SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, January 30: In a significant ruling reinforcing women’s autonomy within marriage, the Jharkhand High Court has held that a wife’s decision to continue her job—particularly a government job—amounts to a reasonable and lawful ground to live separately from her husband. Dismissing a husband’s appeal seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the Court observed that marriage does not extinguish a woman’s right to financial independence or professional dignity.
The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai upheld a Family Court order that had earlier rejected the husband’s plea. The litigation, which began in 2022, finally concluded on January 28, 2026, after nearly four years.
Marriage, Job, and a Breakdown
The dispute involved Jitendra Azad, a contractual medical worker at Sahibganj Sadar Hospital, and his wife Meena Gupta, a government-appointed Sanskrit teacher posted at a +2 high school in Pakur. The couple married in March 2018 at a temple in Barharwa according to Hindu rites.
Soon after the wedding, cracks appeared. The husband alleged that his wife stayed at the matrimonial home only briefly, later insisting that he live as a “ghar jamai”, which he refused. He claimed she left the house without informing him, took her belongings, cut off communication, and concealed her appointment as a government teacher.
Based on these allegations, he approached the Family Court under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights to compel his wife to return.
Wife’s Stand: Pressure, Job, and Dowry Demand
The wife strongly contested the claims, stating that she lived with her husband and his joint family for nearly six months and tried to sustain the marriage. She alleged that during this period, she was subjected to pressure to bring ₹10 lakh from her family to purchase a Scorpio vehicle for her husband’s side business.
ALSO READ: A 37-year dispute ends: Jharkhand HC rules adopted son alone owns Giridih property
When she refused, she said, the pressure escalated—particularly demands that she quit her job. She maintained that she had secured her government appointment after years of effort and could not be forced to abandon her career.
Working in a different city, she argued, was a necessity dictated by her employment, not an act of desertion. Her brother, who testified as a defence witness, corroborated her version of events.
Family Court Finds “Sufficient Cause” to Live Separately
After examining oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court in Pakur concluded that the wife had shown sufficient and reasonable cause for living separately. It found no evidence that she had withdrawn from the marriage without justification and dismissed the husband’s petition in June 2023.
The husband challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that the Family Court had misread evidence and that the findings were perverse.
High Court: Marriage Is a Partnership of Equals
Rejecting the appeal, the High Court made it clear that restitution of conjugal rights cannot become a means of coercion. While the law seeks to preserve marriages, it does not permit forcing a spouse—especially a woman—to surrender her autonomy, career, or dignity.
The Bench noted that modern marriages increasingly involve dual-career partners and that insisting a wife quit her job or relocate solely for the husband’s convenience is unreasonable. Marriage, the Court said, is a partnership of equals, not a relationship of dominance.
Refusal to Quit Job Not Desertion, Says Court
The Court categorically held that the wife’s refusal to leave her government job did not amount to desertion. On the contrary, her decision to remain employed and financially independent constituted a valid reason to live separately.
Finding no legal error or perversity in the Family Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the appeal, bringing the prolonged dispute to an end.
A Message Beyond the Case
The judgment is being viewed as a reaffirmation of women’s rights within marriage and a recognition of changing social realities. It sends a clear message that marriage cannot be preserved by force and companionship cannot be commanded at the cost of personal freedom.
