Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar, AIR 1984 SC 1562

CITATION	AIR 1984 SC 15621985 SCR (1) 303
DATE OF JUDGMENT	8 August, 1984
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	Saroj Rani
RESPONDENT	Sudarshan Kumar
BENCH	Justice Sabyasachi MukharjiJustice Syed Murtaza Fazl Ali

• INTRODUCTION

The case of Saroj Raniv. Sudarshan Kumar, AIR 1984 SC 1562 is a corner case in the Indian legal record in this case the legitimacy and indigenous validity of Section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955i. e restitution of connubial rights, was disputed before the bench of Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji and Justice Syed Murtaza Fazl Ali was challenged for the first time and overruled the ruling T. Sareetha vsT. Venkatasubbaiah given by Andhra Pradesh High Court.

 As the Hindu marriage is “ a sacred sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound in an endless relationship for the physical, social and spiritual need of dharma, gestation and sexual pleasure. ” As this is bound to an endless relationship between husband and woman but sometimes this relationship is weakened and parties try to break this relation but Indian law provides the same safeguard to analogous marriages by Sec 9 of HMA, 1955. 

India’s conjugal rights i.e. right of the man or the woman to the society of the other mate is not simply a creature of the enactment. Such a right is essential in the identical institution of marriage itself. There are sufficient safeguards in Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act to help  to prevent it from being a tyranny.

• FACTS OF THE CASE

Saroj Rani and Sudarshan Kumar, married at Jullundur  megacity  tallying to Hindu Vedic  solemnities on January 24, 1975. The first baby girl of the conjugality Menka was born on 04/01/1976. On 28/02/1977 alternate baby girl Guddi was born. It’s  contended that 16/05/1977 was the last day of cohabitation by the parties. Saroj  contended that on May 16, 1977, Sudarshan Kumar left his house and  fell back himself from her society.   The alternate daughter unfortunately  ceased in the house of the father on August 6, 1977. 

On October 17, 1977, the  woman filed a suit against the hubby respondent herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights.   The  woman contended several maltreatments both by the hubby as well as by her in-  ordinances and  later  contended  directive for  reparation of  marital  birthrights. On March 21, 1978, the learned Sub-Judge First Class passed an order  agreeing Rs 185 per month as  conservation pendente lite and Rs 300 as the action charges. On March 28, 1978, a  concurrence  directive was passed by the learnedSub-Judge First Class for  reparation of  marital  birthrights.

 On April 19, 1979, the replier hubby filed a  solicitation under Section 13 of the  spoke Act against the complainant for divorce on the ground that one time had passed from the  assignation of the  directive for  reparation of  marital  birthrights, but no  factual cohabitation had taken  position between the parties. The complainant filed her reply to the  spoke  solicitation. The categorical case in reply of the complainant was that it was incorrect that after passing of the  directive, there had been no  reparation of  marital  birthrights between the parties, positive case of the complainant was that after passing of the  directive, the  woman was taken to the house of the hubby by the parents of the  woman after one month of the  directive and that the hubby kept the  woman In his house for two days and she was again turned out.

   Esteeming this Regional Court as the  protestation of  restitution of conjugal rights was passed with the  concurrence of the parties, the hubby wasn’t entitled to a divorce  directive. The  supplication was filed by the Defendant in the High Court for a divorce order.  On  supplication, the case came before the Supreme Court that the  resolution to  assent couldn’t be called a  cooperation, a  resolution to  gainsay the  aspirant a  resolution to reinstate  connubial  birthrights and because of the language. Challenged to admit the proclamation. The  supplication was granted, and the hubby was granted a divorce  directive. The same complaint is then. 

• ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the husband was entitled to the decree of divorce or not?
2. What was the Constitutional Validity of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

• CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

1. That under the relief granted in Section 23(1)(a) of HMA, 1955, the hubby is disentitled to get a decree for divorce  that the hubby, from the  morning, wanted to eventually get a divorce and hence,  designedly didn’t misbehave with the  reparation order.
2. That the hubby can not take advantage of his own ‘ wrongs ’ and be granted a divorce. 
3. That a decree for  reparation of  marital rights U/S 9 OF HMA,1955 was a collusive decree in a sense. Counting on the T. Sareetha vs T. Venkatasubbaiah given by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the said decision the learned judge had observed that the remedy of  reparation of  marital rights  handed for U/ S 9 of the HMA Act was a barbarian and barbarous remedy violating the Composition 14, 21, 19 of the Constitution, they also challenged the constitutionality of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.   

• CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
• The replier’s contention stands on the ground that the right of  reparation of  marital rights is  naturally valid in reference to the decision taken in the case of Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh of Delhi High Court. 

JUDGEMENT

• After consideration of  colorful precedents, law points involved in the case with  respects of fact of the honourable court held that the section 9 is  indigenous valid. that Section 9 of the HMA didn’t violate Composition. 
• It considered the specialized  description of  marital “ of or pertaining to marriage or to hubby and  woman in their relations to each other ”, It serves a social purpose as an aid to the  forestallment of break- up of marriage as the and  therefore sided with Harvinder Kaur case before DELHI high court in observing that  nuptial  institute didn’t bear sexual cohabitation.
• Court ordered that indeed after the final decree of divorce, the hubby would continue to pay  conservation of Rs 200 per month for the  woman/ complainant and Rs 300 per month for the son Menka. Parties will be at liberty to ask for variation of the  quantities by proper  operation on proper accoutrements  made beforeSub-Judge First Class, Jullundur. The replier would pay costs of this appeal to the complainant assessed at Rs 1500.
• The appeal is dismissed with the  forenamed directions.

CONCLUSION

The Apex Court gave its  resolution as per law and in the interest of justice by  roundly  assaying the  effects and data. Some of the data were pressed out by the complainant-  woman Counsel which he failed to  call in his  suppliances was the biggest failure on his side where the Apex Court caught those loopholes, where the  entire bones game turned in favor of replier- hubby. The Supreme Court held that  reparation of   marital  birthrights didn’t constitute an  irruption  of  connubial  sequestration by the Government. As it’s the law for make a  fortune to reduce the divorce and conserve the conjugality as sacrament. 

REFERENCE

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1382895/

https://lawbhoomi.com/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-air-1984-sc-1562/

https://www.scribd.com/document/494382462/Soc

This Article is Author by ROHIT ATTRI PUPIL OF KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA; Legal Research Intern at Legal Vidhiya.