BY MISS SHALINI DHYANI[1]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
| NAME OF THE CASE | Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudharshan Kumar |
| CITATION | AIR 1984 SC 1562, 1985 SCR (1) 303 |
| DATE OF THE CASE | August 8, 1984 |
| APPELANT | Smt. Saroj Rani |
| RESPONDENT | Sudharshan kumar |
| BENCH /JUDGE | Justice Sabyasachi, Justice Syed Murtaza Fazl Ali. |
| STATUTES/ CONSTITUION INVOLVED | The Constitution of India, 1950, The Hindu Marriage Act,1955 |
| IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ ARTICLES | The Constitution of India—Article 13, 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Section 9, 23 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. |
ABSTRACT
Marriage in all personal laws is considered to be a sacred union of two souls which is subjected to marital duties and obligations by both the parties as well as legal rights. Marriage is considered to be an essential element of Indian society, which can only get successful with the participation of both the parties and so, if any party or spouse deserts his or her husband without any proper reason or excuse, it allows the state to interfere in between them. The main purpose of marriage is to remain devoted to each other. Hindus are governed through The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under which a section is present i.e. Section 9 which states restitution of conjugal rights which aims towards to save the marriage anyhow because India is a society which believes in preventing the marriage it is not like western society where in every one day a couple is getting divorced. The section works only when one of the spouses deserted another spouse without any reasonable ground. However it has been also heard that state interference is compelling couple to stay together which in itself violates the fundamental rights of people such as right to privacy and right to live with human dignity. In this case the constitutionality of Section 9, along with aim and objective of the state to frame this section has been discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In present case a decree of restitution of conjugal rights insinuates that the iniquitous party instructed to live with the aggrieved party. The restitution of conjugal rights means to restore back the marital rights, because marriage is recognized as wedlock or a social contract between two parties so there are certain rights and obligation that are rely on both the parties. Restitution of conjugal right is only remedy to save the marriage on the front foot, this generally used when one of the spouse is not fulfilling basic requirement of marriage such as co-habitation or if they are having children so not taking care of them and left the house without any proper excuse then this decree can be granted. This remedy is not only available to Hindus but also to Muslims under their general law, Under section 32 and 33 of Indian divorce act,1869 the Christians can take remedy and under Section 36 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 also Section 22 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 remedy is available irrespective of religion, caste. Interpretation of laws under Hindu Marriage Act remains always in question, it puts every layman into a dilemma and even sometimes Courts take into another route where parties don’t agree with the decisions which often gives rise to conflicts. Therefore, the provisions give equal rights to husband and wife the equity is maintained between them. In the case of Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, the husband contended about witnessing cruelty from wife, such instances can also be noticed so in whole sole the provisions bring equity between husband and wife.[2]
The Restitution of Conjugal Rights and its Origin
The meaning of term restitution of conjugal rights means to restore back the marital rights This decree can only be passed in case of valid marriages. It is a matrimonial remedy, it is a positive remedy that it requires both the parties of the marriages to live together and cohabit. The complete meaning of this term is that when either the husband or wife withdraws from the society or circle of other party without any justification, then as per section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, the person that has been mistreated may apply a decree of restitution of conjugal rights to the district court and the court can proclaim this decree it is find that representations made in the petition are effective and there is no valid protection.
This principle has been originated from England, where is considered as property deal and wife is considered as man’s property. The remedy for restitution for conjugal rights owes its origin to the Ecclesiastical Courts of the West. Such courts by decree of restitution of conjugal rights compelled the recalcitrant spouse to discharge the due obligation towards the complaining spouse. Later in England, the remedy was recognized by the various Matrimonial Causes Acts passed from time to time. From England, these rights passed on to her various colonies onto which her Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence was grafted and India was no exception in this regard. The provision was never a part of Hindu, Sikh, Muslim or Parsi Law, but the British imported it into India, through judicial pronouncements. Thus in the absence of any statutory law, the Indian courts passed decrees for restitution of conjugal rights for all religious communities.[3] In India this principle introduced with a case of Moonshee Buzloor Vs Shumsoonissa Begum, where such actions were regarded as considerations for specific performance. 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[4]. In Abdul Kadir vs Salima, the Allahabad High Court held that the decree of restitution of marriage should be based on the Principle of Muslim law and not on the basis of justice, equity and good conscience. The texts of Hindu Law recognized the principle, “let mutual fidelity continue until death”. Hindu Law enjoined on the spouses to have the society of each other while the old Hindu Law stressed on the wife’s implicit obedience to her husband, it did not lay down any procedure for compelling her to return to her husband against her will.[5]
Essential of Section -9: Restitution of conjugal right 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].
