Krishna, a Hindu male, works with Infosys at Chandigarh while Seema, a Hindu female...Decide..provisions of Hindu Law.
Find the answer to Hindu Law only on Legal Bites.
Question: Krishna, a Hindu male, works with Infosys at Chandigarh while Seema, a Hindu female, works as an HR executive at Tata Motors, Jaipur. After being in relationship for few years, they enter into a pre-nuptial agreement. Finally, they get married as per Hindu traditions and customs. One of the terms of the agreements stated:That both of them shall continue with their present jobs and join each other during holidays whenever possible.However, immediately after marriage, Krishna...
Question: Krishna, a Hindu male, works with Infosys at Chandigarh while Seema, a Hindu female, works as an HR executive at Tata Motors, Jaipur. After being in relationship for few years, they enter into a pre-nuptial agreement. Finally, they get married as per Hindu traditions and customs. One of the terms of the agreements stated:
That both of them shall continue with their present jobs and join each other during holidays whenever possible.
However, immediately after marriage, Krishna starts forcing Seema to leave her job and join him at Chandigarh permanently. Seema does not agree to this and tells him that this is violation of the agreement between them. Krishna files a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against Seema. Decide with reference to the relevant case law and provisions of Hindu Law. [HPJS 2019]
Find the answer to Hindu Law only on Legal Bites. [Krishna, a Hindu male, works with Infosys at Chandigarh while Seema, a Hindu female.......Decide with reference to the relevant case law and provisions of Hindu Law.]
Answer
In the given case, Krishna and Seema, both Hindus by religion, entered into a pre-nuptial agreement prior to their marriage. The agreement clearly stated that both parties would continue with their respective employment—Krishna in Chandigarh and Seema in Jaipur—and would meet during holidays whenever possible. Despite this mutual understanding, Krishna, immediately after the marriage, began pressuring Seema to quit her job and permanently relocate to Chandigarh. Upon her refusal, Krishna filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Under Section 9, if either spouse withdraws from the society of the other without a reasonable excuse, the aggrieved party may seek restitution. However, for such a petition to succeed, it must be shown that there was an unjustified withdrawal from cohabitation. In the present case, Seema's refusal to move to Chandigarh does not amount to such withdrawal, as her conduct is based on a pre-marital mutual agreement, which Krishna voluntarily entered into.
The courts have, in similar instances, upheld the autonomy and reasonable choices of spouses. In Sarabjit Singh v. Harvinder Kaur (AIR 1984 P&H 234), it was held that a wife’s decision to stay at her place of employment cannot be considered as desertion or unjustified withdrawal from the husband’s society, especially if there was no agreement or expectation to the contrary. Similarly, in Hira Lal v. Tej Kaur (AIR 1992 P&H 191), the court emphasized that a spouse cannot be compelled to sacrifice their career, especially when it was mutually agreed upon.
Thus, Krishna’s act of demanding Seema to breach the agreed terms and relocate constitutes a violation of the pre-nuptial understanding. Seema’s refusal is backed by a valid and reasonable excuse, and hence, Krishna is not entitled to restitution. The petition is likely to fail on the ground that there was no wrongful withdrawal on part of Seema.
Mayank Shekhar
Mayank is an alumnus of the prestigious Faculty of Law, Delhi University. Under his leadership, Legal Bites has been researching and developing resources through blogging, educational resources, competitions, and seminars.