The Gujarat High Court has upheld the decision of the trial and appellate courts rejecting a wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court cited her attempt to commit suicide and her act of publicly defaming her husband as clear instances of mental cruelty.
The case involved a woman who claimed that her husband had refused to live with her after marriage and had denied her entry into the matrimonial home. In response, the husband presented evidence showing that the wife had not only attempted suicide but had also printed and distributed defamatory posters accusing him of being missing.
Read Also:- Jharkhand High Court: Divorce on Grounds of Desertion Requires Proof of Intention, Not Just Separation
Justice Sanjeev Thaker, who presided over the matter, emphasized that granting conjugal rights must depend on the behavior and conduct of both spouses.
“The appellant admitted that she attempted suicide. This reflects an extreme and coercive act, aimed at emotionally manipulating and mentally distressing the respondent.”
The High Court observed that a marriage should be nurtured with care and patience. However, resorting to self-harm exerts psychological control over the spouse and leads to emotional distress.
“The impact of such actions leaves deep scars on mental health. Publicly humiliating a spouse through defamatory posters adds another layer of cruelty, making it impossible for the other partner to live a peaceful and dignified life.”
The court clarified that suicide attempts, especially when admitted by the person herself, are serious matters and cannot be considered ordinary personal conflicts. The evidence showed that the wife tried to emotionally coerce the husband and create social pressure, which crossed the line into harassment.
“Mental cruelty caused by suicide attempts or public humiliation through posters cannot be treated the same as other domestic issues. These are harsh realities that provide sufficient reason for a spouse to withdraw from the matrimonial relationship.”
The trial court had earlier found no justification to allow the wife’s plea and had dismissed her petition. The appellate court had agreed with that view. The High Court, while reviewing the facts, found no material error in the conclusions of the lower courts.
The court noted that there was no evidence suggesting the husband had forgiven or accepted the acts of cruelty. Instead, the wife’s own admission and the lack of remorse only strengthened the husband’s case.
“Cruelty of such a nature—especially a suicide attempt—is not something that can be easily forgiven or assumed to be condoned,” the court stated.
Concluding the case, the High Court held that the earlier judgments were sound and justified. The wife’s appeal did not raise any valid legal questions or facts warranting interference. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
