Jharkhand High Court Upholds Dismissal of Husband's Petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights

Court Finds Concealment of Previous Marriage and Threat to Respondent's Life Justify Wife's Withdrawal from Matrimonial Home

In a significant judgment, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the decision of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar, dismissing a petition filed by Md. Akil Alam seeking restitution of conjugal rights with his wife, Tumpa Chakravarty, under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The division bench, consisting of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Rajesh Kumar, found that the appellant had concealed his previous marriage and that there was a credible threat to the respondent's life, providing a reasonable excuse for her withdrawal from the matrimonial home.

Md. Akil Alam had approached the family court seeking restitution of conjugal rights, claiming that his wife had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable excuse. However, Tumpa Chakravarty countered that the petitioner had hidden the fact of his previous marriage and was coercing her to transfer property in his favor. She also raised concerns about threats to her life from the petitioner and his first wife.

The family court had dismissed Alam's petition after a thorough examination of the evidence, which included testimonies that confirmed the concealment of the previous marriage and the subsequent threats. Dissatisfied with the decision, Alam filed an appeal in the Jharkhand High Court.

The High Court, after reviewing the submissions and the detailed judgment of the family court, concurred with the findings that the respondent had reasonable grounds to live separately. The court emphasized that the marriage solemnized under the Special Marriage Act is governed by its provisions, which do not allow for multiple marriages if a spouse is still living, regardless of personal laws that may permit polygamy.

The bench further noted that the burden of proving a reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society of the petitioner lies with the respondent, which she successfully established. The court also dismissed claims of perversity in the family court's judgment, stating that the findings were based on evidence and proper appreciation of testimonies.

This judgment highlights the importance of transparency and adherence to statutory provisions in marriages solemnized under the Special Marriage Act, reiterating the legal precedence of statutory law over personal religious laws in such cases.

Bottom Line:

Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Section 22 - Restitution of conjugal rights - Petition filed by husband seeking decree dismissed - Concealment of previous marriage and threat to respondent-wife's life from husband and his first wife deemed reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society of petitioner - Held, marriage solemnized under Special Marriage Act is governed by its provisions and not personal laws.

Statutory provision(s): Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Sections 22, 4; Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(i); Indian Penal Code - Section 494

Md. Akil Alam v. Tumpa Chakravarty, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2793430