There are essentials of the restitution of conjugal rights which are as follows.
- There should be a valid marriage
- Any of the spouse has withdrawn from the society of other spouse
- Withdrawn from the society must be unreasonable.
- The court should be convinced that the facts stated by the petitioner are true.
- The court should be convinced that there is no legal ground exists to refuse the case.
Constitutional validity of section-9
There were a lot of debates in the parliament against and for including the provision for restoration of marital rights in Special Marriage Act of 1954 and The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Through various cases this can be discussed. The debate of constitutionality of the restitution of conjugal rights emerged from the case Gobind Vs State of Madhya Pradesh where the Supreme Court held that right to privacy is not explicit but can be implied under Article 21 of the Constitution Of India. In Sareetha Vs T. Venkatasubbaiah the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenged the constitutionality of marital restitution arguing that it violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it denies the women right to freedom of their bodies use for procreation and evolution. The Constitution provides social measures to protect women’s rights, liberty and equality of opportunity. Later this judgment was overruled in the case Harvinder Kaur Vs Harmander Singh Choudhary it was held by Justice A.B. Rohatagi addressed misconceptions about section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, he held that marriage in India is considered as an ancient and tradition which should be preserved. If any party withdraws without giving any valid reason from the society of other party then a petition can be filed in the District Court. The court found that section 9 does not violate Article 21 as it aims to preserve marriage and promote cohabitation between married couples. Now further final judgment was given in this case which will be discussed further.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner and respondent got married on January 1975 with proper rituals and customs at Jalandhar. On 4th January 1976 they both had a daughter named Menka after a year of marriage. On October 1977, the wife filed a suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right and alleged her husband that he mistreated her after the birth of their second daughter on 28thFebruary 1977 named Guddi but unfortunately she died on 6th August 1977 at her father’s residence. It was contended by the petitioner that on 16thMay 1977 when their last cohabitation took place her husband withdraw her from the society.
And she also claimed that she was ill-treated by her in laws also. The husband however denied the abuse claim and gave his consent allow the decree for damages pass. After one month of the decree being passed, the wife was taken to house and husband cohabitated with her and after two days she want turned out of the house.
Furthermore, after one year the husband filed a petition divorce petition under Section 13 (1 A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, he gave arguments while filing divorce petition that he and his wife had been living separately for last one year and there was no cohabitation taken place between them as per the decree of the restitution of conjugal rights which was earlier passed by the court.
After considering the above facts, the District Court held that divorce petition cannot be filed by the husband as the decree of conjugal rights was passed on the consent of the parties. The husband then was followed by an appeal to the High court which declares that a decree was not passed with the consent of the parties and claimed that fraudulent decree preventing the restitution of marriage of the petitioner. Court held that a consent decree could not be termed to be a collusive, decree so as to disentitle the petitioner to a decree for the restitution of the conjugal rights, and in that view of the language of Section 23 if the court had tried to make conciliation between the parties and the conciliation had been ordered, the husband was not dissented to get a decree.[6]
The High Court also held that as per Section 23 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 if the court had tried to make amends between the parties and if reconciliation had been ordered, then the husband was entitled to get a decree. Hence, the appeal was allowed and the husband was granted the right to a divorce.[7] The division bench held under the purview of Joginder Singh v. Smt. Pushpa, that the order which was passed for restitution of conjugal is not termed collusive and if the district judge has taken the view under the Section of 23 Hindu Marriage Act that the conciliation has been ordered then the husband would not disentitle him for a decree of divorce, therefore, the appeal was allowed by the division bench and decree of divorce was passed.[8]
The appeal for the same was filed by petitioner as she was aggrieved by the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce or not?
- Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is constitutionally valid or not? Whether section 9 violates Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution?
ARGUMENTS FROM PETITIONER SIDE
- The petitioner stated that her husband and in-laws subjected her to mistreatment and cruelty, which prompted her to seek a decree of restitution of marriage.
- The petitioner mentioned that she was granted maintenance of Rs 185 as pendente lite (temporary maintenance) and Rs 300 for litigation expenses on March 21, 1978. Additionally, a decree of restitution of conjugal rights was mutually decided upon.
- The petitioner argued that in response to her petition for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent accepted some facts stated in the petition but denied others. Specifically, the respondent claimed that he never made any demands, mistreated, ostracized, or threw the petitioner out of the house, as alleged by the petitioner.
- The petitioner further argued that after the decree of restitution was passed, she went to the respondent’s house and lived there as a normal husband and wife for two days. However, the court did not consider this fact.
ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT SIDE
- The respondent filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the mentioned act, citing the absence of cohabitation between him and his wife for a year after the decree of restitution. This indicates a breakdown in the marital relationship and suggests that efforts at reconciliation have been unsuccessful. Therefore, it is reasonable to grant the divorce petition as the parties have not been living together as husband and wife, which is essential for a healthy marriage.
- The respondent stated that he was willing to take his wife back to his house, demonstrating his willingness to reconcile and save the marriage. This shows that he is open to resolving the issues between them and giving the relationship another chance. Therefore, it would be fair to consider the respondent’s intention to reconcile and assess the feasibility of reconciliation before making a final decision on the divorce petition.
- The respondent refuted certain allegations made by his wife. This implies that there might be conflicting claims and issues of credibility between the parties. In such cases, it becomes crucial to thoroughly evaluate the evidence presented by both sides to determine the truthfulness of the allegations. The court should consider the respondent’s denial and weigh it against the evidence provided by the wife to ensure a fair and unbiased judgment.
- The respondent argued that there is no collusion between the parties as consent decrees in marital affairs are not collusive. Collusion refers to a deliberate agreement between the parties to deceive or defraud the court. By highlighting that consent decrees are not collusive, the respondent suggests that their intention is genuine and not aimed at deceiving the court. Therefore, the court should consider this argument and not dismiss the divorce petition on grounds of collusion without proper examination of the facts.
- The respondent further argued that at the time the decree was passed, Section 13(B) was not applicable. This indicates that the grounds for divorce invoked by the husband might not fall under the specific provisions outlined in Section 13(B) of the act. However, it is crucial to assess the overall circumstances and applicable sections of the act to determine if there are other valid grounds for divorce under which the husband’s petition can be accepted.
RELATED PROVISIONS
Article 13 of the Constitution of India
1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,—(a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law,
(b) “Laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
[(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.][9]
Article 14 of the Constitution of India
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.[10]
Article 15 of the Constitution of India
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, b e subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—
(a) Access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
[(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.]
[(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.][11]
Article 21 of the Constitution of India
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Restitution of conjugal right 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.][12]
Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Decree in proceedings.—(1) in any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that
(a) Any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner [except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5] is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and
(b) where the ground of the petition is the ground specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 13, the petitioner has not in any manner been accessory to or connived at or condoned the act or acts complained of, or where the ground of the petition is cruelty the petitioner has not in any manner condoned the cruelty, and
[(bb) when a divorce is sought on the ground of mutual consent, such consent has not been obtained by force, fraud or undue influence, and]
(c) The petition (not being a petition presented under section 11)] is not presented or prosecuted in collusion with the respondent, and
(d) There has not been any unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding, and
(e) There is no other legal ground why relief should not be granted, then, and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly.
(2) Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavor to bring about reconciliation between the parties: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in clause (ii), clause (iii), clause (iv), clause (v), clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) of section 13.]
