Three Judge Bench to decide validity of provisions governing Restitution of Conjugal Rights

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court today referred a challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions relating to restitution of conjugal rights to a larger Bench..The petition filed by two law students from the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) has assailed the 1984 judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha that upheld Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for restitution of conjugal Rights..The 1984 judgment was passed by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court..Senior Counsel Sanjay Hegde argued for the petitioners before the Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna today. The Bench then referred the question to a three-judge Bench..Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides:.“When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being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.”.A similar provision can be found in Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act..The petitioners have sought for Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act to be struck down. Additionally, the enforcement of restitution of conjugal rights as provided for under Order XXI Rule 32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also sought to be struck down..These provisions are being challenged in light of the Supreme Court’s recent judgments on right to privacy, adultery, and decriminalisation of Section 377..“The legal framework is violative of the rights to privacy, individual autonomy and dignity of individuals (both men and women) which are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”.The petitioners contend that these provisions place a disproportionate burden on women and is therefore violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution..It further states,.“…one of the objects for including Section 9 in the Hindu Marriage Act seems to be that a wife can claim periodic payments from her husband who is unwilling to comply with a decree of conjugal rights. It is submitted that this justification no longer holds good in light of the provision for maintenance under S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure…”.Read the petition:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.