Unchallenged Testimony Proves Reasonable Excuse Under HMA Section 9: Punjab and Haryana HC

Failure to cross-examine a spouse on allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment leaves their testimony unimpeached, effectively establishing a valid defense against restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court set aside a lower court decree after finding that the husband failed to challenge the wife's evidence regarding harassment and non-maintenance.

A bench of Justice Alka Sarin and Justice Neerja K. Kalson allowed the appeal filed by the wife challenging a decree passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal.

Court's Analysis on Restitution and Cross-Examination

The High Court carefully evaluated the statutory framework under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alongside evidentiary principles governing cross-examination. Reiteration was made regarding the necessity of confronting a witness to impeach their credibility under Section 138 and Section 146 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility."

Highlighting the failure of the husband to cross-examine the wife on specific assertions of ill-treatment, beatings, and neglect, the Court observed: "In the cross-examination not a single suggestion was put regarding ill-treatment, beatings and harassment which were meted out to the appellant-wife as alleged by her. The respondent-husband totally failed to cross-examine the appellant-wife on any of the said issues as stated by her in her affidavit... In view of the above law and in the absence of any cross-examination, it cannot be said that the appellant-wife herein failed to discharge the onus cast upon her."

The Court has following directions:

"In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal are set aside. The petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the HMA Act stands dismissed."

Background

The parties were married on December 4, 1988, and had two children. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the wife had intentionally withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause and subjected his family to disrespect.

In response, the wife asserted that the petition was a counterblast to her maintenance application filed under Section 125 of the CrPC. She detailed instances of harassment, demands for gold bangles, physical violence, and abandonment by the husband, which compelled her to live separately with her children.

The trial court decreed the petition in favor of the husband, directing the wife to join his company. On appeal, the High Court relied on principles laid down in Laxmibai (Dead) thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) thr. LRs. & Ors. ( "2013 (4) SCC 97": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 179) to hold that unchallenged evidence must be relied upon. Since the husband failed to cross-examine her on the specifics of cruelty, the High Court held that she had reasonable excuse to live separately, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the restitution petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: FAO-M-135-2019 (O&M)
Case Title: Madhu Sharma v. Pawan Kumar Sharma
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Gulati, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arvind Galav, Advocate and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 10749