Jharkhand High Court
Chandan Kumar Saha Aged About 30 Years ... vs Rita Kumari Wife Of Chandan Kumar Saha ... on 21 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 145 of 2023
---------
Chandan Kumar Saha aged about 30 years son of Jai Narayan Saha, resident
of village Dangapara, P.O. and P.S. Hiranpur, District-Pakur, Jharkhand
... ... Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
Rita Kumari wife of Chandan Kumar Saha and D/o Shiv Kumar Saha,
resident of village Baliyapatra, P.O.Rolagram, P.S. Maheshpur, District-
Pakur, Jharkhand .... Defendant/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Md.Yasir Arafat, Advocate
Mr.Ranjan Kr. Ravidas, Advocate
-----------
st
11/Dated: 21 July, 2025
Per; Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is
directed against the order/judgment dated 31.05.2023 (decree signed on
05.06.2023) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in
Original Suit No. 154 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed
by the plaintiff/appellant-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 (herein referred as Act of 1955) for restitution of conjugal right
against the defendant/respondent-wife, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the restitution petition by the
appellant-husband, needs to be referred herein as under:
The defendant is legally wedded wife of the plaintiff (appellant
herein) and their marriage was solemnized on 6 March, 2018 according to
the customs and rituals of Hindu marriage and only for month or two she
lived at the house of the plaintiff peacefully thereafter without assigning any
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
reason, she has left the house of the plaintiff, even without giving any
information to them Naturally being the husband he looked for her in the
vicinity but did not find her, then went to his in-laws house and found her
there and then brought her back to their house. After this incident several
times the defendant fled away from the house of the plaintiff and each and
every time she was brought back by the plaintiff. Even she used to leave the
house of her parents and fled away somewhere The further case of the
plaintiff is that when so ever the plaintiff asked his in-laws of her repeated
habit of leaving their house without any cause the parents of the defendants
always said "She in lunatic you may say an idoit please adjust" and being a
matured person the plaintiff could understand their problem and always took
her to his house but she never changed her habit and to put pressure on her
an agreement paper was executed between them on 23.07.2021 in presence
so many persons including her parents and then brought her to his house.
Thereafter she lived peacefully for four to five months and then again fled
away in the month of December, 2021 and since then she is living at her
parental house. The further case of the plaintiff is that as their marriage is
still subsisting hence being husband he again went to brought her back on
01.12.2022, when she has flatly refused to come back to her in-laws house
and to lead a peaceful conjugal life with the plaintiff and on the next day i.e.
on 02.12.2022 the plaintiff in writing informed the matter to Hiranpur P.S
but they advised him to go to court and the cause of action arose from
01.12.2022 and the defendant (respondent herein) being a married wife of
the plaintiff is bound to honour the duties of married couple with the
plaintiff including co-habitation and it is the right of the plaintiff, which has
been snatched by the defendant intentionally and the plaintiff deserves to get
the followings I). A direction to the defendant to lead a peaceful conjugal
life with the plaintiff. II). A decree in this regard in favour of the plaintiff.
III). Any other relief or reliefs as deemed fit by Court.
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
3. The defendant wife appeared before the court and filed her written statement
on 23.03.2023 mentioning therein that the suit is not maintainable in the
present form and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit and the
pleading of the plaintiff that the cause of action arose on such dated when
the plaintiff/appellant went to take 'Bidai' of the defendant is totally false,
fabricated and imaginary and are strongly denied. It is submitted by the
defendant that the plaintiff has not show any reasonable cause to leave the
defendant in her matrimonial home without any reason and the defendant
never leave her matrimonial home nor her parents said anything to plaintiff.
The further case of the defendant is that the plaintiff and his parents took
signature of the defendant and her parents in a blank sheet of paper to fulfill
their illegal demand and also fulfill their purpose that how she leave their
house and after the marriage of the defendant she took by the plaintiff with
her golden ornaments, articles, vessels, furniture etc. and she lead a happy
conjugal life with the plaintiff till three years exactly but she has no issue till
now and therefore the plaintiff and his parents insulted her saying 'BANJH'
and now and then assaulted her brutally and they illegally demanded of Rs.
