The normal rule is that the wife should reside with her husband Vuyyuru Pothuraju v. Radha, AIR 1965 AP 407. The husband can successfully sue for restitution of conjugal rights if the wife withdraws herself from his society without reasonable cause. If the wife has reasonable cause to withdraw herself from her husband’s society she would be entitled to maintenance and separate residence. This is clear from s. 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (See notes under that section).
In Satyanarayana v. Veeramani, AIR 1981 AP 123, A sues his wife В for restitution of conjugal rights. В resisted the suit on the ground that A had deserted her and so she was obliged to live separately and that as she obtained an order for maintenance A has brought the suit as a counter blast to her maintenance claim.
Image Source: farm5.static.flickr.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It was held that every ground set out in s. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 on which a Hindu wife can live separately from her husband and still be eligible for maintenance would be a valid defence to the suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
So desertion is a valid ground to resist the husband’s suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court also pointed out that s. 18 is by no means exhaustive and there may be other grounds also for resisting such a suit.
Where wife left husband’s house on apprehension of cruel treatment by husband in future, for having secured job not liked by him, it was held, that husband was entitled to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Deepa Sugal v. Dinesh Chandra, AIR 1993 All. 244.