Case analysis of Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha [AIR 1984 SC 1562]

Introduction

A marriage under all the rules of marriage is a union that imposes certain marital obligations on each spouse and gives each of them certain legal rights. The important thing in marriage is that married people will live together.

Each partner has the right to comfort the other’s combination. Therefore, after a divorce, if one of the spouses for no apparent reason withdraws from the other’s community, the abuser has the legal right to appeal to the marriage court to restore the marital rights.

The court, after hearing the application of the aggrieved spouse, on the conviction that there is no legal reason why the application was rejected and when satisfied with the veracity of the statements made in the appeal, may issue a declaration of restitution of marital rights.

The Marriage Restitution Act means that the offender has been ordered to stay with the victim. Restoration of marital rights is the only solution that a divorced spouse can use against another. The husband or wife can apply for restitution of their marital rights.

But making a decision to restore marital rights is very difficult. Although the court has jurisdiction to pass a decision restoring the rights of married couples, it has no jurisdiction to do any of its work under any law. Failure to comply with the decision will result in constructive damages on the part of the offending spouse.

According to the provisions of India’s private law, the aggrieved party submits the divorce decree within one year from the date of the adoption and the competent court may issue a divorce decree in favor of that law. the traumatized group.

A declaration of restitution of marital rights may be enforced by the attachment of property, and if the party to which the claim is made is non-compliant, the Court may also punish him or her for contempt of court.

But in any case, the court may compel the offending spouse to end the marriage. An announcement of restitution of marital rights can only be passed if there are legal marriages.

In modern India, the solution is found for Hindus under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for Muslims under common law, for Christians under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to Parsis under Section 36 of the Parish.

Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, and for married persons in terms of the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

Origin

The principle of restitution of marital rights is borrowed from Indian law in English law. Under English law, a wife and husband were treated as one body so the wife could not sue her husband or vice versa.

The solution to restoring marital rights comes from the Ecclesiastical Courts of the West. Such courts with a declaration of reinstatement of marital rights compelled the spouses to refuse to fulfill a valid obligation to the complaining spouse. Later in England, the remedy was recognized by various Marital Marriages that were occasionally passed on.

From England, these rights extended to his various colonies where his Anglo-Saxon law was merged and India did not differ from this. The arrangement had never been part of the Law of Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims or Persians, but the British imported it into India, with proclamations of judgment.

So, in the absence of any legal code, Indian courts have ruled in favor of restoring the marital rights of all religious communities.

Case facts of Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha

Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha was sentenced on August 8, 1984. It is considered a milestone because it challenges the legitimacy of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when a two-judge panel of the Supreme Court of India upheld the law. Legality of Restitution of Marital Rights contained in the Act.

An application was made by the wife for the restoration of marital rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Her husband agreed to the same law and was beaten.

One year after the husband filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the plaintiff for divorce on the grounds that although one year had elapsed from the date of passing the restitution of marital rights law as non-existent. Coexistence had taken place between the parties.

During the interim period, the wife was taken to her husband’s house by her parents one month after the order and the husband kept her in the house for two days and then was evicted again.

Considering this Regional Court as the declaration of restitution of marital rights was passed with the consent of the parties, the husband was not entitled to a divorce decree. The appeal was filed by the Defendant in the High Court for a divorce order.

On appeal, the case came before the Supreme Court that the decision to consent could not be called a partnership, a decision to deny the applicant a decision to reinstate marital rights and because of the language. challenged to receive the proclamation. The appeal was granted, and the husband was granted a divorce decree. The same complaint is here.

Issues before the Hon’ble court in Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha

1. Husband whether entitled to a decree of divorce or not?
2. Constitutionality of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Constitutional legitimacy of section 9

The constitutional validity of the provision for restitution of marital rights has been repeatedly questioned and challenged. The first was in 1983 before the Andhra Pradesh Supreme Court in the case of T. Sareetha vs T. Venkatasubbaiah when the Supreme Court ruled that the opposition was unconstitutional.

