Appendix A Front-page and Cover

FAMILY LAW I (HINDU LAW) PROJECT

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

Submitted by
Yug Pratap Singh
Roll Number: 47
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Batch: 2014-19

Of Law School,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi

In
November, 2016

Under the guidance of

Dr. Anil Maurya

1
 Appendix B Certificate

CERTIFICATE

The project entitled RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS" submitted to

Law School, Banaras Hindu University for FAMILY LAW I (HINDU LAW), as
part of internal assessment is based on my original work carried out under
the guidance of Dr. Anil Maurya Sir from July to November, 2016. The
research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has
been duly acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held
responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date: 13th November, 2016

2
 Acknowledgement

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me

throughout the course of this project. I am thankful for their aspiring guidance,
invaluably constructive criticism and friendly advice during the project work. I am
sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and illuminating views on a
number of issues related to the project.

I express my warm thanks to the Dean, Prof. D. K. Sharma and Dr. Anil Maurya
Sir for his support and guidance at Banaras Hindu University.

I would also like to thank my coordinator Prof. Vinod Shankar Mishra and all the
people who provided me with the facilities being required and conductive
conditions for my project.

Yug Pratap Singh

B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

INDEX
3
Sr. No PG NO.
TOPIC
1 INTRODUCTION 5
2 RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL 7

RIGHTS: CONCEPT & ORIGIN

3 CONSTITUTIONALITY: RELIEF OF 11

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL
RIGHTS
4 PROVISIONS FOR RESTITUTION OF 13

CONJUGAL RIGHTS
5 RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL 16

RIGHTS IN HINDU MARRIAGE ACT

6 CONCLUSION 17
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 18

INTRODUCTION
4
LAW IN BRIEF
When two people are married, they owe obligations to each other. They must give each
other company. There must be cohabitation between them. When either of them fail to
fulfill such obligations or refuse to cohabit, the other person has right to seek restitution
of conjugal rights in a court of law.

LAW IN DETAIL

When either of the spouses has withdrawn from the society of the other without
reasonable cause, the other person may file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under
section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A petition for restitution of conjugal rights is maintainable only when there is a valid
marriage. In Ranjana kejriwal v. Vinod Kumar Kejriwal (AIR 1997 Bom 380), the
petitioner wife alleged that the husband was already married and had suppressed the
fact from her. The Court held that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is not
maintainable since there is no legal marriage.

Section 9 was challenged before the court as being violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in T.Sareetha v. T.Venkata Subbaiah (AIR 1983 AP 356). Justice P.
A. Choudhary of the A. P. High Court held the section ultra vires since it offended
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

However, it was overruled by the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar
Chadha (AIR 1984 SC 1562). The court observed that, the object of the section is to
bring about cohabitation between estranged parties so that they can live together. That
in the privacy of home and married life neither Article 21 nor Article 14 has any place.

PROCESS FOR SOLUTION

5
Complaint under which Section?

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Whom to complain / where to complaint?

The civil court in whose local limits,

- The marriage was solemnized or

- The husband and wife reside together or

- The husband and wife last resided.

How to file the Case?

The aggrieved party may apply to the district court by way of petition for restitution of
conjugal rights.

The person seeking restitution must establish that:

a) The other spouse has withdrawn from his or her society;

b) Such withdrawal is without reasonable excuse;

c) There is no legal ground disentitling the petitioner from the relief of restitution of
conjugal rights.

The burden of proof lies on the person who has withdrawn from the society of his/her
spouse to prove that he/she had reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of
his/her spouse.

The person who has withdrawn from the society of his/her spouse may prove that it has
become impossible to live with the spouse. Persistent demand for dowry or causing
physical and mental torture was held to be a reasonable cause for the wife to withdraw
form the society of the husband in Vijay Kumar v. Suman (1996) 1 HLR 24 (P&H)

The court will satisfy itself about the truth of the statements made in the petition and
also that there is no legal ground for not granting the decree of restitution of conjugal
rights.

