Restitution of Conjugal Rights
A question that has come before the Punjab High Court in Tirath Kaur v. Kirpal Singh involved a husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the averments that his wife had left the matrimonial home for a distant place and taken up a job there. Despite his repeated requests for her to resign from her job and rejoin him in the matrimonial home, she had not cared to do so.

The parties were married in 1953, and the muklawa ceremony took place in 1954. The wife's case, which was substantially established by evidence, was that in 1958, her husband, being in a difficult financial position, requested her to take up some training to enable her to find a job. Since her husband was neither willing nor in a position to bear the cost of her training, she left for her father's house, where she trained in tailoring and succeeded in obtaining a diploma in 1959. Thereafter, she got a job at a place that was some distance from her husband's house.

Regarding this situation, she averred that both parties agreed; her husband used to visit her and stay at her place frequently, and she also visited his house during holidays and vacations whenever she had the opportunity. She further stated that she regularly sent a portion of her salary to her husband and her father-in-law. During this period and until shortly before the filing of the petition, cohabitation continued between the parties. The wife alleged that her husband's demand for money continuously increased, which she was unable to meet, leading to quarrels and his demand that she should resign from her job, which she refused to do.

It was established that conjugal intercourse continued until shortly before the presentation of the petition and that the wife sent money to her husband and father-in-law. The wife maintained in her letters to her husband, in her pleadings, and in her oral deposition:

"I want the marriage to continue, that the petitioner may come to me occasionally, and I may visit him occasionally. But I am not prepared to give up my job at any cost."

Although the wife used the word "occasionally," it was clear from her oral deposition and the tenor of the evidence that she meant she would live with her husband whenever possible (during holidays or on leave), and her husband could do the same.

Tirath Kaur took up the job after six years of married life, and much was made of the husband's financial stringency.

A similar scenario arose in the Madhya Pradesh case, Gaya Prasad v. Bhagwati, wherein the wife averred that due to her husband's adverse financial circumstances, she had to take up the job of a gram sevika with his permission to "carve out a decent living." Once again, the husband demanded that she give up her job and join him. This was more or less the situation in Surinder Kaur v. Gurdeep Singh.

The slight variation in this case was that the wife, who took up employment after the marriage, was initially employed at the place where the parties set up their matrimonial home but later resigned and took another job about one hundred miles away. Furthermore, the wife categorically stated in her deposition that she was unwilling to join her husband under any circumstances or conditions since she feared for her life because of him. It seems that, in this case, the relationship between the parties was strained beyond redemption—a clear case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

A similar story emerged in Praveenaben v. Sureshbhai, where the wife took up a job after marriage with her husband's full consent. The parties were posted at different places; cohabitation occurred as before, with the husband sometimes visiting his wife and vice versa. Ultimately, the husband changed his mind and wanted his wife to resign from her job and join him. Upon her refusal, he filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The facts of the case clearly indicate that the wife took up the job at a location away from her husband's residence with his consent.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073