2,00,000/- for dowry. Where the defendant tolerated all these torture
thinking her future life but the plaintiff always neglected the defendant. The
further case of the defendant is that due to non-fulfillment of the illegal
demand of the plaintiff, the defendant was brutally assaulted and turned her
out from his house snatching her entire ornaments and articles on 04.01.2022
and thereafter the plaintiff never came to take her back nor his parents and
the defendant finding no way out filed a maintenance case against the
plaintiff (O.M. No. 19/2023) and another FIR also lodged by the defendant
before the police of Maheshpur P.S. Case. No. 8/2023 U/s 498A, 323, 506,
324 of IPC and U/s 3/4 of D.P. Act dated 10.01.2023. The plaintiff has
absolutely no cause of action to file this suit and the plaintiff is not entitled
to get any relief as prayed for in (1), (ii) and (iii) of para 10 of the plaint and
the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost awarded against the plaintiff.
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
4. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect that the learned Family Judge
after institution of the case has issued notice to the respondent-wife and in
person thereto the appearance was made and the wife has filed written
statement refusing to live together with the husband due to circumstances
that she had been brutally assaulted by the husband as also due to his ill
behavior, it is impossible to live together.
5. Learned trial court, in appreciation of the evidences as adduced on behalf of
the parties and particularly considering the factum of the case for which the
complete denial has been made by the respondent-wife not to restitute the
conjugal right, has passed the impugned judgment by dismissing the suit of
the present appellant.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken following grounds in assailing
the impugned judgment:
(i) The appellant-husband is still ready to live together by giving
dignity to the respondent-wife and for that purpose, the application
was filed under section 9 of the Act, 1955 but without taking into
consideration the aforesaid facts, the decree has been passed in the
suit.
(ii) It has been contended that the case although has been instituted
under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and
under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 10.01.2023 but
without any conclusion of the criminal proceeding, learned court has
accepted the version of the respondent-wife that she has been
subjected to assault.
7. Learned court, since, has passed the impugned judgment, it might get to be
decided by the competent court on criminal jurisdiction hence, the impugned
judgment suffers from perversity.
Submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent:
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has taken following
grounds in defending the impugned judgment:-
(i) The impugned judgment suffers from no error. Since, the
respondent-wife has been misbehaved immediately after the
solemnization of marriage for issue of demand of dowry for which the
criminal case has also been instituted being Maheshpur P.S. Case
No.08 of 2023.
(ii) It has been contended that due to no issue having been from their
wedlock, since, she has also insulted by saying 'Banjh' as also she is
subjected to brutal assault and in a such situation, it is quite
impossible for her to live along with her -husband.
(iii) It has been contended that the reason for filing the present
application is that a maintenance case filed under section 125 of
Cr.P.C, in which direction has been passed by the competent court to
make payment of compensation and nothing is being paid and now
arrear has amounted to Rs.4 lakhs to get rid therefrom, the application
has been filed by plaintiff-husband under section 9 of the Act, 1955.
Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment needs,
therefore, no interference.
Analysis
9. The learned family judge has called upon the parties to adduce evidences
which are being referred as under:
P.W. 1 Chandan Kumar Saha has stated in his examination in chief
that the defendant/respondent is his legally married wife and their marriage
was solemnized on 06.03.2018 as per the customs and rituals of Hindu
marriage and since after marriage she had lead a peaceful conjugal life with
him only for months or two, she left his house without assigning any reason
either to him or to his family and she continued the habit time and again.
Every time he went to his in-laws house and brought her back to his house.
At last finding no ways an agreement paper was prepared between his wife
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
and him in presence of her father and his father and witnesses on 23.07.2021
stating clearly therein that without informing him or his family she will not
leave their house and not only this she agreed to honour the marital bondage
with him but she never cared for it. He further stated that just after four to
five months' time she again left his house on 01.12.2022 so finding no he
have informed the matter to P.S also and then filed this suit for restitution of
conjugal right as their marriage is still subsisting and not only this by
making pretext for treatment at Rampurhat fled away from there to the house
of somebody else and the marriage between them was still subsisting.
