What was the core question in Swaraj Garg v. Garg?

If spouses worked in different cities before marriage and had no agreement, who decides the matrimonial home, and did the wife have a reasonable excuse to live away?

How did the Court view the role of custom?

Custom is enforceable only if it is widespread, applies to the parties, and fits modern conditions. Old norms cannot defeat women’s equal status at work.

Did the husband have a legal right to dictate the home?

No. In the absence of an agreement, neither spouse has a one-sided right. The decision must be based on reason and mutual convenience.

Why did the Court accept the wife’s refusal to live in Delhi?

Because of the husband’s financial instability and discouraging conduct, and the wife’s stable job. These gave her a reasonable excuse not to resign and relocate.

Which constitutional value guided the decision?

Article 14 equality. Giving husbands an exclusive power to choose the matrimonial home would be discriminatory.

Swaraj Garg v. Garg (AIR 1978 Delhi 296)

Zero-jargon, classroom-style explainer of a key decision on matrimonial home and reasonable excuse under the Hindu Marriage Act.

High Court of Delhi 1978 Hindu Marriage Act Citation: AIR 1978 Delhi 296 Reading time: 7–9 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Published: Oct 31, 2025 Keywords: matrimonial home, restitution, Article 14

Quick Summary

The spouses worked in different cities before marriage. They never agreed on one home. The husband later asked for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court said there is no automatic rule that the wife must leave her job and shift to the husband’s place. In today’s conditions, both careers matter. Equality under Article 14 backs this view.

Here, the husband’s unstable finances and discouraging conduct gave the wife a reasonable excuse to live apart. The husband’s petition failed at trial, was allowed by a Single Judge, but the final view accepted the wife’s excuse.

Issues

When spouses were already employed in different cities and had no agreement, who decides the matrimonial home after marriage?
Did the wife have a reasonable excuse to withdraw from the husband’s society?

Rules

Mulla’s Hindu Law ¶442: Traditionally, the wife resides with her husband and he maintains her. But custom is binding only if it is widespread, relevant to the parties, and fits modern times.
Modern social reality: With many women in paid work, forcing a working wife to resign only to live with a financially unstable husband is against public welfare.
Article 14 (Equality): Giving the husband an exclusive right to fix the matrimonial home is discriminatory. Decisions must respect equal status.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 9

Facts — Timeline

View Image

Timeline visual of key dates in the case

1956–1969: Wife (Swaraj) teaches at Sunam; later Headmistress.

12 Jul 1964: Marriage at Sunam; no agreement on future home.

1966–1967: Husband’s low-paying job at Hastinapur Metals (₹50 p.m.).

14 Sep 1967: Job at Master Sathe & Kothari (₹600 p.m.), no allowances.

Jul–Aug 1964: Wife stays briefly with husband in Delhi; returns to Sunam.

Oct 1964–Feb 1965: Second brief stay; returns on 2 Feb 1965 and does not come back.

Petition: Husband seeks restitution under Section 9, alleging desertion and pressure from wife’s family; wife alleges cruelty, money demands, dowry extraction, denial of medical care; she shows letters.

Procedural path: Trial Court dismisses husband’s petition; Single Judge allows in appeal; final position supports wife’s reasonable excuse.

Arguments

Appellant (Husband)

Wife left to live with her parents and refused to return.
Alleged her father wanted her salary; she asked for separation from husband’s father.
Sought restitution: she withdrew without reasonable excuse.

Respondent (Wife)

He sent her away; treated her poorly; denied basic rights.
Produced letters showing demands for money and discouraging conduct.
Alleged dowry extraction and denial of medical care during pregnancy.

Judgment

No unilateral power: When there is no prior agreement, neither spouse can dictate the matrimonial home.
Reason and convenience: The home decision must be based on logic and common convenience of both.
Working wife’s right: No law compels a wife to resign from a well-paying job to live with the husband.
Outcome on excuse: Husband’s financial strain and discouraging conduct made the wife’s refusal reasonable. Restitution claim could not succeed.

Bottom line: Equality and modern realities control. Section 9 cannot force an unfair relocation.

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of an agreement, the choice of matrimonial home is a joint, reasoned decision. A working wife need not resign to satisfy a husband’s unilateral demand. Article 14 supports equal say. Where the husband’s finances and conduct discourage cohabitation, the wife has a reasonable excuse to live apart.

Why It Matters

Balances marriage with careers in a modern economy.
Aligns family law with gender equality under Article 14.
Limits misuse of Section 9 to pressure relocation.

Key Takeaways

No spouse has a default veto on where to live.
Customs must fit current social conditions.
Working spouse’s job stability is a valid factor.
Discouraging conduct can supply “reasonable excuse”.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “HOME = H-Harmony, O-Options, M-Modernity, E-Equality.”

Harmony: Decide together, not unilaterally.
Modernity: Careers of both matter.
Equality: Article 14 blocks one-sided commands.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Who decides the matrimonial home? Is the wife’s refusal reasonable?	Mulla ¶442; Article 14; Section 9 HMA.	No agreement; both employed; husband unstable; his conduct discouraged cohabitation; equality norms apply.	Decision is joint; wife had reasonable excuse; restitution cannot coerce relocation.

Glossary

Matrimonial Home: The shared home of the spouses after marriage.
Reasonable Excuse: A fair reason in law to live apart; includes safety, dignity, or economic sense.
Section 9, HMA: Restitution of conjugal rights—request to resume cohabitation.