(3) For the purpose of aiding the court in bringing about such reconciliation, the court may, if the parties so desire or if the court thinks it just and proper so to do, adjourn the proceedings for a reasonable period not exceeding fifteen days and refer the matter to any person named by the parties in this behalf or to any person nominated by the court if the parties fail to name any person, with directions to report to the court as to whether reconciliation can be and has been, effected and the court shall in disposing of the have due regard to the report.
(4) In every case where a marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce, the court passing the decree shall give a copy thereof free of cost to each of the parties.][13]
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court held that A consent decree cannot be said to be a conspiratorial decree, thereby depriving the petitioner of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and in view of the language of section 23, if the Court had tried to bring about a reconciliation between the parties and reconciliation was ordered, the husband was not entitled to obtain a decree.
The court upheld the judgment of Punjab Haryana High court. An appeal was accepted and the husband granted a decree of divorce. And whereas the Apex Court attempted to draw the attention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent-husband had from the very beginning intended to obtain a decree of divorce and therefore did not oppose the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which he knew about the fact that it would result in misleading the wife and the court and this fact was not known to nor was presented in any of the pleadings challenging the facts of cohabitation after the matrimonial order was passed Subsequently, on this point the learned counsel for the appellant prayed before the Apex Court to allow him to amend his petition, which further dismissed the application for amendment.
Here Apex Court failed to reasonably justify granting divorce to the husband, here Court failed to take facts into account that husband took advantage of law and satisfy his goal of taking divorce ultimately. The entire point of debate was to prevent the sanctity of marriage but here we can see that how husband used his own wrong of abandoning his wife as ground to divorce which held valid. Also in case Shakila Banu Vs Gulam Mustafa, here in this case the court was failed to improve the status of women as same done here, the court wrongfully justifies Sareetha judgment and held the concept of restitution of marriage is regressive and barbaric. Here Court directed to husband to pay the maintenance to his wife of Rs 200 per month and Rs 300 to Daughter per month until she remarries and maintains one living daughter of the marriage.
In the view of that whether section 9 is constitutionally valid or not or whether it violates Article 13, 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution the court gave further judgment or observation. Starting from the Sareetha judgment the Court held a bifurcating view to this case because this judgment held section 9 constitutionally valid and non violation of Article 21. As Article 21 guarantees the right to privacy which ensures autonomy of an individual and considered as fundamental right. When a couple is forced to live together and cohabitation occurs between them forcefully means when one party against the will of other party cohabits then it violates basic human dignity and right to privacy of that individual.
In Saroj Rani, the court avoids seeing how problematic the compensation decree is by justifying it as social assistance. It criticizes the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment which holds the view that Section 9 violates basic rights of women. Here Supreme Court held that or explains that forcible sexual intercourse is not what section 9 means or holds this section is just provided in order to preserve the sanctity of their marriage and live in unity. The remedy of restitution aimed at syndicate and cohabitation and only sexual relationship. This judgment overruled the Sareetha judgment. From here it can be believed that sexual desire is not entirety of a marriage but sexual autonomy is an essential tight that everyone holds and this cannot be violated. The court here took the precedent of earlier case of Harvinder Vs Harmander Singh where court held that remedy of constitutional right does not violate Article 13, 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Here this case bring limitations to sexual relationship and held that decree of restitution is for the purpose to draw a mutual understanding between husband and wife so that they both can lead to a happy married life.
