Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Marriage is considered one of the most sacred institutions in Hindu society. The bond between a husband and wife is not just a social contract but also a religious and emotional commitment that binds two individuals for life. However, there are situations where one spouse may withdraw from the conjugal relationship, causing emotional distress to the other. 

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides a legal remedy to the aggrieved spouse who faces abandonment by the other without any reasonable excuse. This provision is commonly known as the “restitution of conjugal rights.” The concept behind this section is to restore the marital bond and encourage the couple to live together again.

What is Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. According to this provision, if either the husband or wife has withdrawn from the society of the other without a reasonable excuse, the aggrieved party can file a petition before the District Court seeking the restitution of conjugal rights. If the court is satisfied with the truth of the statements made in the petition and finds no legal reason to reject the application, it may pass a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights.

The essence of this provision is that the court is empowered to intervene and restore the relationship between the husband and wife by compelling the spouse who has withdrawn to resume cohabitation, provided there is no justifiable reason for the withdrawal.

Text of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

“When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

Explanation. —Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.”

Enforcement of the Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights

Section 9 also specifies how the decree for restitution of conjugal rights can be enforced. While the decree does not allow for the physical detention of the spouse, it can be enforced through financial coercion. Under Rule 32 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court may order the attachment of the property of the defaulting spouse if they fail to comply with the decree. This provision ensures that the aggrieved spouse has a legal remedy in case the decree is not respected.

In cases where a spouse continues to refuse to comply with the decree, the court may use the attachment of property as a means of enforcement. The non-compliance of the decree can also lead to consequences such as divorce. Under Section 13(i-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, non-compliance with the decree for a period of one year may result in the aggrieved party filing for divorce on the grounds of constructive desertion.

The Burden of Proof

When a petition is filed under Section 9 for the restitution of conjugal rights, the burden of proof initially lies with the petitioner. The aggrieved spouse must prove that the other party has withdrawn from the society of the spouse without any reasonable excuse. If the petitioner successfully establishes that the respondent has withdrawn without justifiable cause, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent. The respondent must provide evidence of a reasonable excuse for the withdrawal.

This concept was clarified in the case of Mrs. Aruna Gordon vs. Mr. G.V. Gordon (1999), where the court held that the burden of proof lies initially with the petitioner, who must establish that the respondent has withdrawn without a reasonable cause. Once this is proven, the burden shifts to the respondent, who must then show that the withdrawal was justified due to specific reasons such as cruelty or other matrimonial misconduct.

Landmark Cases of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Several other judicial precedents have contributed to the interpretation of Section 9. Some of the important cases include:

1. B.R. Syal vs. Ram Syal (1968): This case emphasized that the essence of a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights is that the spouse seeking it must make an effort through the court to restore the relationship. The court plays a role in encouraging the couple to live together and resolve their differences.
2. Harvinder Kaur vs. Harmander Singh Choudhry (1983): In this case, the court dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 9. The petitioner argued that compelling a spouse to cohabit against their will violated the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court, however, upheld the constitutionality of Section 9, stating that the decree does not violate personal liberty as it does not force sexual relations but only mandates cohabitation.
3. Babita vs. Munna Lal (2022): This recent case dealt with the issue of maintenance. Despite a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the court ruled that the wife could still claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. The judgement reinforced the idea that the decree for restitution does not affect a spouse’s entitlement to maintenance if they are facing financial hardship.
4. Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha: In Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, the Supreme Court ruled that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights could only be granted when there was no justifiable reason for the withdrawal of one spouse. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the decree is not to force a spouse into living with the other against their will but to provide an opportunity for the couple to reconcile and settle their issues amicably.

Constitutionality of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

One of the main debates surrounding Section 9 is its compatibility with the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The concept of forcing a spouse to cohabit against their will raises concerns about personal autonomy and privacy. The constitutional validity of Section 9 was challenged in the case of T. Sareetha vs. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983), where the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Section 9 violated the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21.

However, this view was overruled by the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 9, stating that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not compel sexual relations but seeks to restore marital companionship. The Court emphasized the importance of preserving the institution of marriage and providing an opportunity for reconciliation between spouses.

The Supreme Court also observed that the right to privacy must be balanced with the need to protect the sanctity of marriage, which is a fundamental social institution. Thus, while personal autonomy and privacy are protected under the Constitution, they must be balanced against the social importance of preserving the marital bond.

Conclusion

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, serves as an important legal remedy to preserve the institution of marriage by compelling spouses to live together when one of them has withdrawn without a reasonable cause. The provision allows the aggrieved spouse to seek the restitution of conjugal rights and provides a framework for enforcing the decree through financial coercion.