Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar Chadha

Facts

• The husband obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties did not resume cohabitation within the statutory period, and the husband subsequently sought divorce on the ground of failure to comply with the restitution decree. The wife challenged the validity of Section 9 itself, relying on the reasoning in T Sareetha v T Venkata Subbaiah.

Issue

1. Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is constitutionally valid, and whether a decree for restitution of conjugal rights infringes the right to privacy under Article 21.

Held

• The Supreme Court held that Section 9 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Article 21. The purpose of restitution of conjugal rights is to preserve the marriage by offering an opportunity for reconciliation and cohabitation, not to force sexual relations. The remedy is available to either spouse and is subject to a range of statutory defences; it is not inherently coercive in the manner suggested in T Sareetha. The reasoning in T Sareetha was disapproved; the view of the Delhi High Court in Harvinder Kaur v Harmander Singh was approved. On the facts, since the decree for restitution was not complied with, the husband's petition for divorce on that ground was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act serves the legitimate social purpose of encouraging marital reconciliation and cohabitation, and does not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of privacy or personal liberty under Article 21. Non-compliance with a restitution decree within the statutory period is a valid ground for divorce.