Here the court also cited the case named Geeta Laxmi Vs G.V.R.K. Sarveswara Rao where in that case the husband also maltreated his wife and turned out her from the house which resulted in disentitled of divorce decree and in the present case the element of maltreatment was absent no such evidence was produced. Moreover, While in the issue of where Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act violated Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution, the Court contemplated the expression “conjugal” by taking reference of Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the meaning of ‘conjugal’ as “of or pertaining to marriage or husband and wife in their relations to each other” and “Conjugal rights” interpreted well in the Dictionary of English Law, defines ‘conjugal rights’ as: “The right which husband and wife have to each other’s society and marital intercourse. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights is a matrimonial suit, cognizable in the Divorce Court, which is brought whenever either the husband or the wife lives separate from the other without any sufficient reason, in which case the court will decree restitution of conjugal rights (Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950), but will not enforce it by attachment, substituting however for attachment if the wife is the petitioner, an order for periodical payments by the husband to the wife. Conjugal rights cannot be enforced by the act of either party, and a husband cannot seize and detain his wife by force (R.V. Jackson)”. The importance of ” conjugal rights” can also be seen as per Indian version Commission-71st Report on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as a Ground of Divorce, where it is stated as “Moreover, the essence of marriage is a sharing of common life, a sharing of all the happiness that life has to offer and all the misery that has to be faced in life, an experience of the joy that comes from enjoying, in common, things of the matter and the spirit and from showering love and affection on one’s offspring. Living together is a symbol of such sharing in all its aspects. Living apart is a symbol indicating the negation of such sharing. It is indicative of a disruption of the essence of marriage-“breakdown” and if it continues for a fairly long period, it would indicate destruction of the essence of marriage- “irretrievable breakdown”. [14]
Hence the Supreme Court held by considering the views of the honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Delhi High Court where single judge bench held that Section 9 of the HMA did not violate Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Here the court rejected the contentions of T Sareetha case and accepted the views of the case Harvinder Vs Harmander Kaur by considering section 9 non- violative of HMA. Although, the court the court didn’t explicitly explained the right to privacy, in overruling T Sareetha case. The Court granted a decree of divorce to the respondent and held that the husband would continue to pay maintenance to his wife after the final of the divorce decree, till she remarries. The court determined that protecting the integrity of marriage superseded constitutional assault, and that property attachment was the appropriate response in the event of disobedience.
CONCLUSION
The main aim of the restitution of conjugal rights is to save marriage and maintain harmony. In case of Martial rape, the husband take the a decree of restitution as a defence by stating that Marital rape is not criminalized in the institution of marriage and allows forced sex with their wife. However there is a ray of hope in darkness that a divorce petition can be filed on the ground of cruelty. As in a judgment Kerala High Court stated that while deciding a case of doctor where the court held that while marital rape is not recognized under criminal law, it can still be a ground for divorce in a form of cruelty. It was further held that violation or disrespect of one’s body integrity would amount to violation of individual’s autonomy.
A marriage between two people is a soul union or a sacred union where the interests of both the parties should be protected. The sacrosanctity of marriage can be preserved only when both the parties have equal right in all marital obligations. Unnecessarily intervention in matter of marriage can lead to time a time when a person has zero autonomy. It is unbelievable that hoe Apex court failed to recognize the dangerous unfair reality of women in India.
With the gradual understanding that there is need of interference of law in family matters and to protect the individual’s rights, there has been a lot of time when restitution of conjugal rights is criticized across the world like in United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland and South Africa. Now it is high time for India to abolish the restitution of conjugal rights because at present the restitution of conjugal right has lost its relevance and as society changes over time, the cases of violence and abuse are increasing so this section does not create the appropriate effect, initially it sought to have but it ends up doing harm than good. This is a blatant breach of the right to privacy it represents.
[1] [1] B.A.LL.B. 4th SEMESTER AT VASUDEV COLLEGE OF LAW, LAMACHAUR, HALDWANI, UTTARAKHAND.
[2] Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar, https://lawtimesjournal.in/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chad (last visited June 25, 2023).
[3] Case Analysis of Smt. Saroj Rani Vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha Air 1984,https://probono-india.in/Indian-Society/Paper/409_CASE%20ANALYSIS.docx (last visited June 25, 2023).
[4] Restitution of Conjugal Rights,https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/814/Restitution-of-Conjugal-R (last visited June 25 2023).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Smt. Saroj Raani vs Susarshan Kumar,https://www.lawaudience.com/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kuma (last visited June 26, 2023)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 13.
[10] The Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14.
[11] The Constitution of India, 1950 , Article 15.
[12] The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9.
[13] The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 23.
[14] Ibid.