AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

FAMILY LAW

CASE: FACTS OF KAILASHWATI vs AYODHIA PRAKASH CASE

SUBMITTED BY: DIVYANSHU YADAV

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. Archana Aggarwal

A032170122083

LL. B(HONS)

Section- B SEM -1 2022-2025

FACTS OF KAILASHWATI vs AYODHIA PRAKASH CASE:
  The appellant (Smt. Kailashwati) and the respondent (Ayodhia Prakash) tied a nuptial knot
on 29th 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.