In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court upheld the decisions of the trial and appellate courts, denying a wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The court's decision was based on the wife's admitted attempt to commit suicide and her actions of publicly defaming her husband, which were deemed as extreme coercive behavior intended to emotionally manipulate and mentally distress the husband.
Justice Sanjeev Thaker, presiding over the case, emphasized that while deciding on pleas for restitution of conjugal rights, courts must consider the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties involved. In this case, the wife's admission of attempting suicide was viewed as an act of desperation, exerting psychological control over the husband. The court noted that such behavior leaves a lasting scar on the mental health and emotional stability of the aggrieved spouse.
Furthermore, the wife's act of printing and distributing defamatory posters claiming that her husband was missing was seen as public humiliation. The court observed that such actions cannot be brushed aside, as they become tools of coercion, forcing the respondent to remain trapped in a state of perpetual anxiety and emotional paralysis. This conduct was deemed to cross the boundaries of personal conflict and touch upon the very core of harassment, making it impossible for the husband to continue leading a peaceful and dignified marital life.
The court also highlighted that in a marriage, both individuals are expected to nurture the bond with compassion and patience, even when disagreements arise. However, in this case, the wife's resort to self-harm and public defamation was considered as conduct that undermines the sanctity of the marital relationship. The court concluded that granting restitution of conjugal rights in such circumstances would be inappropriate, as it would subject the husband to further emotional distress and coercion.
This ruling underscores the importance of considering the conduct of parties in matrimonial disputes and reinforces the principle that restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted when one party's behavior amounts to harassment and emotional manipulation. The judgment serves as a precedent in emphasizing the need for mutual respect and emotional well-being in marital relationships, and the courts' role in safeguarding these principles.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.