Delhi High Court in the case of Harvinder Kaur vs Harminder Singh despite having conflicting opinions. Finally, the Supreme Court in the case of Saroj Rani vs Sudharshan issued a ruling in favor of the Supreme Court of Delhi and upheld the legality of Article 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and overturned the decision of T. Sareetha vs T. Venkatasubbaiah.

It can be said that the two cases T. Sareetha v. T. Venkatasubbaiah and Saroj Rani v. Sudharshan is undoubtedly one of the most important cases in the Indian spectrum of stare decisis dealing with the ‘remarriage of marital rights’ solution.

The seriousness of such cases should not be underestimated. Sareetha and Saroj Rani raised important issues on both sides of the issue of restitution of marital rights. The main reasons for challenging the legitimacy of S.9 of the Act are the violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Although Sareetha was the first case in which the S.9 Constitution of the Law was challenged, it is appropriate to point out what Lord Herschell saw in the case of Russell and Russell in which he noted the brutality of such a forced settlement between the couple. . Such recognition is a touchstone in which all arguments in favour of the violation of the S.9 constitution can be laid.

Findings of the Court in Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha

• Based on the facts preserved, it emerged in court that there is no cooperation between the wife who has filed a complaint against her husband over certain allegations, the husband denies the allegations. He said he was determined to get his wife back. The legislation was passed on that basis.
• In the Court of Appeal of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal did not object to the acquisition of marital rights and the attorney did not dispute the reasons why the plaintiff could not. not to use his ‘evil’ for refusing to coexist when issuing an order.
• There are, however, no whispers of these allegations as provided for in Dispute No. As always, in this disclosure, the attorney prayed that he be given the opportunity to amend his plea and that those involved, in common pleadings, not suffer from the error of the attorneys.
• In Defendant’s dispute number: Firstly there was no denial, secondly, the reason was not appealed before any of the lower courts which is a valid question, thirdly the facts agree and the allegations made by the wife in the trial court and before that. The Branch Bench was at odds with the facts now seeking to appeal in support of his application.
• There are adequate safeguards in Section 9 to prevent us from becoming tyrants. The significance of the concept of marital rights can be explored in accordance with the Law Commission-71st Report on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 –
• This is similar to a court order in which a court has issued a declaration of restitution of marital rights and the court can rule only if there is no valid reason for not appealing the decision to restore marital rights to give the spouse a chance to settle the matter peacefully.

It serves the purpose of society as an aid to preventing divorce. It will not be viewed in the same light as the one educated judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and therefore cannot accept the fact that Section 9 of the said Act violates Section 14 or Section 21 of the Constitution if the purpose of the declaration of restitution in cases of disobedience it is kept under control.

• Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is valid.
• Even after the final divorce decree, the husband would continue to pay maintenance to his wife until he remarried and provided for her. The wife would receive only such support until she remarried and the daughter, Menka, would be supported until she got married. The respondent will pay the costs of this complaint to the complainant which has been assessed by Rs. 1500.
• Complaint dismissed.

Conclusion

In 1983, the Supreme Court of Andhra Pradesh overturned section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provided for the restoration of marital rights, as unconstitutional. Justice Choudary concluded that forcing a person to live with his or her spouse violates the right to privacy in the Indian Constitution.

A key issue at the heart of the controversy was the right to privacy extends to domestic and marital relations.

However, in view of the fact that marital rape is not a crime in India, forcing a woman to live with her husband deprives her of her right to choose whether or not to have sex, since her husband could force her to have sex under legal restrictions.

Thus, even though section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act does not make sex compulsory, forcing a woman to live with her husband in a marriage puts him at risk of marital rape, deprives him of his physical independence, and thus abuses him.

With the gradual realization that the law requires intervention in family affairs and the protection of individual rights, restitution of marital rights has been criticized in all areas of common law, leading to its abolition in the UK, Australia, Ireland, and South Africa. It is time for India, too, to end the restoration of marital rights, considering a clear violation of the protected right to privacy.

This article has been authored by Aviral Srivastava.