Kailashwati Vs Ayudhiya prakash 1977 C.L.J 109 (P&H)
| Citation | (1977) 79 PLR 216 |
| Date of judgement | 19.11.1996 |
| Court | PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT |
| Case type | Marriage dispute |
| Appellant | Kailahwati |
| Respondent | Ayudhiya prakash |
| Bench | S.S. Sandhawalia, J |
| Referred | Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 |
Keywords
Marriage act
Facts of the case
After getting married on June 29, 1954, the appellant (Smt. Kailashwati) and the respondent (Ayodhia Prakash) lived in their matrimonial home for 8–9 months before the appellant’s employment caused her to be relocated, making it impossible for her to continue living there.
This causes the respondent to demand that the appellant quit her work and move in with them at their marital home. This appeal was motivated by this disagreement.
ISSUES
- Should the husband’s request for relief from loss of conjugal rights be denied for circumstances not covered by section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955?
- Can a woman refuse to remain with her spouse because she has a job that pays well somewhere else?
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
The respondent claimed that he could support himself and his wife substantially with his salary and other sources of income, despite any proof that he was denied his wife’s company and the fulfillment of conjugal rights.
The respondent, on the other hand, is not required to live with the appellant because she was already aware of her employment, and she accepted her as his wife with open eyes. The appellant also argued that the respondent is more likely to grant her husband access because she is aware of her employment.
THE PRINCIPAL OF THE CASE ESTABLISHES
A crucial component of marriage is the matrimonial house, and living together helps spouses understand all of their rights and responsibilities.
The location of the marriage house may be chosen by the husband under two criteria, according to an analysis of the relevant authorities:
- The husband must create a matrimonial home and prove that he can support his wife honorably, comfortably, and with a high level of life in accordance with his means.
- In the matrimonial household, he is claiming society as his wife in good faith and not only to spite her or with any other ill-intentions.
JUDGEMENT
The Trial Court issues a ruling in favor of the Husband. As the two locations are more than 80 miles apart, the high court noted that the only realistic prospect in the current instance is that the husband might visit his wife only on alternate weekends or on vacations. The question that arises in this situation is whether the idea of the marriage house can be reduced to sporadic or weekend gatherings in response to the wife’s unilateral choice to live apart. The woman cannot irrationally and unilaterally leave the marital house at her whim, the court rules, and the husband is required to provide her with a decent and dignified place to live.
The location of the marital house is the key issue at hand. The Hindu male is required by Hindu law to support his family, including his wife and children, the court noted. Whether or not he owns property, he is still obligated to care for his wife for the rest of her life. In addition, he has a responsibility to support his parents and his widowed daughter-in-law. Thus, it is evident that Hindu law can impose onerous obligations on Hindu men. Contrarily, the wife has no such obligations under normal circumstances, regardless of how wealthy and prosperous she is.
Thus, the court found that the wife’s unilateral decision to live separately was unreasonable in this case and did not fall under the purview of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is terrible to make the patient husband wait in suspense for an extended period. As a result, the wife’s appeal was rejected as being without substance.
References
https://legalcasemine.blogspot.com/2020/09/kailash-wati-v-ajodhia-parkash-case.html
https://lawplanet.in/kailashwati-v-ayodhia-parkash-case-summary/
This article is written by Prakriti Mitra of Techno India University, Intern at legal vidhiya.
