Karthik.T | Sastra Deemed University Thanjavur | 23rd June 2020<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Saroj Rani Smt v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Facts:<\/u><\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n This petition was filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. The court passed the decree of restitution and they both were together for 1 year. After that, her husband filed a case under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 seeking Divorce stating that since the decree of restitution of conjugal rights has elapsed there was no cohabitation took place between them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ISSUES:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n LEGAL PROVISION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n OBSERVATION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court observed there was no cohabitation between them despite the decree of restitution of conjugal right and therefore the court held that the main reason of marriage is of cohabitation and if there is no cohabitation between the parties there is no reason for living together. If it is the situation then the marriage between the husband and her wife should be revoked. The court cannot also compel them to live together which has been held in the RUSSEL V RUSSEL case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The restitution of conjugal right is a platform to the parties of being together and it acts like a social purpose as to prevent the breakup of their marriage. The single judge of Andhra Pradesh has said in his judgement that section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1995, being violative of Article 14 and 21 and the Honorable Supreme court held that the restitution of conjugal right is not violative of Article 14 and 21of the Indian constitution if the purpose of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the said act is understood in the proper perspective and if the method of its execution in the cases of disobedience is kept in view and held that section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is constitutionally valid as there is a reasonable classification under article 14 and of personal liberty under article 21. <\/p>\n\n\n\n JUDGEMENT:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Divorce has been granted and hence the court held that the husband should pay maintenance to her husband under section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act till the wife gets remarried. Restitution of Conjugal Rights is constitutionally valid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Karthik.T | Sastra Deemed University Thanjavur | 23rd June 2020 Saroj Rani Smt v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha Facts: This petition was filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1995. The court passed the decree of restitution and they both were together for 1 year. After that, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":3144,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[85,26],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n