Case Analysis: Swaraj Garg v. K.M. Garg (1978) | Restitution of Conjugal Rights

This case examines Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is related to the restitution of conjugal rights and explains the legal provision that allows one spouse to seek the return of the other to the marital home after leaving without a valid reason.

Case Title: Swaraj Garg v. K.M. Garg

Court: Delhi High Court

Citation: AIR 1978 Del. 296

Judge: Justice V.S. Deshpande

Date of Judgment: 7th March, 1978

Facts

• Swaraj (wife), who began her career as a teacher in Sunam, District Sangrur, in 1956, was serving as the Headmistress of Government High School when she testified as a witness in 1969.
• The parties got married on 12th July 1964 at Sunam.
• The husband was not doing a satisfactory job, his earnings were not sufficient to fulfill the needs of the family.
• From 1966 to 1967, he worked for M/s. Hastinapur Metals, earning Rs. 50/- per month. His earnings were 600/- per month from September 1967.
• The husband had no house in Delhi of his own.
• The couple never discussed their marital residence location, so the wife stayed in Sunam while the husband moved to Delhi.
• She lived with her husband in Delhi from July 12, 1964, to February 1, 1965, before returning to Sunam.
• The couple still failed to settle on a location for their marital home.
  
• The wife continued living in Sunam after marriage while the husband resided in Delhi. In this case, the husband insisted that the wife should relinquish the job, which she declined.
• Petitioner claimed his wife's estrangement was caused by her parents' desire to support her family financially and their misguided advice to relocate with them.
•  The wife said that a substantial dowry was already taken and she remained deprived of the valuable gifts given by her parents.
• The husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife claiming that she had left his society without reasonable cause.
• Thus, the wife claimed that the husband was abusive and always demanded dowry from her and her parents.

Issues

1. Where would the marital house be after marriage if the husband and wife had separate jobs in different places?
   
2. Whether the wife was solely responsible for leaving her job after marriage to accommodate her husband’s setting of lifestyle?

3. Whether the wife's excuse to withdraw from the husband's society was valid?

Law Applied

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

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.

Judgment

The Court said that the choice of an appropriate location to set up the marital home was left to the couple based on the common convenience and benefit of the parties.

Normally, the husband would be earning more than the wife and, therefore, as a rule, the wife may have to resign her lesser job and join the husband, who would be expected to set up the matrimonial home. But, as Lord Denning L. J. said in Dunn v. Dunn [(1949) PD 98, 103], “it is not a proposition of law. It is simply a proposition of ordinary good sense arising from the fact that the husband is usually the wage earner and has to live near his work. It is not a proposition which applies to all cases”

In the present case, the wife was earning quite well. The husband's behaviour was not good towards his wife. There was no reason for the wife to resign her job.

The appellate court after reviewing the pros and cons of the trial court's opinion concluded:

i) There was no premarital agreement between the parties for the place of residence after marriage. A wife could neither be forced to leave her job nor be compelled to tolerate the ill behaviour of the husband

ii) The husband's intention was only to frighten her wife.

The decision was given in favour of the wife because the husband had failed to prove reasonable grounds for restitution of conjugal rights.

Conclusion

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act permits either partner to seek the restitution of conjugal rights if the other has left without a valid reason. The court decides based on the evidence which must be valid. The decision on where to live as a married couple is made considering mutual convenience and advantages, with no bias towards one partner.