T. Sareetha v T. Venkata Subbaiah

Facts

• The husband sought a decree of restitution of conjugal rights against his wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after she withdrew from cohabitation. The wife challenged the constitutionality of Section 9 itself, arguing it violated her fundamental rights.

Issue

1. Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, empowering courts to decree restitution of conjugal rights, is constitutionally valid, or whether it impermissibly infringes the right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21.

Held

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights has the effect of forcing a person into cohabitation, including sexual cohabitation, against their free will. Such compulsion was held to violate the right to privacy and the right to be let alone, both aspects of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The court reasoned that the remedy disproportionately affects the wife, given the biological and social realities of enforced marital cohabitation. Section 9 was declared unconstitutional and void.
• Note: The Delhi High Court in Harvinder Kaur v Harmander Singh (1984) took the opposite view, upholding Section 9. The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), upholding Section 9 and effectively overruling T Sareetha.

Ratio Decidendi

A statutory remedy that compels a spouse to resume cohabitation, including intimate relations, against their will amounts to an unconstitutional invasion of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21, and cannot be sustained as a valid coercive remedy. (Later overturned.)