During cross-examination he stated that he has pass out in B.A in the
year 2022. He went for Bedai of his wife for 3-4 times but he can not say the
date of went of Bedai. His wife has lodged the case of dowry demand and
maintenance for which he did not go for Bedai after lodging case. In the case
of Bedai that was referred to Mediation centre for compromise. There he
told that he want to take Bedai of his wife but his wife told that she will not
go. In the case of dowry demand he assaulted in drunken condition, demand
of money of Rs. 2 lakh and told his wife as Banjh has filed the case. He
cannot say that on 23.07.2021 the agreement paper was prepared before the
court who was written.
P.W. 2 Jai Shiv Yadav is the pradhan of village has stated in his
examination in chief that he is Pradhan of village Darajmath under
panchayat Dangapara, P.S. Hiranpur, District Pakur and he know both the
parties and he was present at the time of their marriage also and the
defendant just lived only for month or two, with the plaintiff as wife, she
without informing her husband i.e plaintiff and her in-laws house has left the
house of her in-laws and plaintiff time and again went to his in-laws house
and brought her back to their house and at last to resolve this matter on
23.07.2021 a panchayati was held in his presence on the request of both the
parties where after consultation in presence of witnesses it has been agreed
to reach on an agreement with condition that the defendant will not leave her
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
in-laws house without getting permission from her husband and in-laws. He
submitted that agreement paper was prepared by one Mohan Lal Bhagat over
a stamp paper of Rs. 25/- only and after preparing that paper it was read out
in front of the villagers and both parties, after listening the same the plaintiff
and defendants have signed over that paper and thereafter it was signed by
all the persons present there including father's of both the parties and he have
also signed over it. It is well conversant with the contents of the agreement
paper and he have also signed over it as one of the witness and later on it
was brought to the Notary who has put his seal and signature over it, this is
that original paper it be marked as exhibit and only after 4 to 5 months the
defendant again left the house of the plaintiff and did not returned till today
without any reason and their marriage is still subsisting and knowingly she
has left the house of the plaintiff.
During cross-examination he stated that he studied in Class-III. He
does not read and write in English. He does not know in which language his
affidavit has been written and in which para what is written he also does not
know. Mohanlal Bhagat has written the Ekrarnama which was submitted by
him and in para 7 signature made by him as a witness and as a writer nobody
has put their signature. He has no relation with Chandan Kr. Sah. He does
not heard anything from Chandan Kr. Sah regarding the same. Не did not
receive any notice from court. The father of Chandan Kumar had taken him
for evidence.
10.The D.Ws. have also adduced their evidences, which are being referred as
under:
D.W.1, Rita Kumari is the defendant herself has stated in her
examination in chief that the plaintiff is her legally married husband and
their marriage has been solemnized on 06.03.2018 as per customs and rituals
of Hindu marriage in presence of guardians and relatives of both the families
and at the time of marriage, she was gifted in different type of golden
ornaments articles which all were taken by her at Sasural and she lived thus
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
a happy conjugal life with the plaintiff in a joint mess peacefully by
entrusting her ornaments and articles to her sas keeping only her ear ring.
She further submitted that she has no issue and thereafter her sas, sasur,
Gotni and her husband (Plaintiff) insulted her saying 'Banjh' abused in filthy
language and now and then assaulted her brutally and they illegally
demanded of Rs. 2,00,000/- for dowry whereas she was tolerated all these
torture and maltreatment thinking her future life but the plaintiff always
neglected her. It further submitted that due to non-fulfillment of their
demand by her parents they brutally assaulted her and turned her out keeping
snatching her ornaments and articles on 04.01.2022 and thereafter neither the
plaintiff nor her any relatives has come to receive her at their house rather
the plaintiff threatened her for dire consequences of her life, if their demand
would not be fulfilled her husband will married elsewhere 2nd time and
finding no way out she have lodged a case against the plaintiff and her in-
laws before the police of Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 08/2023 U/s 498A, 323,
506, 324 of IPC and U/s 3/4 of D.P. Act dated 10.01.2023 which is pending
before the CJM. Pakur for appearance and another case of maintenance
before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in O.M. No.
