Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT 

19 NOV 1976

CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

Question before the court

Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife.

Facts of the case

The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months.

Contention of the parties

Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 

Wife : Wife in her plea stated that she never à

refused to honour her matrimonial obligation but in present circumstances she is not prepared to resign her job and thus cannot live with her husband at matrimonial home. 

JUDGEMENT 

The Trial Court passes the decree in the favour of Husband. Thus the appeal was made by the wife to Punjab and Haryana High court.

High court observed that in present case only practical possibility is that husband might visit to his wife only on alternative weekends or on holidays as both the places are more than eighty miles apart. 

The issue that arises here is whether the concept of matrimonial home can be whittled down to occasional or weekend meetings at the unilateral desire of the wife to live seperately. 

According to the court, the husband should provide a reasonable and dignified home for living to the wife and wife is not allowed to unreasonably and unilaterally leave the matrimonial home at her desire alone. 

The crucial issue that arise here is the locus of the matrimonial home. The court observed that under Hindu law, the hindu male is obliged to maintain his family including wife and children. He is obliged to take care of his wife for the lifetime irrespective of the fact whether he posses any property or not. Moreover he is also obliged to maintain his parents and his widowed daughter-in-law. It is thus clear that hindu law sometimes impose burdensome obligation over hindu male. 

The wife to the contrary does not in normal circumstances have any such obligations irrespective of her prosperous rich condition. 

Thus the court concluded that the obligations imposed on hindu husband by the law atleast co related to his right to determine the location of the matrimonial home. In other words, as against the right to maintenance to hindu wife, there is a corresponding obligation to live together with the husband in his home. It is clear and unequivocal obligation of the wife to live with his husband and under his roof and protection until there is an exceptional case of marital misconduct. 

Thus in this case the court observed that the unilateral decision of the wife to live seperately is unreasonable and does not fall within the ambit of section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. The husband has waited patiently and it is cruel to him to require him to keep waiting endlessly in suspense. 

Therefore the appeal by the wife was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE 

S. R. Bommai vs. UOI 

Swaraj Garg vs. K. M. Garg