. 6 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Family Court. 8. Before entering into legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and decree, in order to appreciate rival submissions, this Court needs to discuss relevant part of the evidence brought on record by the parties. 9. Appellant-wife in support of her case has exhibited marriage card as Ex.A-1 and photographs of marriage as Article A-1 and A-2. She examined herself as AW-1, Geeta Mahant as AW-2 and Pawan Arya as AW-3. Respondent-husband has not adduced any documentary evidence and only examined himself as NAW-1. 10. Appellant-wife (AW-1) in her evidence on oath has fully supported her case. She has stated that her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 03.03.2019. After some days of marriage, her in-laws and husband started harassing her, not giving food to her and used to say that they have been cheated as black-colour skin girl has come to their house. Respondent and his parents were harboring a sense of untouchability towards her and used to say that till Rs.4,00,000/- is given by her parents, they will not keep her with them. She has further stated that being aggravated and instigated by family members, respondent had filed divorce petition before the Court. She is a responsible lady who loves her husband very much and is willing to lead a life with 7 her husband discharging all her marital obligations. She has further stated that as she wants to lead a married life with her husband, therefore, for the purpose of saving marriage, she has not lodged any report in the police station or domestic violence case against the respondent and his family members. 11. In the cross-examination, appellant-wife has denied the suggestion that after Holi festival, when father of respondent had come to take her back, she and her mother had scolded him and refused to send her back with him. She has denied that her mother has demanded back Rs.15 lakhs incurred in marriage. She has also denied that she used to quarrel with respondent on trivial issues and that she used to say that she does not want to reside there and had asked respondent to divorce her. She has admitted that she was advised in the Family Counseling Centre to take good care of her in-laws. She has admitted that she had submitted an application before the Family Conciliation Centre Janjgir and made a submission that she wants to live separate from the parents of respondent. However, she has clarified that as they were harboring sense of untouchability towards her and refused to eat food cooked by her, therefore, she does not want to reside with them. She has further stated that she has never said that she does not want to live with her husband. She has further denied that she was never subjected to torture, 8 respondent is ready to keep her with him and she, out of her own, is residing in her parental home. 12. Geeta Mahant (AW-2), in her examination-in-chief, has supported the case of appellant-wife. In the cross- examination, she has stated that it is wrong to say that parents of appellant have said that they will not send their daughter and send the respondent to jail. It is also denied that appellant is residing in her parental home of her own. 13. Pawan Arya (AW-3), in his examination-in-chief, has supported the case of appellant-wife. In cross-examination, he has stated verbatim the same as that of AW-2. 14. Respondent-husband has examined himself as NAW-1. In the examination-in-chief, which was submitted in the shape of an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, respondent has admitted the fact of marriage between the parties, but stated that after coming to matrimonial home, appellant was not doing any household work, she used to insult him and her parents by flaunting financial status and political connections of her parents. Appellant used to pressurize him to leave his parents and live separately with her and upon refusal by him, appellant used to misbehave and abuse his parents. Parents of appellant were interfering too much in the family life of respondent and appellant and his mother-in-law used to pressurize him to live with them as Ghar Jamai. He has further deposed that appellant had voluntarily left her 9 matrimonial home and had not returned till date. She is residing in her parental home voluntarily. He made repeated efforts to bring her back but she did not come. In order to harass him and his parents, she has filed the maintenance proceeding. In the cross-examination, respondent has admitted that divorce case filed by him in the Court at Korba has been transferred to Court at Janjgir. He has sought divorce from the appellant-wife. He has admitted that in the counseling proceeding during pendency of divorce petition, he had denied to take the appellant-wife with him. 15. From the above evidence of the parties it is clear that parties are legally married husband and wife; they are living separately at present. Appellant wife is still willing to go back to the respondent husband, live with him and she had never any intention to put an end to cohabitation. Respondent husband is also ready to take back appellant-wife to his home provided she is ready to live with his parents. Meaning thereby, the husband-wife are willing to not only maintain relationship but also return to resume cohabitation. 16. During pendency of this appeal, learned counsel for appellant has filed copy of judgment and decree dated 29.7.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Family Judge, Family Court, Janjgir in Civil Suit No.225A/2023 filed by respondent- husband whereby the respondent-husband divorce petition was dismissed on the ground that neither the ground of 10 cruelty nor the ground of desertion was proved against the wife. In the course of hearing, on being asked by the Court whether any appeal is preferred by respondent against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2025, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent sought breathing time to seek instruction in this regard from respondent and after receiving instruction, he submits that respondent has not put to challenge the aforesaid judgment before higher forum. 17. Perusal of the judgment dated 29.7.2025 would reveal that that the allegations of cruelty and desertion made in divorce petition are almost same as made in the reply to application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. Defence taken by the appellant wife for residing separately from her husband and the grounds on which decree for restitution of conjugal rights sought are substantially same. A bare reading of the entire judgment of the Family Court would disclose that the ground of cruelty and desertion attributed by respondent husband against his wife has been held to be not proved because the learned Family Judge on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties found nothing to hold that the behaviour of the appellant-wife towards respondent husband was cruel, justifying a decree on the ground of cruelty. Similarly, the learned Judge further held that no case of desertion is made out. Therefore, it was concluded that it is not proved from the evidence adduced by husband that the 11 wife had deserted the husband since the year 2019 with intent to deprive him of conjugal rights. 18. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect, it would be apt to discuss the object and scope of decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Concept of restitution of conjugal rights in India has its origins in the traditional Hindu law, which recognized importance of maintaining sanctity of marriage and preserving unity of the family. This right is thus not merely creature of the statute, it is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself. This concept was codified in the Act of 1955 under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. It is often regarded as a matrimonial remedy, which is a positive remedy that requires both parties to the marriage to live together and cohabit. Section 9 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:- "9. Restitution of conjugal rights- When either the husband or the wife has without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, 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, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. [Explanation.--Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.]” 12 19. In the matter of Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh Choudhry [AIR 1984 DELHI 66], the Delhi High Court while eloquently explaining the objective of Section 9, has explained the role of court while deciding an application of restitution of conjugal rights and held as follows:- “The leading idea of section 9, to my mind, is to preserve the marriage. The outstanding fact is that the husband and wife are living apart and leading their own separate lives. The court seeks to enquire into this separation. The inquiry into the affairs of the matrimonial life is to be confined to this one fact "Is there a just cause for the respondent to live apart and separate from the petitioning spouse?" Further delving into their matrimonial life is not necessary. If there is no rupture of marital relations and the parties are living together in the ordinary way of man and wife there is no need to resort to section 9 of the Act. Section 9 is a means of saving the marriage. It can be that the erring spouse comes on the right path and a broken home is rebuilt. Section 9 in a sense is an extension of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 23 of the Act which encourage reconciliation by the court. The court is enjoined to make every endeavor to bring about a reconciliation between the parties. A Section 9 is a concrete illustration of this. What the court seeks to do is to enquire into the causes which have led to the rupture of the marital relations and a refusal to share the matrimonial life. If there is no reasonable excuse for living apart the court orders the withdrawing party to live together. It is the policy of the Act that the parties should live together. Living apart is the very antithesis of living together as society is the antithesis 13 of separation. The policy of the Act is to assist in the maintenance of marriages other than those reduced to a mere shell. Where there is a complete cessation of cohabitation and the parties are living apart section 9 can properly be invoked. This state of affairs is normally brought about by one spouse leaving the matrimonial home, so that they are no longer living under the same roof. They are living in a state of separation. They are living as two units rather than one. Two separate households are created. So they are treated as living apart unless they are living with each other in the same matrimonial home.” 20. Thus, it is manifest that while adjudicating a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the Courts must be guided by the legislative intention underlying Section 9, that remedy of restitution of conjugal rights has been enacted with avowed object of promoting reconciliation between the spouses and preventing breakdown of marriage on account of temporary estrangement or misunderstandings. The Court is expected to examine overall conduct of the parties, possibility of resumption of cohabitation and genuine willingness of the spouses to discharge their matrimonial obligation. Consequently, unless there exists a just, reasonable and legally sustainable ground for withdrawal from the society of the spouse, the Court should lean in favor of reconciliation and restoration of conjugal rights rather than allowing hyper- technical objections relating to pleadings or procedural irregularities. 14 21. Now let us see whether the learned Judge, Family Court was justified in rejecting appellant-wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights. 22. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree would show that, upon consideration of the material available on record, the learned Family Court held that the appellant- wife had failed to establish that the respondent-husband had withdrawn from her society without reasonable excuse and, consequently, dismissed her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned Family Judge observed that the appellant had neither pleaded the date or period when the respondent allegedly withdrew from her society nor disclosed when the cause of action for seeking restitution of conjugal rights arose. It was further observed that the explanation furnished by the appellant during the mediation proceedings before the Family Settlement Centre, Janjgir, regarding her inability to reside with the respondent's parents, was not pleaded in the petition. Though it is evident from the pleadings and evidence of the appellant that she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home due to the conduct of the respondent and his family members. However, the impugned judgment does not contain any discussion as to whether the husband had withdrawn from the society of the respondent without reasonable excuse or whether she 15 was compelled to live separately on account of the circumstances alleged by her. 23. Undoubtedly, it is the discretion of the Court whether or not based on the facts and circumstances of the case to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. However, while dealing with the proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute, overall factual position is required to be taken into consideration and, thereafter, attempt has to be made to find out the truth. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a pragmatic approach and before granting or refusing any decree for restitution of conjugal rights, conduct of parties to the proceedings is to be taken into account by the Court i.e. bona fide desire to resume matrimonial cohabitation and to render the rights and duties of matrimonial rights. 