The decree is then accordingly granted.

6
What Next?

The decree of restitution of conjugal rights will be executed as per the Civil Procedure
Code. Appeal may be made to the High Court challenging the lower court order.

ALTERNATE REMEDIES
The Legal Services Authority may be approached for legal aid.

Any voluntary organization may also be approached for support.

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS:

CONCEPT & ORIGIN
Marriage under all matrimonial laws is union imposing upon each of the spouses certain
marital duties and gives to each of them certain legal rights. The necessary implication
of marriage is that parties will live together. Each spouse is entitled to comfort
consortium of the other. So after the solemnization of the marriage if either of the
spouses without reasonable excuse withdraws himself or herself from the society of the
other then aggrieved party has a legal right to file a petition in the matrimonial court for
restitution of conjugal rights. The court after hearing the petition of the aggrieved
spouse, on being satisfied that there is no legal ground why the application shall be
refused and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in the petition may
pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

A decree of restitution of conjugal rights implies that the guilty party is ordered to live
with the aggrieved party. Restitution of conjugal rights is the only remedy which could be
used by the deserted spouse against the other. A husband or wife can file a petition for
restoration of their rights to cohabit with the other spouse. But the execution of the
decree of restitution of conjugal rights is very difficult. The court though is competent to
pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, but it is powerless to have its specific
performance by any law. The non-compliance of the issued decree results to
constructive destruction on the part of the erring spouse. At present as per the
provisions available under the Indian personal laws, the aggrieved party move a petition
for a decree of divorce after one year from the date of the passing of the decree and the
competent court can pass a decree of divorce in favour of the aggrieved party. The
decree of restitution of conjugal rights can be enforced by the attachment of property,
and if the party complained against still does not comply, the Court may also punish him
or her for contempt of court. But under no circumstances the court can force the erring

7
spouse to consummate marriage. Decree of restitution of conjugal rights could be
passed in case of valid marriages only.

As stated by Paras Diwan, the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights was neither
recognized by the Dharmashastra nor did the Muslim law made any provisions for it. It
came with the Raj. Restitution of conjugal rights has its roots in feudal England, where
marriage was considered as a property deal and wife was part of mans possession like
other chattels. The concept of restitution of conjugal rights was introduced in India in the
case of Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonissa Begum, where such actions were
regarded as considerations for specific performance.

In modern India, the remedy is available to Hindus under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, to Muslims under general law, to Christians under Section 32 and
33 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to Parsis under Section 36 of the Parsi Marriage and
Divorce Act, 1936 and to persons married according to the provisions of the Special
Marriage Act, Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The provisions for restitution of conjugal rights are identical in Section 22 the Special
Marriage Act, 1954 and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is as follows:

Restitution of conjugal rights

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.
Explanation: Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for
withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the
person who has withdrawn from the society.

The restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded as a matrimonial remedy. The remedy
of restitution of conjugal rights is a positive remedy that requires both parties to the
marriage to live together and cohabit.

The conceptualization of the provision for restitution of conjugal rights under Muslim law
by Tayabji is as follows:
Where either the husband or wife has, without lawful ground withdrawn from the
society of the other, or neglected to perform the obligations imposed by law or by the
contract of marriage, the court may decree restitution of conjugal rights, may put either
party on terms securing to the other the enjoyment of his or her rights

8
Thus the Muslims equate this concept with securing to the other spouse the enjoyment
of his or her legal rights. Earlier, it was also attached with the specific performance of
the contract of marriage. In Abdul Kadir v. Salima , the Allahbad High Court decided that
the concept of restitution must be decided on the principles of Muslim Law and not on
the basis on justice, equity and good conscience.

To sum up, under all personal law, the requirements of the provision of restitution of
conjugal rights are the following:
The withdrawal by the respondent from the society of the petitioner.
The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or excuse or lawful ground.
There should be no other legal ground for refusal of the relief.
The court should be satisfied about the truth of the statement made in the petition.

