38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, December 20, 2025
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9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states that When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being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

ranveer-singhs-dhurandhar-barred-from-release-across-gulf-states-amid-content-sensitivity-concerns
Trending CelebStreet
Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar Barred from Release Across Gulf States Amid Content Sensitivity Concerns

Ranveer Singh’s Dhurandhar fails to secure release approval in six GCC countries amid concerns over politically sensitive content.

14 December, 2025 12:40 AM
cash-debt-exceeding-20000-does-not-invalidate-cheque-dishonour-cases-under-section-138-of-the-ni-act-sc
Trending Judiciary
Cash Debt Exceeding ₹20,000 Does Not Invalidate Cheque Dishonour Cases Under Section 138 of the NI Act: SC [Read Order]

Supreme Court rules that cash loans above ₹20,000 do not invalidate cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the NI Act despite I-T Act violations.

14 December, 2025 02:23 AM
sc-upholds-10-year-sentence-for-woman-in-commercial-quantity-ganja-case-rejects-pleas-based-on-sampling-irregularities
Trending Judiciary
SC Upholds 10-Year Sentence for Woman in Commercial Quantity Ganja Case, Rejects Pleas Based on Sampling Irregularities [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds 10-year sentence under NDPS Act in commercial ganja case, ruling that sampling irregularities alone do not vitiate prosecution.

14 December, 2025 02:30 AM
sc-upholds-bail-in-2010-jnaneswari-express-derailment-case-issues-directions-on-speedy-trials-under-uapa
Trending Judiciary
SC Upholds Bail in 2010 Jnaneswari Express Derailment Case, Issues Directions on Speedy Trials Under UAPA [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court upholds bail in the 2010 Jnaneswari Express derailment case while issuing sweeping directions to ensure speedy trials in UAPA cases.

14 December, 2025 02:39 AM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email