Kailashwati v Ayodhia Parkash Case Summary 1977

Kailashwati v Ayodhia Parkash case portrays a detailed analysis of the conjugal rights of the husband in the association of wife’s refusal to live with him in the matrimonial home because of her occupation.

CITATION: (1977) 79 PLR 216

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 19.11.1996

BENCH: S.S. Sandhawalia, J

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:

Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

FACTS OF KAILASHWATI vs AYODHIA PRAKASH CASE:

• The appellant (Smt. Kailashwati) and the respondent (Ayodhia Prakash) tied a nuptial knot on 29^th June 1954 and inhabited their matrimonial home for 8-9 months thereafter the appellant in course of her employment was transferred to another location due to which she could not live at her matrimonial home.
• This leads the respondent to want the appellant to leave her job and live with him at their matrimonial residence. This dispute gave rise to this appeal.

LEGAL ISSUES:

1. Whether the relief of restitution of conjugal rights be declined to the husband for reasons not mentioned in section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
2. Whether refusal to live with husband because of gainful employment in another location be a valid justification?

CONTENTIONS:

1. It was contented by the respondent that with his salary and other sources of earnings, he can maintain himself and his wife prominently irrespective of evidence he is denied his wife’s society and satisfaction of conjugal rights.
2. In contrast, it was asserted by the appellant that, the respondent already was aware of the employment of the appellant and with open eyes accepted her as his wife therefore she is under no commitment to live with him and further, she stated she is prone to allow access to her husband as she could keep in mind her employment.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The bench discussed the matter at length, also referred to various foreign judgments and by analyzing them, the bench observed:

1. The matrimonial home is a key element in marriage and all rights and duties of spouses are best comprehended when they live together.
2. After examining various authorities, it was observed that a husband is entitled to determine the locus of the matrimonial home but subjected to two conditions:
   • The husband must establish a matrimonial home and should validate that he can maintain his wife in a dignified manner provide her comfort and good standard of living in consonance with his means. 
   • He is claiming society as his wife in the matrimonial home in good faith and not just to spite her or with any mala fide intentions.
3. After analysing the valid provision of Hindu Law, it was observed that the marital duties of a man include maintaining his wife and children, and a wife must submit herself obediently to her husband under his roof and security.
4. That it does not entitle her to a separate residence unless she satisfied the court that there has been any kind of neglect, misconduct, refusal to maintain by husband.

DECISION: The court furnished that employment is no reasonable ground for withdrawal and such unreasonable withdrawal cannot be an excuse to live individually, away from the matrimonial home and that the appellant should choose between her job and husband. Further stating such, the bench dismissed the appeal.

Found Kailashwati v Ayodhia Parkash Case Summary 1977 useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT