Category: Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Personal Law

ISSUE:

Can a wife decide to reside separately from the husband in the absence of any consensual arrangement or without any misconduct on the part of the husband?

Does the husband give up his right to have a common marital home by marrying a woman already employed in the private or public sector?

RULE:

Where a wife, against the wishes of her husband, accepts employment away from the matrimonial home and unilaterally withdraws therefrom, she would be violating the mutual obligation of the husband and wife together.

ISSUE:

In the absence of an agreement between the parties, and when the husband and the wife are both gainfully employed at two different places from before their marriage, where will be the matrimonial home after the marriage?

Did the wife have a reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the husband?

RULE:

Paragraph 442 of Mulla’s Hindu Law, confers upon the wife the duty to reside with her husband and under his authority, and states that the husband is obliged to maintain her. The court stated that, a custom can only become enforceable when it is predominant in society, applicable to the concerned m parties, and coherent with the evolving times. It’s true the male is usually expected to be the wage earner in family but with changing times, more and more number or women taking up jobs and being independent, it was unreasonable and against public welfare to expect a working woman to leave her job at her husband’s demand in order to reside with him when he himself is financially unstable.

Article 14 gives the right to equality to all and to give the husband an exclusive right to decide upon the matrimonial home would be discriminatory against women and also against the spirit of Article 14. Thus, this custom of the wife giving up all her rights and submitting to the demands of the husband was no more applicable to the parties in this particular case taking into account the developments in society.

ISSUE:

Whether Cuddapah or Madras should be counted as the place where the “parties had last resided together” for the purpose of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Is Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act liable to be struck down as violative of the fundamental rights, more particularly articles 14, 19 and 21 inasmuch as the statutory relief of restitution of conjugal rights offends the guarantee to life, personal liberty and human dignity and decency?

RULE:

By treating the wife and the husband who are inherently unequal as equals, section 9 of the Act offends the rule of equal protection of laws. For that reason the formal equality that section 9 of the Act ensures cannot be accepted as constitutional. Section 9 promotes no legitimate public purpose or is based on any conception of the general good. Section 9 should therefore be held to be arbitrary and void as offending Article 14 of the Constitution.”

ISSUE:

Is the provision of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act constitutionally valid?

RULE:

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines the Restitution of Conjugal Rights as: 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 of 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.

ISSUE:

Is the provision of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act constitutionally valid?

RULE:

(i) Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

(ii) Article 14 of the Constitution

(iii) Article 21 of the Constitution