N.R. Radhakrishnan vs N.

Dhanalakshmi on 28 October, 1974

Madras High Court

N.R. Radhakrishnan vs N. Dhanalakshmi on 28 October, 1974
Equivalent citations: AIR 1975 Mad 331, (1975) 1 MLJ 439
Author: Maharajan
Bench: Maharajan
JUDGMENT Maharajan, J.
1. This is an appeal by the husband against the judgment of the second Additional District Judge,
Pondi-cherry, dismissing his petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree
directing the respondent, his wife, to perform conjugal duties by coming and living with the
appellant. At the time of the marriage between the parties, which took place on 29 9-1966 both the
appellant Radhakrish-nan and his wife Dhanalakshmi were gainfully employed. The appellant was a
driver in the State Transport undertaking at Madras, whereas the respondent, who is a trained
teacher, was employed as a school mistress in an elementary school conducted by the Madras
Corporation. In fact, even for four or five years prior to the marriage, the respondent was in the
service of the Corporation as a school mistress. After the marriage, certain trivial misunderstandings
appear to have broken out between the parties, whereupon the appellant expressed to the State
Transport undertaking his willingness to go to Pondicherry, whereupon he was transferred to
Pondicherry. Subsequently, he was transferred to Krishnagiri. It is the complaint of the wife that it is
within the husband's power to get a transfer back to the Madras city and live with her. The main
complaint of the husband is that in spite of his calling upon his wife to resign her job in the
Corporation service and join him at Krishnagiri, she has unreasonably refused to resign her post and
give him her company at Krishnagiri. On the other hand, the wife would contend that it is with a
view to tease her that the husband got out of Madras on his own volition and that in the
circumstances in which she finds herself, it is unsafe for her to resign the job and look up to her
husband for the maintenance of herself and her child. Admittedly, a girl has been begotten by her to
her husband and she is seven years old and is living with her. It is also the respondent's complaint
that her husband used to beat her often whenever she refused to part with her jewels which he used
to demand for the purpose of conversion into cash. In these circumstances, can it be stated that she
is, without reasonable excuse, withdrawing from the society of her husband? It is not as if the
husband is a well-to-do man who can afford to maintain his wife and daughter out ot the meagre
sum of Rs. 200 which he earns as a driver. While it is open to him to get a transfer from Krishnagiri
to Madras, it is not open to the wife to get a transfer from the Madras Corporation service to any
elementary school at Krishnagiri. The only method by which she can give her company to her
husband is by burning her boats -- residing her job--and abandoning herself to the mercies of her
husband. The other method which if the couple are sensible, they can reasonably follow is that each
may visit the other In his or her place at week-ends, and come away after a day's stay at the place of
his or her avocation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, on the strength of the ruling in Vuyyuru Pothuraju v.
Vuyyuru Radha , that it is the bounden duty of a Hindu wife to live with her husband wherever he
may choose to reside and that it is the right of the husband to reauire his wife to live with him and
that courts cannot deprive him of his right except under special circumstances which absolve the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/80053/

N.R. Radhakrishnan vs N. Dhanalakshmi on 28 October, 1974

wife from that duty. In the case before their Lordships the wife was not gainfully employed, whereas
in this case she is. As I observed in Sulochana v. Selva Madhavan, 1974 T. L. N. J. 351"Under pristine Hindu law, a Hindu wife's first duty to her husband is to submit herself obediently
and to remain under his roof and protection. But then legislative enactments like the Hindu
Marriage Act have made considerable inroads upon the unqualified rights that the Hindu husband
previously enjoyed over the wife. The Court cannot in every case when the wife withdraws from the
society of the husband pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against her unless she has
done so without reasonable cause. The withdrawal from the society of the husband may be merely
physical without any intention to shun his company, as in this case, where the wife is gainfully
employed in a place away from the husbands home without the least intention of denying to her
husband her society and company. The withdrawal from the society of the husband may be
psychological as in a case where the wire may five with the husband under the same proof and yet
refuse to perform her marital duties towards him. It is for the court to consider in either case what is
the animus with which the wife ha; withdrawn from the society of the husbanc and whether she has
done so without reasonable cause".
2A. In this case, even in her counter the respondent has said as follows"The petitioner by his opting to go to Pondicherry on transfer from Madras caused deprivation of
the company of the respondent. The respondent in fact never refused to live with the petitioner and
invited him forgetting all his illtreatment arid vices to come and live with her in her house. But it is
the petitioner who is adamant about being in Pondicherry sticking to his same old bad habits."
3. It is, therefore, clear that the respondent is not refusing, much less unreasonably refusing, to give
her wifely company to the appellant. There is, therefore, no legal ground for granting restitution of
conjugal rights, which would necessarily involve the resignation by the respondent of a valuable job
which fetches her Rs. 250 per mensem and without which she and her child may probably be thrown
out to the wolves.
4. The Court below was right in dismissing the husband's petition for restitution. I confirm its order
and dismiss this appeal. Having regard to the relationship between the parties, I refuse to pass any
order as to costs.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/80053/