What did the court say about living separately after marriage?

The court said spouses are expected to live together unless both agree otherwise or there is valid misconduct. Without that, separate residence is not justified.

Does a wife's job allow her to refuse the common home?

No. Employment alone does not waive the husband’s right to a common marital home. Cohabitation remains a core duty unless there is consent or valid cause.

What principle did the court stress about marriage?

Marriage is built on cohabitation and shared life under one roof; it should not be unilaterally broken for convenience.

Kailash Vati v. Ayodhia Prakash (1977) 79 PLR 216

Q: Which legal remedy did the husband use?

He filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to seek reunion and cohabitation.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights Section 9 HMA Matrimonial Home Working Wife

P&H High Court 1977 Single Judge 79 PLR 216 Family Law ~6 min

By Gulzar Hashmi India Published: 31 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

This case explains a simple rule: after marriage, the normal rule is to live together under one roof. A spouse cannot walk away from the common home for convenience. If there is no mutual agreement and no proven misconduct, separate living is not justified.

Here, the wife took a job away from the marital home and chose to stay with her parents. The husband sought Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court supported the husband.

```

Issues

Can a wife choose to live separately without mutual consent or without any misconduct by the husband?
Does the husband lose his right to a shared home by marrying a woman already employed?

Rules

If a spouse, against the other’s wishes, takes up work away from the marital home and unilaterally leaves the common home, it breaks the mutual duty to live together. Section 9 HMA gives a remedy when one spouse leaves without a valid reason.

Facts (Timeline)

View image

Timeline visual for the facts of Kailash Vati v. Ayodhia Prakash

1964: Marriage. Both were village-level teachers—she in Bilga (Phillaur), he in Kot Ise Khan.

Post-marriage: She was transferred to his station. They lived together for about 8–9 months.

Later: She got transferred back to Bilga and stayed with her parents against his wishes.

1971: Except for a brief 3–4 days in September at Moga, they did not cohabit.

Nov 4, 1971: Husband filed a petition under Section 9 HMA for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

Proceedings: Wife said she respected marriage duties but refused to resign and return to the common home.

Trial Court: Decree in the husband’s favour. Wife appealed.

Arguments

Appellant (Wife)

Claims she did not reject marital duties.
Insists on keeping her job; not willing to resign.
Says current situation makes return to home impractical.

Respondent (Husband)

Says she shifted back to Bilga by design and stayed apart.
Seeks reunion through Section 9 HMA.
Asserts right to a shared marital home.

Judgment

View image

The court held that cohabitation and a common roof are central to Hindu marriage. Section 9 HMA exists to restore the shared life when a spouse leaves without a valid reason.

Result: Appeal failed. The decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in favour of the husband was upheld.

Ratio (Core Principle)

A spouse cannot unilaterally end cohabitation for convenience (like a distant job). Without mutual consent or proven misconduct, living apart defeats the core of marriage and invites relief under Section 9.

Why It Matters

Clarifies that employment alone is not a ground to deny the shared home.
Reaffirms Section 9 HMA as a remedy to protect the shared life of marriage.
Guides couples on balancing career choices with marital duties.

Key Takeaways

Common home is the default rule after marriage.
Separate living needs consent or valid cause (e.g., misconduct).
Job location alone does not justify breaking cohabitation.
Section 9 HMA can restore cohabitation when one spouse leaves without cause.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “HOME First” — Husband’s right to shared Occupation, Mutual consent needed, Employment not enough.

Ask: Is there consent or misconduct?
Check: Why is cohabitation broken?
Apply: Section 9 HMA if no valid reason.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Can a wife live separately without consent/misconduct? Does marriage to a working woman waive the husband’s right to a common home?
Rule	Mutual duty to cohabit; unilateral withdrawal without valid cause breaches marital obligations. Section 9 HMA provides restitution.
Application	Wife moved back to parental home for job reasons, not due to misconduct or consent. Cohabitation was broken without lawful justification.
Conclusion	Husband entitled to decree; employment alone does not defeat the right to a shared home.

Glossary

Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Court order asking a spouse to return to the common home and resume marital life.
Cohabitation: Living together as spouses under one roof and sharing a common household.
Matrimonial Home: The common residence chosen by the spouses for their shared life.