After the marriage, husband is entitled to the society and company of his wife and similarly wife to the society of her husband. Foundation of the right is fundamental rule of matrimonial law that one spouse is entitled to society and comfort consortium of other spouse. Where either spouse has abandoned or withdrawn from the society of the other spouse without any reasonable excuse or just cause, cou.t can grant decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 in favour of aggrieved party.
In Smt. Surjit Kaur v. Ujjal Singh (1978) 80 Punjab Law Reporter 693 Punjab and Haryana High Court granted the decree of restitution of conjugal rights to the husband, even though the wife was gainfully employed away from matrimonial home, where the husband lived, on the consideration that husband had right to determine the place of matrimonial home and that he had the means to support his wife similarly in Kailash Wati v. Ajudhaya Prasad 1977 Hindu Law Reporter 175 Punjab and Haryana High Court had observed "obligation to live together under common roofis inherent in the concept of Hindu marriage and it can not be tom unilaterally by the desire of wife to live separately and away from matrimonial home merely for reason of either securing or holding a job elsewhere.
However, Allahabd High Court in Shanti v. Romesh reported in 1971 AllahabadLawJournalp.67has held that mere refusal of wife to resign her job at the instance of husband is not sufficient ground for granting decree of restitution in favour of husband as wife's taking up of job even against the wishes of husband would not amount to withdrawing from society without reasonable excuse. Similarly Rajasthan High Court in Mirchumal v. DeviAIR 1977 Raj. 114 has observed that proposition that wife must always stay under the roof of the husband might be right in past hut it is no longer true in the age of equality 0: opportunity in employment to both sexes. So Wife's taking up of job or not giving it up at the instance 0 the husband can not amount to withdrawal from his society. Reference may also be made SwaraFGarg v. K.M. Garg AIR 1978 de. 296 and Pravin Ben v. Suresh Bhai AIR 1975 Guj.69.
From a pursual of all the aforesaid authorities it becomes clear that the real consideration for the court in such cases is to see the animus of the wife to take up service at a place different from the place ofbusine or vocation of her husband. In the present case, the wife is employed at Ambala even before the marriage. She has never denied her company to her husband. The husband has at all times access to her. Therefore. mere refusal on the part of the wife to quit the job in itself is no ground to order restitution.