Sufficient Cause for Withdrawal and Burden of Proof

The fundamental rule of matrimonial law that one spouse is at liberty to the society and
comfort of the other spouse, forms the foundation of the right to bring a suit for the
restitution of conjugal rights. The court has the duty of granting a decree for restitution in
the cases where either spouse has abandoned or withdrawn from the society of the
other. When the question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for the
withdrawal of the respondent from the society of the aggrieved party, the burden of
proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.
But this concept is only secondary in nature. The primary object of showing proof or
onus rests with the petitioner. Once the petitioner has proved his/her case, the burden
of proof then shifts to the other party to prove the defence of a reasonable excuse or
cause. Here the term society corresponds to cohabitation, and withdrawal signifies
cessation of that cohabitation and bringing to end consortium. This must be a voluntary
act of the respondent.

In Sushila Bai v. Prem Narayan, the husband deserted his wife and thereafter was
totally unresponsive towards her. This behaviour was held sufficient to show that he had
withdrawn from the society of his wife, and therefore the wifes petition for restitution of
conjugal rights was allowed. The defence to this principle lies in the concept of a
reasonable excuse. If the respondent has withdrawn from the society of his spouse for

9
a valid reason, it is a complete defence to a restitution petition. The court will normally
order restitution of conjugal rights if:

i. The petitioner proves that the respondent spouse has without reasonable excuse
withdrawn from his/her society

ii. The statements made by the aggrieved spouse in the application are true, and

iii. There is no legal ground why the petitioners prayer should not be granted.

The court has held in various cases that the following situations will amount to a
reasonable excuse to act as a defence in this area:

i. A ground for relief in any matrimonial cause.

ii. A matrimonial misconduct not amounting to a ground of a matrimonial cause, if

sufficiently weighty and grave.

iii. Such an act, omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the petitioner to live
with the respondent.

It is significant to note that unlike a decree of specific performance of contract, for

restitution of conjugal rights, the sanction is provided by the court where the
disobedience to such a decree is wilful that is deliberate, in spite of opportunities.

CONSTITUTIONALITY: RELIEF OF RESTITUTION

OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

10
During the time of introducing the provision for restitution of conjugal rights in the
Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there were heated
debates in the Parliament for and against it. In Shakila Banu v. Gulam Mustafa , the
Honble High Court observed:

(The concept of restitution of conjugal rights) is a relic of ancient times when slavery or
quasi-slavery was regarded as natural. This is particularly so after the Constitution of
India came into force, which guarantees personal liberties and equality of status and
opportunity to men and women alike and further confers powers on the State to make
special provisions for their protection and safeguard.

The constitutional validity of the provision for restitution of conjugal rights has time and
again been questioned and challenged. The earliest being in 1983 before the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in T.Sareetha v. T. Venkatasubbaiah where the Honble High Court
held that the impugned section was unconstitutional. The Delhi High Court in Harvinder
Kaur v Harminder Singh though had non-conforming views. Ultimately Supreme Court
in Saroj Rani v. Sudharshan gave a judgment which was in line with the Delhi High
Court views and upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 and over-ruled the decision given in T. Sareetha v. T. Venkatasubbaiah .

Application of the Provision in Different Communities

The restitution of conjugal rights is one of the reliefs that are provided to the spouses in
distress in the institution of marriage by law. Decree of restitution of conjugal rights
could be passed in case of valid marriages only. Apart from legislation relating to
matrimonial law, courts in India in case of all communities have passed decrees for
restitution of conjugal rights.

Hindu

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the restitution of the conjugal
rights. The aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for the restitution

11
of conjugal rights. One of the important implications of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 is that it provides an opportunity to an aggrieved party to apply for
maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Maintenance can also
be obtained by the party in case when the action is pending under Section 25 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. So, a wife who does not want a judicial separation or
disruption of marriage can attain maintenance from her husband without filing a suit for
the same under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Another important
implication of the section is that it provides a ground for divorce under Section 13(1A) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on a condition that there has been no restitution of
conjugal rights between them for a period of one year or more after the passing of a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The legal grounds for refusing to grant relief are:
For instance, any ground on which the respondent could have asked for a decree for
judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce;
Reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner;
Any conduct on the part of the petitioner or fact tantamount to the petitioner taking
advantage of his or her own wrong or any disability for the purpose of such relief;
Unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding.

