Mohammedan Law — Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Discretion of Court A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically follow merely because the husband asserts a right under Muslim personal law; the Court must consider whether compelling the wife to return would be inequitable. Paras: 16, 19, 20, 21, 24

A. Mohammedan Law — Restitution of Conjugal Rights — Discretion of Court

A decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically follow merely because the husband asserts a right under Muslim personal law; the Court must consider whether compelling the wife to return would be inequitable.
Paras: 16, 19, 20, 21, 24

B. Muslim Husband — Second Marriage During Pendency of Suit — Effect

Where the Muslim husband contracts a second marriage during the pendency of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, the Court may refuse the decree; such an act may amount to cruelty and renders it inequitable to direct the wife to return.
Paras: 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25

C. Cruelty — Grounds to Refuse Restitution — Evidence of Wife and Relatives

Consistent testimony of the wife (D.W.1) and her paternal aunt (D.W.2), describing physical cruelty, coercion for money, and threats with knife, is credible. A relative’s testimony cannot be rejected merely as “interested”; in matrimonial matters, relatives are best witnesses to events within the home.
Paras: 12, 17, 18

D. Burden of Proof — Husband Seeking Restitution after Taking Second Wife

When the husband has taken a second wife during pendency of the suit, the burden is on the husband to explain that the second marriage did not constitute cruelty to the first wife. In absence of such explanation, cruelty is presumed under modern social conditions.
Paras: 22, 24

E. Conduct of Husband — Guardian O.P., Recovery of Household Articles, Second Marriage

The sequence of events—
(i) filing G.W.O.P.,
(ii) recovery of household articles under Ex.A4 in exchange for custody of minor daughter,
(iii) filing RCR suit, and
(iv) contracting second marriage within four months—
shows lack of bona fides and disentitles the husband to the discretionary relief of restitution.
Paras: 11, 13, 14, 18, 23, 25

F. Law Relied Upon — AIR 1976 Karnataka 200 (Raj Mohammed v. Saseeda Amina Begum)

Relied upon for principle that even under Muslim law, restitution is not a matter of absolute right; if circumstances make cohabitation unsafe or inequitable, the Court must refuse the decree.
Paras: 16, 19, 24

G. Appellate Interference — Lower Appellate Court in Error

The First Appellate Court erred in:
(i) insisting on corroboration of D.W.1’s testimony;
(ii) rejecting D.W.2’s evidence as interested; and
(iii) ignoring material evidence including the husband's admission of second marriage.
Trial Court correctly dismissed the suit; Second Appeal allowed; RCR suit dismissed.
Paras: 6, 12, 17, 26, 27

LEGAL ANALYSIS

1. Nature of the Proceeding

The case is a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, arising out of a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by a Muslim husband under general civil law principles (RCR suits are not statutory under personal law; they derive from equity and the contractual nature of Muslim marriage).

Thus, the High Court’s review is confined to substantial questions of law, specifically regarding:

• Evidentiary treatment by the First Appellate Court,

• Weight given to testimony of wife and her relative, and

• Whether the equitable principles governing RCR were properly applied.

Paras 6, 26 confirm this structure.

2. Core Legal Issue

Although the suit is technically for restitution of conjugal rights, the true legal issue is:

Whether a Muslim husband who has contracted a second marriage during the pendency of the RCR suit, and whose conduct indicates cruelty and lack of bona fides, can seek the equitable relief of restitution against the first wife.

The Court treats RCR not as a matter of statutory entitlement but as an equitable, discretionary remedy.

3. Mohammedan Law Principles Applied

A. Marriage is a contract

Though not expressly restated in this judgment (but present in jurisprudence generally), the High Court implicitly applies the principle that Muslim marriage is a civil contract, and RCR is a remedy for enforcing marital obligations, but subject to equitable limitations.

B. Husband’s Right Not Absolute

The Court repeatedly emphasizes:

• The husband’s right under Muslim law to contract a second marriage does not automatically entitle him to an RCR decree.

• The Court must examine equity, fairness, and the wife’s safety.

See Paras 16, 19, 20, 21, 24.

C. Enforcement subject to conduct

A crucial doctrinal statement appears in Para 20:

The Muslim husband has not treated his wife in accordance with the Holy Quran, hence he has disentitled himself to the decree.

This is extremely important: the Court explicitly brings Islamic ethical obligations into the analysis to judge the husband’s conduct.
Indian courts rarely articulate the standard this clearly.

4. Evidentiary Assessment — Key Turning Point

A. Lower Appellate Court’s Error

The First Appellate Court rejected D.W.2 (wife’s paternal aunt) as an “interested witness”.

The High Court finds this legally incorrect:

• In matrimonial/domestic matters, relatives are often the only persons with direct knowledge of private events.

• The evidence of D.W.2 was consistent, natural, and corroborated D.W.1 (wife).

Paras 17–18 contain the High Court’s reasoning.

B. Credibility of Wife’s Testimony

The Court accepts the wife’s evidence of:

• Physical cruelty,

• Demands for money,

• Threat with a knife,

• Coercion to mortgage her property,

• Severe domestic hostility.

This establishes a reasonable apprehension of harm, making resumption of cohabitation unsafe and inequitable.

Paras 12, 17, 18.

C. Husband’s Admissions

The husband admits in cross-examination:

• He entered a second marriage during pendency of the RCR suit (Para 11),

• He lives with the second wife,

• He took domestic articles and strategically returned a child (Paras 11, 13).

These admissions become fatal.

5. Second Marriage — The Decisive Factor

The Court relies on AIR 1976 Karnataka 200 (Raj Mohammed v. Saseeda Amina Begum), and integrates that reasoning:

If a Muslim husband takes a second wife during the pendency of an RCR suit, the Court may reject the RCR claim as inequitable.

The High Court builds on this to craft a modern equity standard:

• Second marriage during pendency = prima facie cruelty.

• Burden shifts to husband to rebut presumption (Para 22).

• No rebuttal offered → husband disentitled to relief.

In Para 24, the Court states:

There is no law compelling the Court to always grant RCR in favour of a Muslim husband.

This is a critical doctrinal development.

6. Conduct of Husband — Lack of Bona Fides

The overall conduct of the husband is examined as a chain of events:

1. Filed G.W.O.P. for custody (seen as litigation pressure)

2. Took back household articles from wife

3. Returned one child in exchange (Ex.A4)

4. Filed RCR suit

5. Contracted second marriage during pendency

This pattern leads the Court to conclude:

• Husband is not acting in good faith (Paras 14, 18, 23, 25).

• He is disqualified from equitable relief.

Thus, the appeal court’s decree of restitution is reversed.

7. Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principle emerging:

In a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by a Muslim husband, if it is proved that:

1. the husband contracted a second marriage during pendency of the suit,

2. the wife was subjected to cruelty or coercive conduct, and

3. it would be inequitable or unsafe to compel her to return,

the Court must refuse the decree of restitution, irrespective of any personal-law right of the husband.

This ratio is supported by Paras 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25.

8. Relief and Appellate Outcome

• Second Appeal allowed.

• Judgment of the First Appellate Court (granting RCR) set aside.

• Trial Court decree restored → suit for restitution dismissed.
  (Paras 26–27)