AIR 1978 Delhi 296, 14 (1978) DLT 18 b, 1978 RLR 525
It is a case of Restitution of Conjugal Rights which fall under the section 9 of HMA 1955. The wife was working as a headmistress in government school in Punjab. At the time of her marriage, she had been working for sometimes as a teacher. The husband was well qualified but he did not had satisfactory job and not even his own house. The parties did not discuss before marriage neither after marriage to have their matrimonial home. The wife even after the marriage continued to live at the place of her posting although she came twice to Delhi for very short period to live with her husband.
The fact of this case is the husband asked the wife to resign the job which she refused. The husband filed a petition against the wife on the ground of Restitution of Conjugal Rights on the ground that wife has withdrawn from his society without a reasonable cause.
When the husband and wife are both gainfully employed at two different places from before their marriage where will be the matrimonial home after marriage?
In this case court held that the location of the matrimonial home is to be determined by the husband and wife are based on common convenience and benefit of the parties. Court prefer a case Dunn v Dunn in this case Lord Denning. J. give a statement “It is not preposition of law…It is simple a proposition of ordinary good sense arising from the fact that the husband is usually the wage earner and has to live near the work”
The judgement was given in the favour of defendant. The conduct of the husband was to frighten his wife for joining him. The husband has failed to prove the ground for awarding him restitution of conjugal rights.