The Gujarat High Court recently refused to grant a decree of restitution of conjugal rights to a woman who had filed for reunion with her estranged husband, citing her own conduct—including a suicide attempt and public defamation—as sufficient grounds for the husband’s withdrawal from the marriage.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker upheld the decisions of both the trial and appellate courts, which had dismissed the woman’s plea under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The court ruled that the conduct of the petitioner amounted to mental cruelty, and her appeal raised no substantial question of law.
The petitioner, who married the respondent in February 2017, alleged that her husband withdrew from the marriage without reasonable cause and denied her access to their shared home.
She sought a decree compelling him to resume marital relations. However, the trial court found—and the high court agreed—that her own actions undermined her claim.
Key among those actions was her admitted attempt to commit suicide shortly after the marriage, which the court held was not merely a personal crisis but an act that inflicted emotional trauma on the husband.
The court also took note of her printing and distributing posters claiming the respondent was missing—a move the judge described as public defamation that would have caused deep mental anguish.
Court said, “Cruelty in the nature of suicide attempts is something which cannot be loosely be argued to have been condoned in any manner”
It further emphasised that mental cruelty arising from suicide attempts cannot fall into the same category as any other alleged mental cruelty.
Citing Supreme Court precedents including Narendra v. K. Meena and Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple, the Gujarat High Court noted that repeated suicide threats or attempts constitute mental cruelty, and no spouse can be expected to continue cohabiting under such psychological pressure.
Marriage is a bond that must be nurtured with compassion and understanding. But when it turns into a theatre of coercion, self-harm, and defamation, the law cannot force one party to stay bound, the court observed.
The petitioner had argued that the burden of proof lay on the husband to establish “reasonable excuse” for withdrawal. But the high court held that her own admissions—including in cross-examination—were enough to discharge that burden. It added that restitution is a discretionary remedy, and courts must weigh the equitable consequences of forcing unwilling spouses back together.
Accordingly, court dismissed the appeal finding it without any substance and devoid of merit.
Case No.: R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 482 of 2024