Muslim

If the husband either deserts a wife or neglects to perform his marital obligations without
any proper reason, then the wife can apply for restitution of conjugal rights. Even
husband can apply for restitution of conjugal rights. But the court can refuse to grant
order of restitution of conjugal rights for following reasons:
Cruelty by husband or in-laws
On the failure by the husband to perform marital obligations
On non-payment of prompt dower by the husband

Christian

A Christian husband and wife can also apply for an order of restitution of conjugal rights.
The Court cannot pass the decree for following reasons:

12
 Cruelty of husband or wife
If either of the spouse is insane
If any one of the spouse marries again

Parsi

Where a husband/wife shall have deserted or without lawful cause ceased to cohabit
with his/her spouse, the party so deserted or with whom cohabitation shall have so
ceased, may sue for the restitution of his or her conjugal rights and the court if satisfied
of the truth of the allegations contained in the plaint and that there is no just ground why
relief should not be granted, may proceed to decree such restitution of conjugal rights
accordingly.

PROVISIONS FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL

RIGHTS
When either of the spouses has withdrawn from the society of the other without
reasonable cause, the other person may file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Similarly a Christian husband or wife can file
a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Divorce
Act, 1869. The provision under Muslim law is almost the same as under the modern
Hindu law, though under Muslim law a suit in a civil court has to be filed and not a
petition as under other laws. A petition for restitution of conjugal rights is maintainable
only when there is a valid marriage.

The concept of gender discrimination has not been incorporated in the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 and all are treated as equals under the Section 9. There is no classification of
sexes in Section 9 and all equals have been treated equally in this area. In Hyde v.
Hyde and Woodmansee , the status of partners in Christian marriage was stated as
Marriage has been well said to be something more than a contract, either religious or
civil to be an Institution. It creates mutual rights and obligations, as all contracts do,
but beyond that it confers a status. The position or status of husband and wife is a
recognised one throughout Christendom: the laws of all Christian nations throw about
that status a variety of legal incidents during the lives of the parties, and induce definite
lights upon their offspring. While in Muslim law where a wife refuses to live with her
husband without any lawful cause, the husband can sue for the restitution of conjugal
rights and likewise the wife has the right to demand for the fulfilment of marital duties by

13
the husband. But this right is not absolute as the Muslim husband being dominant in
matrimonial matters, and as the Quran enjoins the husband to retain his wife with
kindness or to dismiss her with kindness, the Court leans in favour of the wife and
requires strict proof of all allegations necessary for matrimonial relief. Under the Muslim
law a Muslim husband can defeat wifes petition for restitution at any time by
pronouncing talaq on her.

In Hindu law the relief of decree for restitution of conjugal rights is an equitable relief
and equitable considerations must be considered before compelling the defendant to
return to cohabitation with the plaintiff. Similar is the law with respect to the marriage
governed by Mohammedan law and Christian law. Relief of restitution of conjugal rights
is discretionary.

The defences for the restitution petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the
Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is very broad and it puts down that if the withdrawal of the
respondent from the society of the petitioner is without reasonable excuse, it is in
defence to restitution petition. Under Muslim law, Tyabji has used the expression
without lawful ground. It is accepted that the expression without reasonable excuse
and without lawful ground should have same meaning.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 anything which constitutes a ground for nullity,
dissolution of marriage or judicial separation is a defence against a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights. Accordingly under the Section 33 of the Indian Divorce Act,
1869 applicable for Christians nothing can be pleaded as defence against a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights which would not be a ground for judicial separation or for a
decree of nullity of marriage. Under Muslim law grounds of void and irregular marriages,
marriage avoided by the exercise of option of puberty and other provisions under the
Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, are defences for a petition for restitution of
conjugal rights. A petition may also be rejected if the husband has been made an
outcaste by his community.

A marriage in violation of the age prescribed under Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 being neither void nor voidable, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights
cannot be refused on the ground of the violation. For Indian Christian according to
Section 60(1) of the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 it is required that at the time of
marriage the bride should not be less than eighteen years and bridegroom should not
be less than twenty-one years. The non-age does not render the marriage void or
voidable. Thus the marriage remains a valid marriage; a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights cannot be refused.While in Muslim law under Section 2 (vii) of the
Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 when the marriage has been avoided in the
exercise of option of puberty the suit for restitution of conjugal rights fails.

14
As far as the Hindus and Christians are concerned the existence of a co-wife is a
sufficient cause entitling the wife to withdraw herself from the society of her husband
which can be taken as a defence by the wife against a restitution petition. While under
Muslim law controlled polygamy is allowed. So, a Muslim wife cannot refuse the
comfort-consortium to husband because of husbands taking a second wife. But in
certain situations, a husbands second marriage may involve cruelty to the first wife
justifying her refusal to live with him. In Itwari v Asghari , a restitution petition filed by the
Muslim husband against his first wife the court had held that it cannot compel the wife to
live with husband and can refuse the relief if the court feels that it would not be just and
reasonable to do or it would be inequitable to pass decree. In India bigamous marriages
are now to great extent disapproved by the courts. Some High Courts have considered
it as cruelty by the husband and denied on that ground the relief of restitution of
conjugal rights.

Cruelty need not always be physical and it can also be mental. The Section 13 (1) (ia) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be used as defence of cruelty against a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights. The definition of cruelty or what all actions constitute
cruelty has not been specified in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Indian Christian
Marriage Act, 1872 or the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Thus, in Hindu law as well as
Christian law the courts have the wide power and discretion to decide what constitute
cruelty. While in Muslim law, Section 2 (viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act,
1939, both physical cruelty as well as legal cruelty together with all instances of cruelty
is included under the definition of cruelty. The relief of restitution of conjugal rights can
be denied to the husband if any of the instances of cruelty as given under the section
are proved against him.

In Hindu law and Christian law, the separation agreements are not part of the
matrimonial statutes. They are regulated by the general law of contract. While in Muslim
matrimonial law the spouses are permitted to enter certain agreements, either at the
time of marriage or even after. Also a valid separation agreement is a good defence to a
suit for restitution of conjugal rights.

The concept of dower is specific to Mohammedan law only. A Muslim wife living
separate from the husband on account of non payment of prompt dower, restitution of
conjugal rights cannot be granted subjected to certain conditions. If the husband sues
for restitution of conjugal rights before consummation of the marriage takes place then
non-payment of dower is a complete defence to suit, and the suit will be dismissed. If
the suit is brought after the consummation of the marriage then a decree for restitution
of conjugal rights on payment of prompt dower is to be passed. There is no absolute
right in a husband to claim restitution of conjugal rights against his wife unconditionally;
the courts have discretion to make the decree conditional on the payment of her unpaid
dower debt or to impose other suitable conditions considered just, fair and necessary in
the circumstances of each case.

15
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS IN HINDU
MARRIAGE ACT

If your spouse has left you without giving any reasonable ground, the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955 gives you remedy in the form of Section 9 under the restitution of conjugal
rights. The section 9 of the HMA reads that when either the husband or the wife has,
without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party
may apply for restitution of conjugal rights.

What the aggrieved party needs to do is file a petition to the district court and 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, the judge may decree restitution of
conjugal rights in his favor.

Three essential conditions for Section 9 of HMA

Firstly, one party must have withdrawn from the society of the other; secondly, the
withdrawal must be without any reasonable reason, and thirdly, the aggrieved party
applies for the restitution of conjugal rights. Once these conditions are fulfilled, the
district court may decree of restitution of conjugal rights to bring about cohabitation
between the estranged parties.

If the aggrieved party is unable to convince the district court and it founds that the
petitioner is guilty then the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not granted. An
added advantage from this is that if the parties are not following the decree for
cohabitation after the passing of the decree, continuously for one year, it becomes a
ground for divorce under Section 13.

Reasonable grounds on which petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights can be

rejected

First, if the respondent has a ground on which he or she can claim any matrimonial
relief;

16
Second, if the petitioner is guilty of any matrimonial misconduct;

Third, if the petitioner is guilty of such act, omission or conduct which makes it
impossible for the respondent to live with him; for instance, husbands neglect of his
wife or the constant demand for dowry, etc. are some reasonable ground for wife not to
join the company of her husband.

Burden of proof under Section 9 of the HMA

Burden of proof operates at two levels. Firstly, burden of proof is on the

aggrieved/petitioner who needs to prove that the respondent has withdrawn from his
society. Once that burden is discharged by the petitioner, it falls on the respondent to
prove that there exists a reasonable excuse for the withdrawal.

CONCLUSION
You can take a horse to the water, but you cant make him drink, is a very popular
proverb and the provision for restitution of conjugal rights under the Indian personal
laws seems to be akin. The court can pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and
order the erring spouse to cohabit with the aggrieved spouse. Also under the Indian law
a decree of restitution of conjugal rights can be executed by attachment of the
respondents property. But it is to be noted that the court cannot compel the defaulting
spouse to physically return to the comfort-consortium of the decree-holder spouse.

As understood from the previous chapters, the restitution of conjugal rights is a part of
the personal laws of the individual, thus they are guided by ideals such as religion,
tradition and custom. A very important feature of restitution of conjugal rights to be
emphasized is that it is a remedy is aimed at preserving the marriage and not at
disrupting it as in the case of divorce or judicial separation. It serves to aid prevention of
the breakup of marriage, thus is a means of saving the marriage. So the restitution of
conjugal rights remedy tries in promoting reconciliation between the parties and
maintenance of matrimonial. It tries to protect the society from denigrating. But the final
decision is that of the parties whether to obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights
and to continue with the matrimony or not.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:

17
1. V.P. Bharatiya, Syed Khalid Rashids Muslim Law, (4th ED.: 2004) (Eastern Book
Company Lucknow)
2. Dr.Paras Diwan, Law of Marriage and Divorce, (5th ED.: 2008), (Universal Law
Publishing Co)
3. S.P.Gupte, Hindu Law in British India, (2nd ED.: 1947) (Premier Publishers Delhi)

Articles:
1 Aditya Swarup, Constitutional Validity of Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Scope and
Relevance, http://works.bepress.com/adityaswarup/8 , (Last Visited : Feb. 27, 2011)
2 Vimal Balasubrahmanyan, Conjugal Rights vs Personal Liberty: Andhra High Court
Judgment, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4372307, (Last Visited : Mar. 03, 2011)
3 Vimal Balasubrahmanyan, Conjugal Rights: Shift in Emphasis Needed,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4373507, (Last Visited : Mar. 02, 2011)
4 Lucy Carroll, Talaq-i-Tafwid and Stipulations in a Muslim Marriage Contract: Important
Means of Protecting the Position of the South Asian Muslim Wife,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/312203, (Last Visited : Mar. 02, 2011)
5 Saloni Tuteja, Restitution Of Conjugal Rights: Criticism Revisited,
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/abol.htm, (Last Visited : Feb. 28, 2011)
6 Arlette Gautier, Legal regulation of marital relations: an historical and comparative
approach, http://lawfam.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/47.abstract#target-1, (Last
Visited : Mar. 11, 2011)
7 Frances Raday, Culture, religion and gender,
http://wunrn.com/news/2008/03_08/03_03_08/030308_culture_files/030308_culture.pdf
, (Last Visited : Mar. 10, 2011)

18