Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
15 views4 pages

Sec 9

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 addresses restitution of conjugal rights, allowing an aggrieved party to petition for restoration of marital cohabitation if one spouse withdraws without reasonable excuse. Essential elements include the existence of a valid marriage, withdrawal without excuse, and court satisfaction of the claim's truth. Recent cases have debated the section's constitutional validity, with the Supreme Court upholding it in some instances while a current petition challenges its constitutionality.

Uploaded by

Sanya Goel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views4 pages

Sec 9

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 addresses restitution of conjugal rights, allowing an aggrieved party to petition for restoration of marital cohabitation if one spouse withdraws without reasonable excuse. Essential elements include the existence of a valid marriage, withdrawal without excuse, and court satisfaction of the claim's truth. Recent cases have debated the section's constitutional validity, with the Supreme Court upholding it in some instances while a current petition challenges its constitutionality.

Uploaded by

Sanya Goel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 talks about the
restitution of conjugal rights. It states that:

1. When either the husband or the wife,


2. Without any reasonable excuse, withdraws from the
society of others,
3. Then the aggrieved party may apply by petition to the
district court for restitution of conjugal rights,
4. And if the court satisfies with the truth of the statement
5. Then, the court may issue a decree of restitution of
conjugal right accordingly.

Essential Elements of Restitution of


Conjugal Rights
The essential elements of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 (restitution of conjugal rights) are as follows:

1. There must be a valid marriage that exists between the


parties.
2. One should withdraw from the society of another.
3. This withdrawal must be made without any reasonable
excuse.
4. The court must satisfy the truth of the statement that no
legal ground exists for refusing the decree.

Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act Case


Laws

In TirathKaur vs Kirpal Singh (AIR 1996,

, the question before the Punjab and Haryana High Court was
‘whether wife’s employment can be considered a ‘reasonable
excuse’ to leave husband’s society and stay away from him.

The court applied the traditional approach and held that the
wife’s employment is not a reasonable excuse. The court
further said that “the wife’s first duty is to submit herself to her
husband and remain under his roof and protection.
Constitutional Validity of Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
T Sareetha vs T VenkataSubbaiah (AIR 1983)

In the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was argued that section 9


of the Hindu Marriage Act was against the
individual’s fundamental right to liberty and dignity guaranteed
by Article 21.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that section 9 was


unconstitutional and void because it was against personal
liberty.

Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chandra (AIR 1984


SC)

In Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chandra, the Supreme Court


finally resolved the tussle between section 9 and fundamental
rights. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of
Sec 9.
Recent Case on Conjugal Rights
In March 2019, the Indian Supreme Court admitted a writ
petition in Ojaswa Pathak vs Union of India, challenging the
constitutionality of the restitution of conjugal rights present
under multiple family laws, including section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

The matter is still pending before the three judges bench of the
Supreme Court.

You might also like