19/2023 and she is a student of M.A and she want to live with her husband
plaintiff but her husband has taken plea one after another and her husband
neglected her and said before the mediation that her husband will never
accept her.
During cross-examination she stated that if her husband wants to keep
with him then he is ready to go with him and if her husband will keep her
properly then she has no objection. She is living at her Maikey from
04.01.2022 and since then she never went to the house of her husband by
herself and her husband never come to taken Bedai of her. Her husband
taken her to her Maikey for her treatment thereafter from there taken her at
Dumka but she has not remember by which doctor she was treated at Dumka
and paper is available in her husband. The treatment was going about two
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
months and she has no illness for which there is no possibility of fitness.
Thereafter she came with her husband at her sasural in November or
December, 2021. Thereafter she lived at her sasural for two months.
Thereafter on 04.01.2022 her husband assaulted her and drive her out from
the house. She did not give this information before Hiranpur and Maheshpur
police station nor she has filed any case before the court.
D.W. 2 Bipin Kumar Saha is the brother of defendant has stated that
the defendant is his sister and her marriage was solemnized on 06.03.2018 as
per customs and rituals of Hindu marriage in presence of guardians and
relatives of both the families and at the time of marriage, his sister
(defendant) was gifted in different type of golden ornaments and articles
which all were taken by her at sasural and she lived there a happy conjugal
life with the plaintiff in a joint mess peacefully by entrusting her ornaments
and articles to her Sas keeping only her ear ring and his sister (defendant)
has no issue and thereafter her Sas, Sasur, Gotni and her husband / Plaintiff
insulted his sister saying 'BANJH' abused in filthy language and now and
then assaulted her brutally and she illegally demanded of Rs. 2,00,000/-for
dowry whereas his sister was tolerated all these torture and maltreatment
thinking her future life but the plaintiff always neglected his sister. Further
due to non-fulfillment of their demand by his parents they brutally assaulted
his sister and turned out keeping and snatching ornaments and articles on
04.01.2022 and thereafter neither the plaintiff nor any relatives has come to
receive his sister at their house rather the plaintiff threatened his sister for
dire consequences of the life, if their demand would not be fulfilled then his
brother in law will marry elsewhere second time and finding no way out the
defendant has lodged a case against the plaintiff and their in-laws before the
police of Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 08/23 U/s 498A, 323, 506, 324 of IPC
and U/s 3/4 of D.P. Act dated 10.01.2023 which is pending before the CJM,
Pakur for appearance and another case of maintenance before the court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur in O.M. No. 19/2023. Further it is
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
stated that his sister is a student of M.Α and she want to live with her
husband / plaintiff but he has taken plea one after another and he neglected
his sister and he said before the mediation center, Pakur that he will never
accept her.
During cross-examination he stated that there was no talk to take her
which was written in his affidavit. His grandmother has received the notice
of this court. He cannot understand about the notice for which he did not
read it. His husband doing the work of agriculture. His father is well and he
is not facing any trouble of moving. His sister came with him for the
evidence.
11.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the findings
recorded by the learned family judge in impugned judgment. It appears from
the impugned judgment that learned trial court has formulated following six
issues:
(1) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit?
(3) Whether this court has got jurisdiction to try the suit?
(4) Whether Rita Kumari, the wife of plaintiff, has without reasonable
excuse, withdraw herself from the society, of her husband?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitle to a decree for restitution of
conjugal right against his wife Rita Kumari?
(6) Any other relief/reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?
12. The issue Nos.4 and 5, which pertains to the issue of restitution of conjugal
right, have been answered against the appellant-husband.
13.This court, in order to consider as to whether the impugned judgment, in the
light of the discussion made, based upon the material placed on record by
adducing the evidence on behalf of the parties suffer from error?
