In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India recently affirmed that a wife is entitled to maintenance from her husband even if she refuses to comply with a court decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The judgment underscores the independence of maintenance proceedings from those seeking restitution of conjugal rights, reaffirming that these are not directly or indirectly connected.
This judgment holds critical implications for matrimonial disputes, where questions often arise about the rights of a wife who chooses to live separately despite a decree compelling her to return to her matrimonial home.
Understanding Restitution of Conjugal Rights Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, allows either spouse to petition the district court for the restitution of conjugal rights if the other has “withdrawn from their society without reasonable excuse.” The court, upon satisfaction, may pass a decree directing the erring spouse to return to the matrimonial home.
The provision was historically intended to safeguard the family unit by ensuring cohabitation. However, its relevance in modern society has been fiercely debated. Critics argue that Section 9 imposes undue coercion and violates personal autonomy, especially in cases where gendered stereotypes influence its application.
In 1983, the Andhra Pradesh High Court declared Section 9 unconstitutional, calling it a tool to compel marital cohabitation. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision in 1984, holding that the provision served a social purpose of preventing marital breakdown. The matter remains contentious, with a 2019 challenge to its constitutionality still pending before the Supreme Court.
The Current Case: Key Questions on Maintenance and Conjugal Rights
The wife in the present case left her matrimonial home in 2015, alleging ill-treatment by her husband and his family. While the husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights in 2018, the wife sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in 2019, citing neglect and her inability to sustain herself.
In 2022, the family court granted the husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights, directing the wife to return to her matrimonial home. However, the wife did not comply, prompting the husband to challenge the separate maintenance order granted in her favor.
The Jharkhand High Court, siding with the husband, held that the wife’s refusal to comply with the restitution decree disqualified her from receiving maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC. This section denies maintenance to a wife who, “without sufficient reason,” refuses to live with her husband.
The wife appealed to the Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court’s decision, reinstating her right to maintenance.
Supreme Court’s Ruling: Independent Nature of Maintenance Proceedings
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Pankaj Mithal ruled that proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 125 CrPC are independent of each other.
The court emphasized that the mere refusal to comply with a restitution decree does not automatically disentitle a wife from maintenance. Each case must be decided on its specific facts, particularly considering whether the wife had a valid justification for not returning to her matrimonial home.
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the Jharkhand High Court had overly relied on the family court’s findings in the restitution case, failing to account for factors such as allegations of cruelty raised by the wife.
The court also referred to earlier rulings, including a 2017 Tripura High Court judgment, which held that the restrictions imposed by Section 125(4) CrPC had been diluted over time. It reiterated that courts generally lean towards granting maintenance to a wife unless there are compelling reasons to deny it.
The Broader Debate on Restitution of Conjugal Rightsq1
The debate over Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act remains unresolved. Critics argue that the provision is inherently patriarchal and infringes upon fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and personal autonomy.
In 2019, a group of law students from Gujarat National Law University challenged the constitutionality of Section 9, contending that it perpetuates outdated gender roles and violates the fundamental right against discrimination. The petition is pending before the Supreme Court, and substantive hearings are yet to begin.
In defense of the provision, the government has argued that it is gender-neutral and provides a “soft remedy” to resolve marital disputes. However, its critics assert that the law is susceptible to misuse, forcing individuals into unwanted marital cohabitation.
Implications of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling strengthens the legal