24. From the pleadings and evidence of appellant-wife, as discussed above, it is appearing that appellant-wife is aggrieved because she was being maltreated by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. She has stated that she was being maltreated by respondent and his parents. They continuously harassed her with colourist remark regarding her dark complexion, demand of money and treated appellant-wife and her parents as untouchable and thereby, she had been compelled to leave the house of respondent husband and reside in her parental home. It is further case of appellant that her in-laws have played active role in bringing 16 marital disharmony between appellant and respondent. Respondent-husband was guided by his parents who instigated him to take divorce from appellant. In order to save her marriage, she did not lodge FIR or complaint case against her husband and in-laws for the torture and harassment committed upon her. However, she has explicitly stated that she is ready and willing to live with her husband, lead a happy married life for ever. Thus, it does not appear that the appellant/ wife is not willing to live with respondent-husband or wants to repudiate permanently her relationship with the respondent/ husband. Rather from the aforementioned circumstances, coupled with the fact that divorce petition filed by respondent husband against appellant-wife on the ground of cruelty was dismissed by the Family Court holding that respondent husband failed to prove ground of cruelty or desertion against appellant-wife, her conduct of living separately from her husband-respondent, it cannot be said to be unreasonable or without any proper cause. 25. In case of Suman Singh vs Sanjay Singh, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 85, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the application filed by husband for dissolution of marriage and application filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights by wife, has concluded that husband failed to prove his case of cruelty, set aside the judgment and decree passed in favour of husband under 17 Section 13 of the Act of 1955 and allowed application filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 filed by wife. Relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced herein below: 24. In our considered view, as it appears to us from perusal of the evidence that it is the respondent who withdrew from the appellant's company without there being any reasonable cause to do so. Now that we have held on facts that the respondent failed to make out any case of cruelty against the appellant, it is clear to us that it was the respondent who withdrew from the company of the appellant without reasonable cause and not the vice versa. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment [Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2138 : (2013) 136 DRJ 107] is set aside. As a result, the petition filed by the respondent (husband) under Section 13(1) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage is dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the marriage between the parties is held to subsist whereas the petition filed by the appellant against the respondent under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights is allowed. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is, accordingly, passed against the respondent. 26. We hope and trust that the parties would now realise their duties and obligations against each other as also would realise their joint obligations as mother and father towards their grown up daughters. Both should, therefore, give a quiet burial to their past deeds/acts and bitter experiences and start living together and see that their daughters are well 18 settled in their respective lives. Such reunion, we feel, would be in the interest of all family members in the long run and will bring peace, harmony and happiness. We find that the respondent is working as a "Caretaker" in the Government Department (see Para 4 of his petition). He must, therefore, be the "Caretaker" of his own family that being his first obligation and at the same time attend to his government duties to maintain his family.” 26. Further, from the pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of respondent husband it appears that appellant-wife was pressuring him to leave his parents and live separately, but respondent-husband being only son preferred living with his parents rather than with appellant-wife. The respondent/ husband may be well intentioned in doing so. However, from the allegations and counter allegations levelled by appellant and respondent against each other, as is evident from the pleadings and evidence of both the parties, we do not see any serious uncompromising problem in this case. There are small disputes and differences between them which can be wiped-out/ resolved with their sincere efforts and mutual understanding. 27. That apart, primary consideration in the proceeding arising out of a matrimonial relationship must be whether there exists a genuine possibility of resumption of cohabitation and whether the spouse against whom the relief is sought is willing to resume matrimonial life. Deprivation of either spouse 19 of the conjugal company of the other is as much common in the one sex as in the other and is due frequently to trivial as well as grave reasons. In the interest of the institution of marriage on which depends the stability of any civilized society, some safeguards should be provided against too hasty separations and remedies made available for rapprochement and reconciliation. In case at hand, when respondent has also expressed his willingness to resume cohabitation if appellant is ready to reside with his parents, the learned Family Court was required to adjudicate the application for restitution of conjugal rights adopting a pragmatic and reconciliation oriented approach and ought not to have decided the same by applying rigid standards of pleadings. The learned Family Judge ought to have considered the conduct of the parties in a realistic manner to ascertain whether restoration of conjugal rights is feasible, instead of dismissing the application on hyper-technical grounds. Learned Family Judge, by dismissing application for restitution of conjugal rights on hyper-technical flaws i.e. by applying principle of rigid pleadings, has acted contrary to the statutory mandate of Section 9 of the Act of 1955, which is to facilitate restoration of cohabitation between the parties wherever possible. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, rejection of application for restitution of conjugal rights only on 20 the ground of deficiencies in pleadings, is not sustainable and the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered. 28. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree are set aside and application of appellant-wife for restitution of conjugal rights is allowed and decreed. Respondent is directed to resume the conjugal life with appellant. 29. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-