SMT. SUSHILA BAI VS. PREM NARAYAN RAI
INTRODUCTION
In Hinduism, marriage is considered as such a sacred affair, that it is a customary belief that it is not only bound to this life. This coherent rapport is for the next seven or even more births, thus representing an infinite cord of affection and attachment. As per our ancient scripture Vedas, the universal rituals are: Kanyadana- (kanya- unmarried girl, dana- charity) highest act of charity in which father gives away his daughter to the bridegroom, Malgalsutra- holy necklace tied around the wife’s neck, Panigrahana- in order to depict union, partners voluntarily hold hands near the sanctified fire and ultimately, Phere and Saptapadi- revolving seven times around the holy fire accompanied by taking a vow simultaneously for each round.1 Hence, the nuptials of the said religion has a series of methodologies involving their customs and traditions. These procedures along with the elders’ blessing form a healthy, unbreakable and strong relationship for the rest of their life. It encourages karma, dharma-oriented lifestyle, spirituality, restrained copulation, constrained procreation and merger of families for generations. However, when one of the partners, fail to fulfil his/her part of moral commitment by the virtue of a vague rationale, try to untie these boundless knots of matrimony and the social character of marriage starts fading away, the other partner has every right to seek justice under the provisions of restitution of conjugal right2 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The landmark case of Smt. Sushila Bai Vs. Prem Narayan Rai (1985) represents the same phenomenon.Â
FACTS AND THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The appellant, wife, as per facts provided in the application, got married to the respondent husband on 28th June, 1972 and they were living together. Nevertheless, during this period she was brutally assaulted and mistreated by her husband. Moreover, with a command not to arrive at his place again unless called for, she was abandoned by her husband at her parental residence on 1st May, 1977. Thereafter, her parents sent several letters to the respondent husband to take her back but all these writings were ignored and remained unanswered by him. Therefore, she had to file an application praying for a decree, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of District Judge of Gwalior where the respondent husband admitted their marriage but denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion in his reply.3
During the trial procedure, the wife along with the other three witnesses (including her father Narayan Prasad) were examined, whereas the husband and his mentor/ guruji Satya Prakash Sharma examined themselves. After the scrutiny of recorded evidence, the reason for the incongruity between them became evident. Respondent being a government employee at Bhopal, wanted to keep his wife at Bina along with her parents and sisters as a reason of his destitution and lack of enough space for accommodation. However, she wanted to accompany him, seeking for an affectionate conjugal behaviour and gratification of amativeness. Â
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the respondent has withdrawn from the association of his wife?
The trial court rejected the evidence on the grounds that there was no authenticity in the statement of petitioner’s witnesses as they were close relatives of each other. Meantime, the respondent’s witness seemed to be more credible. Ultimately, it was concluded by the said court that the husband has not deserted the wife and she herself drawn from the matrimonial affinity of her husband.4 The trial Court gave the explanation for giving order in against of the aggrieved party by stating that the person who has been withdrawn from the society has the burden to prove the reasonable excuse behind it.
Hence, under Section 28 of The Hindu Marriage Act, the order given by the District Judge, Gwalior, dated 29th February 1980, was challenged by appellant wife.
REASONING OF THE APPELLATE COURT
Under Section 9 of the aforesaid Act, 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, 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. Therefore, for the restitution of conjugal rights to sustain, it was necessary to establish by the petitioner that the respondent was withdrawn from her society.
