Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the matter of ABC v. XYZ, has held that if the husband fails to take the wife back to the matrimonial home in the absence of a stay on the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, then it would be open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself.

What was then Background of ABC v. XYZ Case?

• The petitioner is the husband, and the respondent is his wife.
• The two get married on 13^th November 2011 and from the wedlock a child is born, now said to be aged 9 years.
• The relationship between the petitioner and the respondent appears to have floundered and the respondent is said to have left the matrimonial house.
• The discard between the two led them to file two petitions, one which is filed by the husband seeking a decree of divorce and the other is filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
• The concerned Court takes both the matrimonial cases together and by its common judgment rejects the petition for divorce filed by the husband on the allows the petition filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
• The concerned Court, on the interim application filed in the execution petition by the respondent invoking Sections 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), allowed the application in part, granting interim maintenance to the wife and the minor child.
• Aggrieved by this, a petition has been filed before the High Court of Karnataka by the petitioner which was later rejected by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that if this Court had granted an interim order of stay of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, then it was open to the learned counsel for the petitioner to urge that contention.
  • Since that has not happened and the husband has not taken the wife to the matrimonial house, it was open to the wife to seek interim maintenance for herself and the kid even at the stage of execution of the decree.
• The Court stated that no fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court in directing payment of interim maintenance.
  • It was further held that the husband cannot escape maintenance merely because he has challenged the order of restitution of conjugal rights before the Court.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Restitution of Conjugal Rights

About:

• The expression restitution of conjugal rights means the restoration of conjugal rights which were enjoyed by the parties previously.
  • Its objective is to protect the sanctity and legality of the institution of marriage.
• Section 9 of the HMA deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. It states that -
  • 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 society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from society.

Case Law:

• In the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of HMA as this section does not violate any fundamental right.

Section 24 of HMA

• Section 24 of the HMA deals with the provision for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.
  • The term "pendente lite" means pending the litigation or during the pendency of the case.
• The said section governs interim maintenance to support livelihood and necessary expenses of any proceeding under HMA in case of insufficient or no independent income.
  • The provision provides a gender-neutral right to apply this remedy to both husbands and wives, as the case may be.
• This Section states that where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.