SC on Conjugal Rights

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity

In News

  • The Supreme Court has clarified that proceedings related to restitution of conjugal rights (Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act) and maintenance (Section 125, CrPC) are independent and not interlinked.
    • A husband is obligated to pay maintenance to his wife even if she refuses to comply with a court’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

What are Conjugal Rights?

  • Conjugal rights are legal rights that arise from marriage, entitling spouses to live together and enjoy the companionship and society of each other. 
  • These rights are recognized and enforced by both personal laws and criminal law provisions related to maintenance and alimony.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights

  • A legal remedy allowing an aggrieved spouse to seek a court decree directing the other spouse to resume cohabitation.
  • The objective is to prevent the breakdown of marriages by encouraging reconciliation.

Legal Recognition of Conjugal Rights

  • Conjugal rights are codified in personal laws that govern marriage and family relations:
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 9 allows a spouse to petition the court for restitution of conjugal rights if the other spouse withdraws from their society without reasonable excuse.
    • Muslim Personal Law: Recognizes conjugal rights and allows petitions for restitution.
    • Christian Law (Divorce Act, 1869): Provides similar provisions for Christian marriages.
  • Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Requires payment of maintenance to a spouse who is unable to support themselves, ensuring financial security even when conjugal rights are not being fulfilled.

Judicial Interpretations

  • T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983): The Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, terming it unconstitutional and violative of individual freedom.
  • Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984): The Supreme Court overturned the Andhra Pradesh HC decision, holding that the provision serves a social purpose by helping prevent marital discord.

Criticism and Challenges

  • Violation of Privacy: Critics argue that compelling cohabitation infringes upon the right to privacy and bodily autonomy.
  • Potential for Misuse: The provision may be used to coerce estranged spouses, particularly women, into returning to potentially abusive relationships.
  • Patriarchal Roots: Some view it as a remnant of patriarchal norms that treat spouses (especially women) as the property of their partners.

Source: TH