In the Supreme Court of India
|Name Of The Case||Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhry|
|Citation||Air 1984 Delhi 66, ILR 1984 Delhi 546, 1984 RLR 187.|
|Year Of The Case||15 November 1983|
|Respondent||Harmander Singh Chaudhary|
|Acts Involved||The Hindu Marriage Act,1955The Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act,1956The Code Of Criminal ProcedureThe Constitution Of India|
|Important Section||Section 9 In The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Section 13 In The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.Section 9 In The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956.Section 13 In The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956.Article 14 In The Constitution Of India 1949.The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Article 21 In The Constitution Of India 1949.Section 18 In The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956.|
This article scrutinizes to conduct an In-Depth Articulate Analysis of Marriage. Marriage is a sacred establishment of the society and should be protected by laws. However, this should not be abused to such an extent that injury of any kind, physical, mental, and legal area unit the results of marriage. Thus, once there is a solemnization of marriage, if one among the spouses out of a reasonable excuse withdraws from the other’s company, then the casualty has the right to approach The Honourable Courts for the comeback of their Legal Right. If the Court feels that the opposite relative has done injustice to the petitioner by retreating oneself from the obligations of the married union the court will order for the restitution of legal right. This case is very important for the very reason that it deals with the remedy of restitution of legal rights.
Marriage incorporates the very base of social structure within the society that we tend to inhabit. Marriage is thought to be one in every of the foremost sacred practices within the Hindu community and law. It is thought to be a religious ritual that is absolute and eternal however history is proof that there’s a vehement issue that arises with something and everything simple and obsolete and to counter such inequalities amongst spouses and to shield the pure and religious ritual side of marriage, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was understood that provided vital matrimonial remedies, one in every one of the aspects of this remedy is that the ‘Restitution Of Conjugal Rights’ beneath which both the spouses square measure needed to inhabit and live along. The very attractiveness that we tend to discuss nowadays raises the difficulty of great concern to the well-being of the state because it challenges the very root of values during a matrimonial relationship. The husband had petitioned for the restitution of conjugal rights and also the wife opposed. The Additional District Judge dominated in favour of the husband and granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights to him. The wife opposed and until now appealed the court.
Background Of The Case
The appellant, Harvider Kaur was married to the respondent, Harmandar Singh Choudhry on October 10th, 1976. Both the appellant and respondent had jobs of their own. A son was born to them on July 14th, 1978. The wife and the husband started living separately, as the appellant left the respondent’s home alleging maltreatment on part of the husband and his mother. The husband brought a petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking Restitution Of Conjugal Rights. The other party challenges the validity of the constitutionality of Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act.
Facts Of The Case
- Harvinder Kaur is the appellant who was married to Harmandar Singh Choudhry who is the respondent of this case.
- They got married on the 10th of October, 1976.
- They both were independent and had jobs of their own and used to remain occupied in their separate professions.
- They had a son who was born to them on the 14th of July, 1978.
- The Appellant decided to leave the place of their residence alleging malpractices and mistreatment she used to face by her husband as well as her mother in law.
- Due to these circumstances the husband applied for a petition under Section 9, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which seeks and exemplifies the restitution of Conjugal Rights.
- The Additional District Judge ruled in favour of the husband and granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights to him.
- The other party challenges the validity and significance of the constitutionality of the section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
- The wife decided to challenge this decree by questioning the constitutional validity and significance of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also displayed her remonstrance against the court’s jurisdiction.
Issues Of The Case
- Whether or not Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was constitutionally valid.
- Whether or not the decree for restitution was against Right to Life, Equality and Privacy?
- What object does restitution actually seek to bring between the aggrieved parties?
- Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Restitution of conjugal rights- 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.
- Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Divorce.
- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Central Government Act
- Section 9 in The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
- Section 13 in The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Right of adoptive parents to dispose of their properties. —Subject to any agreement to the contrary, an adoption does not deprive the adoptive father or mother of the power to dispose of his or her property by transfer or by will.
- Michael Jackson, Through His … vs Michael Jackson Fashion (India) … on 9 April, 2003
- The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
- Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha on 8 August, 1984.
- S. Amudha vs Chairman, Neyveli Lignite … on 29 August, 1989.
- Raman Kumar vs Smt. Baksho Thandi on 7 January, 2008.
- Smt. Sunita Devi vs Rajesh Kumar on 16 September, 2015.
- Smt. Akhilesh Kumari (Wife Of … vs Sh. Juber (Driver) on 14 October, 2015.
- Pratap Singh vs Virendra Kumar on 17 August, 2016.
- Santosh Verma vs Neeraj Chaudhary on 30 July, 2016.
- Vishan Devi Khurana vs Yogesh Kumar on 20 December, 2016.
- Nafisha vs Upender Singh on 18 March, 2017.
Justice AB Rohatgi self-addressed many misconceptions that are associated with Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It was expressed that the establishment of marriage in India has been an antique culture since its origin into the society, it is continually been considered as a religious ceremony and maybe worked upon to be preserved. If either of the parties during a marriage withdraws themselves from the living habitat and society of the other without any cheap reason, the aggrieved party may file a petition of restitution of conjugal rights in the District Court. If the Court feels satisfied with the truth of the arguments raised in such a petition and finds no legal grounds on why the application should not be allowable, it is going to grant the restitution of legal rights.
The judge held that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not violate Article fourteen and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution since the main reason behind the inspiration of Section 9 was to preserve the marriage. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights does not merely aim at gender between married couples, however on cohabitation and consortium to exist between them.
The significance of this case is highlighted within the fact that it functions to preserve the sanctity of marriage until the last shred and offers hope for reconciliation. It conjointly states that marriage is not solely regarding sexual intercourse however is a union between the soul similarly. It promotes companionship and unity as the basis of wedding and favours discussion over the departure of the spouse so as to conserve the social and sacred values of our community. This shows that the home is a castle for the person and a defensive structure for the girl. The spouse’s area unit liberal to get sacred protection behind closed doors that are away from the society and the family that the civil authorities cannot penetrate or impede. Mentioning constitutional law in domestic family and matters can result in dissent, quarrelling, and tension. The domestic community does not rest on sealed guarantees and contracts neither constitutional law. It rests on a cemented morality and ideals which act as a uniting force and produces a relationship that is ‘two in one’.