'Extremely Coercive': Gujarat High Court Upholds Denial Of Conjugal Rights To Wife After Noting She Attempted Suicide, Defamed Husband

The Gujarat High Court upheld decisions of the trial court and appellate court which denied restitution of conjugal rights to the wife, after noting that she had attempted to commit suicide which amounts to extreme coercive behaviour with an intention to emotionally manipulate and mentally distress the husband.

The court further noted that the wife had also printed "defamatory posters" claiming that the husband was missing observing that this was "public humiliation" which can leave a lasting scar on mental health and emotional stability of the spouse. 

Justice Sanjeev Thaker in his order observed that while deciding a plea for restitution of conjugal rights courts will have to look at surrounding circumstances depending on each case.

"Moreover, while granting a restitution of conjugal rights the Court will also have to take into consideration the conduct of the spouse and the grounds for refusing the restitution of the conjugal rights has to be taken into consideration while deciding the same. In the present case, the Appellant has admitted that she tried to commit suicide. This naturally amounts to an extreme and coercive behaviour with an intention to emotionally manipulate and mentally distress the Respondent". 

The court further observed that in a marriage both individuals are expected to nurture the bond with compassion and patience even when there is disagreement like the present case, where the wife had resorted to self harm by attempting to commit suicide. The court said that this was an act of desperation which often exerts physiological control over the husband. 

"The effect of such behaviour leaves a lasting scar on the mental health and emotional stability of the aggrieved spouse coupled with public humiliation as seen in the present case of printing posters of the husband and such acts cannot be brushed aside as such threats become tools of coercion and forcing the Respondent to remain trapped in the stated of perpetual anxiety and emotional paralysis, as such conduct crosses the boundaries of personal conflict and touches upon the very core of harassment which makes it impossible for husband in the present to continue leading a peaceful and dignified marital life. The attempt to commit suicide itself shows the charge situation in which the parties were residing...As regards the burden of proof of the Respondent, in the present case, there is a clear admission by the Petitioner of attempt to suicide than the same has to be considered and the same would amount to mental cruelty caused to the Respondent(husband) by the Petitioner and therefore no longer can the Respondent carry on such suffering. The attempt on the part of the Petitioner to commit suicide is a harsh circumstance, which naturally becomes a reasonable excuse for the Respondent to withdraw from the society of the Petitioner". 

The trial court and the appellate court had denied relief to the wife in her Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act plea for restitution of conjugal rights against which the wife moved the high court in appeal. The wife claimed that after marriage when she asked to husband to stay with her he did not do so, after which she lodged a complaint; she claimed she was also denied entry into her matrimonial home. The husband meanwhile claimed that the wife tried to commit suicide which she had admitted and also tried to defame him by printing posters claiming he is missing and hence he has a reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the wife.

After perusing the record the high court found the following undisputed facts:

i. The wife has attempted suicide and distributed posters of the Respondent husband alleging that he was missing.

ii. The wife has also raised several disputes and alleged cruelty against the Respondent husband.

The court observed that there was no proof to show that the husband had condoned the act of cruelty of the wife of trying to commit suicide and defaming him by printing the defamatory posters.

"Moreover, cruelty in the nature of suicide attempts is something which cannot be loosely be argued to have been condoned in any manner. Mental cruelty arising from suicide attempts cannot fall in the same bag as any other alleged mental cruelty," the court added. 

The high court thus found that the trial court and appellate court had rightly decided the issue between the parties in the right perspective and as stated above no substantial question of law arises in the wife's appeal. Finding no substance in the wife's appeal the court dismissed the same. 

Case title: X v/s Y

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 75