Jharkhand High Court Upholds Dismissal of Husband's Plea, Notes Evolution of 'Ardhangini' Concept
The Jharkhand High Court has made a significant observation while upholding a family court's order that dismissed a husband's plea for restitution of conjugal rights. The court stated that the orthodox concept of a Hindu wife as dharmpatni or ardhangini, which traditionally expected her to follow her husband and be in his company always as part of his own body, has undergone a revolutionary change.
Court's Landmark Ruling on Marriage Equality
A bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai emphasized that as marriage partners, no partner can claim a better or superior right over the other. The court noted that restitution of conjugal rights does not imply it is solely the wife's responsibility to silently follow the husband. Instead, it is a joint duty of both spouses to find a suitable path to maintain their relationship.
The bench elaborated: "It is true that the orthodox concept of the Hindu wife is that she is expected to be Dharmpatni, Ardhangini, Bharya or Anugamini. This orthodox concept of wife and expectations from her to subject herself to husband's wishes has undergone a revolutionary change with education and high literacy in women and with recognition of equal rights to women in the constitution and abolition of sex distinction in all walks of life."
Background of the Case
The husband had approached the family court alleging that his wife began living separately a few days after marriage. He claimed she resided with her elder sister and family members as she worked as a teacher. The husband further alleged that his wife left his house without informing him, taking ornaments and other items, and pressured him to live as a "ghar jamai" (live-in son-in-law), which he refused. Following this, the wife sought divorce, prompting the husband to file for restitution of conjugal rights.
The wife contested these allegations, asserting she faced harassment and dowry demands from the husband and his family. The family court dismissed the husband's plea, a decision now affirmed by the High Court.
Court's Emphasis on Dual-Career Couples
The High Court addressed whether a husband has an absolute right to insist that his wife leave her job and live with him as a dependent solely to fulfill marital obligations. Similarly, it considered if a wife can insist that her husband accommodate her career demands. The court noted that such issues are increasingly common among modern couples, as many educated partners pursue their own careers and wish to continue them throughout married life.
The order stated: "It is true that married life means joint living of the parties to the marriage for mutual conjugal happiness and sexual life. But where both the parties to the marriage employed in service or engaged in profession or vocation of their choice, the nature of their married life is and should be such as permitted by the nature of their employments or avocations."
Key Findings and Implications
The court found that the wife's insistence on continuing her teaching career while adjusting her marital life is not unreasonable. It highlighted that this is not a case where the family court's findings lack evidence; rather, the order was based on a thorough deliberation of factual aspects. The ruling underscores that dual-career couples cannot be forced to choose between profession and marriage, reinforcing principles of equality and mutual respect in marital relationships.
This decision marks a progressive step in Indian jurisprudence, aligning with constitutional values of gender equality and the evolving societal norms where women's education and career aspirations are recognized as integral to modern marriages.
