| 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
- Whether the husband was entitled to the decree of divorce or not?
- What was the Constitutional Validity of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
- CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT
- 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.
- That the hubby can not take advantage of his own ‘ wrongs ’ and be granted a divorce.
- 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/
This Article is Author by ROHIT ATTRI PUPIL OF KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY KURUKSHETRA; Legal Research Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
