Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
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’.