However, this Section has merely given an evidence rule, however in reality, spouses are always supposed to live together and if any of them are living at a separate abode, then it is up to him/her to prove the essentials that compelled them to do so. Here in this case, practically, burden has shifted to the person who has withdrawn from the society of the other, to prove the appropriate justification. Thus, in the said case, husband remained unresponsive and has deserted his wife, therefore there was no need for the appellant wife to prove that her husband has withdrawn from her society because from the behaviour of the respondent husband itself, it was prominent that he has withdrawn from her society. 5
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED AND ITS IMPACTÂ
From the respondent’s evidence it was clear that he was now prepared to take her back but has not yet decided whether to keep her in Bhopal or Bina and there was no mala fide intention on his part as he never made any remark that might question her chastity. Even the wife didn’t mention any allegations related to second marriage or the topics related to other women. Therefore, depriving either of the spouse for the conjugal bliss is sometimes basic in one gender and is usually due to minor as well as frivolous causes. The sophisticated society needs a stability which depends on the marriage institutions. Therefore, there should be some security given against a fleeting disassociation and cure must be available for restoration and concession. The nuptial relation in Hinduism imposes an obligation on the husband to protect and care for his wife and children, provide food, shelter and other necessities. On the other hand, wife should be obedient, respectful towards his husband or his elder family members and accompany him wherever he chooses to reside.
It was apparent in the said case that once the respondent kept his wife out, he never ever tried for the rapprochement or to get her back. Moreover, when the family of the appellant wife tried to contact and convince him with the help of letters, he ignored and failed to respond to them. It was also found that the respondent enjoys a rent-free accommodation at his mentor Mr. Satya Prakash’s place and was working as a government employee. Hence, he could easily have provided her with all the basic necessities like- food, shelter and clothing. His indifferent attitude and cold behaviour towards his spouse clearly convince and prove his intention that he has abandoned his wife without any excuse and never wanted to take the effective step towards his marital life responsibility. On the contrary, appellant wife has proved her sincerity and bona-fide desire for cohabitation and resume her matrimonial duties. She only yearns for intimacy, warmth and bed sharing with her husband like any other wife. So, there is no any valid and reasonable ground as to why, wife should leave husband’s side, live alone in this oppressive and tyrant world and become a sponger to her parent’s assets.Â
Hence, the appellant wife deems fit to get the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.6
CRITIQUES
Placement of Section 9 just before Section 10 that deals with the Judicial Separation, represents a lot about the efforts that judiciary make in order to save a marriage. The Court tried the best to restore the marriage with a hope that all the disparities between the couples would get wipe out with time, as divorce can be one of the most tragic moments of someone’s life, leading to the seizure of all their dreams, memories, future events and cooperative parenting. However, laws need to get amended up to a certain extent so that rather than just focusing on the ways to save the marriage by hook or crook, one would focus on the future consequences, mutual agreement between the couples and improvement of lives of the women or children. Moreover, as we have seen in the above case, the interpretation of the same law under Section 9 was made in two different ways and the practical aspect was far different from what it is written, therefore the necessary amended laws should be pari materia to the circumstances and empirical aspect of the society.
CONCLUSION
Marriage, being one of the paramount elements not just in Hinduism, but in every religion, plays a prominent role in governing the society. This institution keeps an eye on the legitimate man-woman relationship, adultery and child birth. It provides care and support of the mother and father equally to the born child. In order to cease a worthy marriage from turning into a divorce, just because of a few misunderstandings and incompatibilities, building comprehensible and transparent laws is a necessity for governing these relations.
-  $additionalnotesforhinduweddingceremonies.doca.ps.pdf, https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/published/c00000503/m00002226/ai00008147/$additionalnotesforhinduweddingceremonies.doca.ps.pdf (last visited Sep 12, 2024) ↩︎
- Â Restitution of Conjugal Right: A Comparative Study Among Indian Personal Laws, https://www.indianbarassociation.org/restitution-of-conjugal-right-a-comparative-study-among-indian-personal-laws/ (last visited Sep 12, 2024).
↩︎ -  Smt. Sushila Bai vs Prem Narayan Rai on 14 March, 1985, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1312783/ (last visited Sep 12, 2024).
↩︎ - Id. ↩︎
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.pdf, https://thc.nic.in/Central%20Governmental%20Acts/Hindu%20Marriage%20Act,%201955.pdf (last visited Sep 12, 2024).
↩︎ -  Restitution of Conjugal Right: A Comparative Study Among Indian Personal Laws, supra note 2 ↩︎