Introduction

• It is considered a landmark case as it challenged the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) of India upheld the validity of the Restitution of Conjugal Rights enshrined under Section 9 of HMA.

Facts

• The Appellant (wife) was maltreated and thrown out of their marital home by the Respondent (husband), two years after their marriage and after the birth of their second daughter.
• The appellant sued her husband for the restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of HMA before the sub-judge and the decree was passed with the consent of both parties.
• After the passing of decree, the appellant claimed that she briefly cohabited with respondent.
• After the lapse of one year, the respondent sued for divorce under Section 13 of the HMA, before the District Judge on the grounds that no cohabitation had taken place since the decree under Section 9 was passed.
• The District Judge dismissed the Divorce petition by giving reasons that the decree under Section 9 was a consent decree.
• Another appeal was filed by the respondent in the High Court (HC) of Punjab and Haryana, which was later referred to the Division bench including Chief Justice of the HC.
  • The division bench held that the consent decrees per se in matrimonial matters are not collusive.
  • The bench passed the divorce decree.
• The appellant then preferred this appeal before SC.

Issues Involved

• Whether Section 9 of HMA violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950?
• Whether the respondent was entitled to the decree of divorce although he failed to comply with the consent decree for restitution of conjugal rights?

Observations

• Andhra Pradesh HC analyzed T. Sareetha v. T. Venkatasubbaiah (1983), which had held that Section 9 of HMA violates the right to privacy and human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• Though the right under Section 9 of HMA was equally available to both husband and wife, the HC in T. Sareetha’s case observed that it was mostly used by men and thus differentially and adversely impacted women.
• Delhi HC in Harvinder Kaur v. Harminder Singh (1983) disagreed with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh HC in T. Sareetha’s case.
  • The Delhi HC held that Section 9 of HMA did not violate Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution.
• The SC considered both the views and held that Section 9 of HMA did not violate Article 21.

Conclusion

• Although the Court did not explicitly discuss the right to privacy, in overruling T. Sareetha, it suggested that enforcing Section 9 of the HMA did not constitute a breach of privacy.
• The Court thus granted the respondent the decree for divorce and ordered him to pay maintenance to the wife until she remarried and for the daughter up till her marriage.

Notes

• When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied with the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
• The restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded as a matrimonial remedy.
• The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is a positive remedy that requires both parties to the marriage to live together and cohabit.
• The concept was introduced in India in the case of Moonshee Buzloor v. Shumsoonissa Begum (1867).
• After the passing of, HMA, Section 9 gives a statutory sanction to a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights,