SMT. SAROJ RANI vs.

SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – 1984 AIR 1562

 BRIEF FACTS

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
CONTENTS
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

JUDGMENT
 This is considered a landmark judgment because it challenged the constitutional
validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein the two-judge bench of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Restitution of Conjugal
Rights enshrined under the Act.

 This judgment thus concerns itself with the following

Act/Sections:

(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 9

(2) Constitution of India- Article 13, Article 14 and Article 21

BRIEF
FACTS
The parties herein were married at Jullundur City according to Hindu Vedic rites
in 1975 and had two daughters born out of their marriage. In May 1977, the
husband turned the wife out of his house and withdrew himself from her society.

The wife filed a suit against the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and in the said petition, she also set
out the history of the marriage and alleged several maltreatments.

The husband thereafter made a statement in the court that the application of the
petitioner be granted and decree thereof be passed. Accordingly the Court passed
the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights between the parties in March 1978.
 In April 1979, the husband filed a petition under Section 13(1-A) of the said Act
against his wife for divorce on the ground that one year had passed from the date of
the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, but no actual cohabitation had taken place
between the parties.

In the District Court, it was held that as the decree for restitution of conjugal rights
was passed by the consent of the parties, the husband was not entitled to a decree for
divorce. Being aggrieved by the said decision, there was an appeal before the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The High Court upheld the decision of the District Court and on appeal, case came
before Division Bench of High Court where the appeal was allowed and husband was
granted a decree of divorce. The appeal for the same was filed before Supreme Court.
ISSUES BEFORE
THE COURT
 FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE RAISED
BEFORE THE COURT

Whether the husband Constitutionality of

was entitled for a Section 9 of Hindu
decree of divorce? Marriage Act, 1955.

1 2
APPELLANT’S
CONTENTIONS
The Main contention of the appellants was that as per provisions of Section 23
other party could not take advantage of his ‘wrong’ - because of having refused
cohabitation in the execution of the decree.

It was submitted that the respondent/husband had with the intention of ultimately
having divorce allowed the wife a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights
knowing fully well that this decree he would not honour and thereby he misled the
wife and the Court and thereafter refused to cohabitate with the wife and now,
cannot be allowed to take advantage of his ‘wrong’.

Challenged the constitutionality of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

relying on the case of T. Sareetha v. Venkata Subbaiah.
RESPONDENT’S
CONTENTIONS
The only contention of the respondent was that the remedy of Restitution of
Conjugal rights is constitutional, referring the decision of Hon’ble Court in
Smt. Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhary
JUDGMENT
• Because it is evident that for whatever be the reasons this
marriage has broken down and the parties can no longer
live together as husband and wife if such is the situation
it is better to close the chapter.
 • It cannot be viewed in the manner the learned single judge of Andhra Pradesh
High Court has viewed it and we are therefore unable to accept the position that
Section 9 of the said Act is violative of Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution if
the purpose of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the said Act is understood
in its proper perspective.

• The Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 is constitutional.
 PRESENTED BY:
Naman sharma – 17bal033
Kareena Bakhtyarpuri – 17bal122