The Supreme Court recently ruled that maintenance proceedings are independent of restitution of conjugal rights. 

What are Conjugal Rights?

• Conjugal rights are rights created by marriage, i.e. right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse. 
• The law recognises these rights, both in personal laws dealing with marriage, divorce etc, and in criminal law requiring payment of maintenance and alimony to a spouse.
• Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act recognises one aspect of conjugal rights that is the right to consortium and protects it by allowing a spouse to move court to enforce the right.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

What is Restitution of Conjugal Rights?

• Definition: Restitution of conjugal rights refers to restoring marital companionship and obligations previously enjoyed by the couple.
  • It aims to preserve the sanctity of marriage and encourage cohabitation.
• Origin of Conjugal Right: The concept of restitution of conjugal rights is codified in Hindu personal law now, but has colonial origins and has genesis in ecclesiastical law. 
  • Similar provisions exist in Muslim personal law as well as the Divorce Act, 1869, which governs Christian family law
• Legal Provision:
  • Governed by Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
  • The aggrieved spouse can petition the court if the other spouse has withdrawn from their society without reasonable excuse.
• Court’s Role: The court assesses the truthfulness of claims and ensures no legal impediments before issuing a decree of restitution.
• Explanation: The burden of proving a reasonable excuse lies on the spouse who has withdrawn from the other’s society.

Recent SC Ruling on Maintenance

• Key Judgment: The SC ruled that maintenance and restitution of conjugal rights are independent issues.
  • A wife is entitled to maintenance even if she does not comply with a restitution decree.
  • The court emphasized  that a husband must continue paying maintenance even if the wife refuses to return to the matrimonial home under a restitution decree.
• Precedents: The SC referred to cases where maintenance was granted despite non-compliance with restitution orders.
• Implications: The judgment underscores that maintenance aims to ensure financial support and dignity for the wife, irrespective of marital disputes.

Constitutionality of Section 9

• Challenges: In 1983, the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 9, arguing it violated individual autonomy and privacy.
  • The Supreme Court overturned this in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), stating it served a social purpose.
• Current Debate: A pending PIL (2019) argues Section 9 violates gender equality and privacy rights.

Key Legal Provisions Involved

• Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Section 9 of the HMA aims to reconcile differences and protect marital bonds.
• Divorce Provisions: Section 13 of the HMA allows dissolution of marriage on grounds such as adultery, cruelty, desertion, mental disorder, and mutual consent.
• Maintenance: Section 125 of the CrPC provides for financial support to the wife, children, and parents in cases of neglect or inability to maintain themselves.

Significant Case Laws

• Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984): Upheld Section 9, emphasizing its role in preventing marital breakdowns.
• Tripura HC Ruling (2017): Stated that non-compliance with a restitution decree does not automatically disqualify a wife from receiving maintenance.
• XYZ And ABC (2023): The High Court of Karnataka in the case of XYZ And ABC, held that the wife’s failure to comply with restitution of conjugal rights decree is a ground for divorce

Check Out UPSC NCERT Textbooks From PW Store

Criticism of Restitution of Conjugal Rights

• Patriarchal Bias: Critics argue it perpetuates the notion of a wife as property and enforces outdated gender roles.
• Violation of Privacy: The provision is seen as infringing on personal autonomy and the right to be let alone.

Conclusion

The legal framework around restitution of conjugal rights reflects the tension between preserving marriage and respecting individual rights. While the SC’s recent rulings prioritize financial security for spouses, ongoing debates highlight the need to balance societal norms with modern constitutional values.