38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, February 02, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Three-Judge Bench Of SC To Hear Plea Challenging Provisions Governing Restitution Of Conjugal Rights

By LawStreet News Network      05 March, 2019 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Three-Judge Bench Of SC To Hear Plea Challenging Provisions Governing Restitution Of Conjugal Rights

The Supreme Court today (March 5, 2019) referred to a three-judge Bench a plea challenging the provisions relating to restitution of conjugal rights.

A Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna was hearing a petition filed by two law students from the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) assailing the 1984 judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha wherein the court had upheld the validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for restitution of conjugal rights.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being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.

Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and Order XXI Rule 32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are the other provisions that govern the restitution of conjugal rights.

The petitioners have sought for all the provisions related to the restitution of conjugal rights to be struck down on the ground that they are violative of the rights to privacy, individual autonomy and dignity of individuals which are guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Further, it was also contended that these provisions place a disproportionate burden on womenand is therefore violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

vande-mataram-at-150-constitutional-reverence-judicial-restraint-and-the-limits-of-legal-nationalism
Trending Know The Law
Vande Mataram at 150: Constitutional Reverence, Judicial Restraint, and the Limits of Legal Nationalism

At 150, Vande Mataram’s constitutional status, judicial restraint, and the limits of legal nationalism reveal India’s unresolved debate on law and reverence.

28 January, 2026 12:19 PM
delhi-hc-upholds-family-pension-for-remarried-childless-widow-of-crpf-personnel-parents-not-entitled
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Upholds Family Pension for Remarried Childless Widow of CRPF Personnel; Parents Not Entitled [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court rules that a remarried childless widow of a CRPF personnel remains entitled to family pension; dependent parents have no claim under Rule 54.

28 January, 2026 03:56 PM
iran-warns-of-unprecedented-retaliation-amid-renewed-us-threats-over-nuclear-program
Trending International
Iran Warns of Unprecedented Retaliation Amid Renewed U.S. Threats Over Nuclear Program

Iran warns of unprecedented retaliation as U.S. threats over its nuclear program intensify, raising legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical concerns.

29 January, 2026 11:51 AM
india-eu-free-trade-agreement-provokes-us-rebuke-over-russian-oil-ties
Trending International
India–EU Free Trade Agreement Provokes U.S. Rebuke Over Russian Oil Ties

India and the EU seal a historic FTA, drawing sharp U.S. criticism over Russian oil ties, tariffs, and shifting global trade and geopolitical alignments.

29 January, 2026 12:07 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email