Read Time: 08 minutes

Hearing an appeal filed by a Hindu woman seeking restitution of conjugal rights against her Christian partner of 9 years, the Madras High Court held that mere long cohabitation or living together confers no legal right upon any party to raise a matrimonial dispute.

The Bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice R. Vijayakumar said, "Long cohabitation or living together will not confer upon the parties any legal right to raise a matrimonial dispute before the Family Court, unless their marriage has been solemnized in a manner known to law."

In the instant matter, the woman (appellant herein) had filed a case before the Family court, Coimbatore against the man (respondent herein) for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Divorce Act 1869.

She had alleged that after taking divorce from her first husband who had abandoned her, she got married to the respondent in December 2013 by exchanging rings. She had also alleged that the man had also put on metti (toe ring) in her toes as per the Hindu rituals. 

Further, she had submitted that from May 2016 onwards, the respondent started living away from her without any sufficient cause and hence, she approached the Family Court with the prayer for restitution of conjugal rights, which the lower court rejected. 

Rejecting woman's plea, the Family Court Judge had taken up the issue as to whether there was a valid marriage for filing an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869.

The Judge had decided that as admitted by the woman herself, both the parties belonged to different religions, so there was no valid marriage under any one of the Matrimonial Laws governing the inter-religious marriages.

In its order, the Family Court Judge had given a specific finding that the marriage as alleged by the woman was not a valid marriage, but a void one.

Deciding thus, the Family court had also pointed out that though the woman claimed to be a Hindu and contended that Hindu form of marriage was followed, yet, she had chosen to file an application under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1869, as if, it was a Christian marriage.

Therefore, taking note of all these facts, the High Court observed that the Family Court can entertain an application only when the nature of the suit is as per the explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which provides for a suit or proceeding between the parties ‘to a marriage only’. 

Also, noting that in an earlier litigation of 2017 with regard to business disputes between both, the woman had not referred the man as her husband, the court held that if really the alleged marriage had taken place, the woman would have clearly indicated so in that matter. 

Consequently, the court concluded that the facts of the case would clearly indicate that there was no marriage at all between the two parties and due to some enmity arising out of some money transactions, the woman had filed the present petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

The court, however, observed that the woman had a right to invoke the jurisdiction at the Family Court if she wanted to declare her matrimonial status.

But, “in the present case, she had not sought to declare her matrimonial status, but, she had just sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on the assertion that she was already married the respondent herein,” court said.

Noting thus, the court held that it had no hesitation in concurring with the findings of the Family Court Judge and stated, 

"When the marriage has not been solemnized under any one of the enactments, even assuming that there was long and continuous cohabitation or the parties were living together will not give rise to a cause of action for filing an application for restitution of conjugal rights."

Against this backdrop, the court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without imposing any cost. 

Case Title: R. Kalaiselvi v. Joseph Baby