14.This Court before answering the said issues need to refer the mandate of
section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides:
"When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse,
withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
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.
15.It is evident from the said provision that the right has been conferred to the
parties to file an application for restitution of conjugal right. Prior to filing of
the application by husband under section 9 of the Act, 1955, a FIR has been
instituted by the respondent-wife under sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 324 of
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act being Maheshpur
P.S. Case No.8 of 2023.
16.The case O.M. No.19 of 2023 has also been instituted for maintenance under
section 125 of Cr.P.C, wherein the amount of maintenance has been directed
to be paid but as has been submitted by the respondent-wife that the amount
of maintenance is not being paid and now the said amount has amounted to
be 4 lakhs approximately.
17.The appellant-husband in the backdrop of the aforesaid case has filed the
application under section 9 of the Act, 1955, since, FIR is dated 10.01.2023
and the maintenance case being O.M. No.19 of 2023 has been shown to be
of the year, 2023. The respondent-wife has appeared and specifically
brought to the notice of the Court regarding torture which she has meted at
the end of the appellant-husband which led her instituting the case under
sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.
18.Further, the case has also been instituted for demand of dowry under
Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act along with other sections 498-A, 323, 506 and
324 of Indian Penal Code. It has also come in the evidence of the
respondent-wife that she has been insulted by saying 'Banjh', since, there is
no issue from the wedlock. The respondent-wife has also brought to the
notice by giving evidence that she was brutally assaulted, turned her out by
ornaments and articles of her.
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
19. Learned family judge on the aforesaid backdrop of the testimony as adduced
by the respondent-wife has refused to pass the decree for restitution of
conjugal right in between the parties.
20.The question of legality and propriety are under consideration in the present
appeal. Section 9 of the Act, 1955 provides statutory relief to the spouse, if
the following conditions are satisfied i.e. (i) Withdrawal from the society of
one spouse by the other; (ii) such withdrawal was without any reasonable
cause or excuse; (iii) the court is satisfied as regards truth of the claim made
by spouse; and (vi) there is no legal ground for denying of the relief.
21. The explanation has also been furnished under section 9 of the Act, 1955
which stipulates that where a question arises whether there has been
reasonable excuse for withdrawal from of the society, the burden of proving
reasonable excuse shall be on the person, who has withdrawn from the
society. The appellant-husband has since approached to the court for filing
the suit for restitution of conjugal right and as such in view of the
explanation furnished under section 9 of the Act, 1955, its onus upon the
petitioner to proof that he is not at fault rather the spouse is withdrawing
from society by not maintaining the matrimonial life.
22.The fact about the institution of the criminal case under sections 498A, 506
and 324 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is not in
dispute, irrespective of its result but the facts remains that the respondent
being the wife has instituted the case for physical and mental torture as also
for demand of dowry. The respondent-wife was insulted by calling 'Banjh'
due to having no issue. The respondent-wife in the aforesaid pretext has
completely denied to live along with the husband.
23.This Court, in view of the aforesaid denial and based upon the issue of
torture and demand of dowry cannot be said to that the respondent-wife
herein has withdrawn from society by not living together with the appellant-
husband, rather, it will be said that it is due to the conduct of the appellant-
2025:JHHC:19936-DB
husband, who has compelled his wife to go outside the matrimonial house by
parting ways.
24.This Court, after having discussion on the aforesaid consideration made by
the learned Family Judge and after adverting to the judgement passed by
Family Judge as impugned, has found that the due consideration has been
given on the object of section 9 of the Act, 1955 and its implication and on
consideration of the conduct of the appellant-husband has recorded a finding
that in such background, the respondent-wife is not willing to live together,
she has not withdrawn from the society by parting ways from the appellant,
by recording the finding that nobody can be compelled to live with her
husband situation does not warrant, if the situation is adverse to the interest
of the said party.
25.Considering the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that the
impugned judgment needs no interference.
26. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.
27. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/- A.F.R.
