Can Professional Commitments Be a Lawful Justification to Live Apart from a Spouse?

Under Indian matrimonial law, particularly Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is available when one spouse withdraws from the society of the other without a reasonable excuse. However, what qualifies as a “reasonable excuse” has expanded over time to reflect changing societal values, especially concerning women’s employment and autonomy.

A recent decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Jitendra Azad v. Meena Gupta (2026), offers significant clarity on this issue. The Court held that a spouse’s insistence on continuing her profession, even if it results in living separately, can indeed be a lawful justification, provided the decision is reasonable and not driven by malice or desertion.

Legal Framework: Restitution of Conjugal Rights

Section 9 provides that when either spouse withdraws from the society of the other without a reasonable excuse, the aggrieved party may seek restitution of conjugal rights through a court decree. The law is designed not to punish separation but to preserve marital unity wherever possible.

The essential ingredients for granting restitution are:

1. One spouse has withdrawn from the society of the other.
2. The withdrawal is without reasonable excuse.
3. The court is satisfied with the truth of the statements made.
4. There exists no legal ground to deny relief.

The burden of proving “reasonable excuse” lies on the spouse who has withdrawn from cohabitation. Thus, the law recognises that separation is not always wrongful; it may be justified depending on the facts and circumstances.

Case Background: Professional Commitments and Matrimonial Dispute

In the Jharkhand High Court case, the husband filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, alleging that his wife had withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause. The wife, a government school teacher posted in another city, argued that:

• She was committed to her profession.
• She faced pressure from her husband to leave her job.
• There were allegations of dowry demands and harassment.
• She was willing to maintain marital ties but not at the cost of her career.

After examining oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court dismissed the husband’s plea. On appeal, the High Court upheld the dismissal, emphasising that:

• A woman has the right to stand on her own feet financially.
• Professional aspirations are legitimate and cannot be dismissed as unreasonable.
• Matrimonial obligations are mutual, not unilateral.

Judicial Reasoning

1. Concept of Conjugal Rights

The Court clarified that restitution aims to preserve marriage, not enforce dependency or subordination.

2. Modern View of Marriage

The judgment emphasised:

• Marriage is a partnership of equals.
• Employment autonomy cannot be curtailed.
• Both spouses share responsibility for cohabitation.

3. Test of Reasonableness

The Court applied a reasonableness test:

• Both parties worked in different cities.
• Neither could reasonably abandon employment.
• The wife’s insistence on career continuity was not unreasonable.

4. No Perversity in Trial Court Findings

The High Court held the Family Court had properly appreciated evidence and reached a logical conclusion.

Professional Autonomy as a Legal Right

The ruling reinforces that:

1. Right to Profession: Article 19(1)(g) guarantees freedom to practice any profession. Marriage does not extinguish this right.
2. Financial Independence Promotes Equality: The Court recognised that economic self-reliance strengthens dignity and autonomy, especially for women.
3. Mutual Adjustment is Essential: Marriage is a partnership of equals; neither spousecan demand absolute sacrifice from the other.

Key Observations of the Court

The Court made several progressive remarks:

"It is true that the orthodox concept of the Hindu wife is that she is expected to be Dharmpatni, Ardhangini, Bharya or Anugamini. The literal meaning is that she has to follow the husband and be in his company always as a part of his own body. 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. She is a partner in marriage with equal status and equal rights with the husband. A wife is not obligated to sacrifice her career. Restitution is a shared duty, not unilateral obedience.

.................... the wife's insistence to continue with her service and at the same time to adjust her marital life cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable. As we discussed hereinabove, the restitution of conjugal rights does not mean that it is only the responsibility and duty of the wife who must silently follow the husband, rather it is joint duty of both the husband and wife to find the suitable and proper path to carry their relationship."

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s refusal to grant restitution of conjugal rights, holding that:

1. The wife acted reasonably.
2. There was no wrongful desertion.
3. Professional commitments constituted a valid justification.

Conclusion

This decision marks a significant step in Indian matrimonial law. It underscores that restitution of conjugal rights cannot be used as a tool to control a spouse’s professional choices. Instead, the law must reflect equality, autonomy, and mutual respect.

By affirming that career continuity can be a reasonable excuse for separate residence, the Court aligned matrimonial jurisprudence with constitutional values of dignity and freedom.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams