RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between two partners, marriage as an institution: the husband and the wife,
which creates more relations. This also establishes different collections of rights and
responsibilities. These rights and responsibilities are a mutual partner right, and they may be
considered the core of marital marriage. The word 'conjugal rights' means 'the freedom to be
united or the right to stay together.

This is an agreed universal rule that a partner will be there in times of trouble, support, and
caring for others. However, if a partner leaves the other person without a reasonable or
reasonable reason, then the accused party may knock on the doors of the court for justice. The
only available remedy for marriage restitution is the restitution of conjugal rights.

SECTION 9 – THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

The restitution of the conjugal rights would be explained as if the husband and wife get
separated without any proper reason or any unreasonable cause which might be the actions or
restrictions of the society or by any case or denial of statements or truth. The partners may
claim in court the conjugal rights to prevent a marriage.

If a spouse is guilty of remaining away without a reasonable or just cause, and the conjugal
rights returns successfully, the couple would have to stay together. It can also also be
deduced that section 9 is the saving clause or the marriage part. This remedy was previously
implemented in England and later by the Indian private council in the case of Moonshee
Bazloor v. Shamsoonaissa Begum for the first time. However, in England, this matrimonial
restitution solution was withdrawn back in 1970.

Section 9 needs to comply after the 3 requirements:

 The spouses must not be living together.

 No reasonable grounds must be there for the separation of the spouses.
 The restitution of the rights must be
VALIDITY OF SECTION 9 CONSTITUTIONALLY

It is important to note that the argument arises that restitution of conjugal rights violates the
right to women's privacy. Though the Supreme Court has held a right to privacy "which is a
vital component of personal freedom" in Kharak Singh v. UP 's judgment. In the case of the
Gobind v. State of M.P. Again in Kharak Singh's case, the court had to deal with the question
raised. The court understood and concluded that like other rights right to privacy is included
in the right to liberty.

CASES VALIDATING SECTION 9 OF THE HMA, 1955

 Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh, 1983

In the case it was said by the judges that Sec 9 was not contravening Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution as the purpose behind Sec 9 was to protect marriage. The remedy for
restitution was intended for coexistence and consortia, not simply intercourse.

 Vuyyuru Pothuraju v. Radha 1965

At this point, the husband and wife decided before their marriage that the husband should
stay with his wife in the house of their father-in-law after their marriage. Afterward, he
was mistreated and went back to his village asking his wife to come with him. He filed a
case to recover conjugal status on her rejection.
The Court found a pre-nuptial deal void and consequently issued the appeal. As a rule, any
agreement between husband-wife and wife, whether under Hindu law or Muslim law, is
considered void for breach of public policy.

 Mirchumal v. Devi Bai

The impact of husband and wife serving in different places is primarily addressed here. In
this situation, the husband was on duty in Ajmer, and the wife was home for her job in
Adipur. The husband requested restitution of the conjugal rights when the wife refused to
leave her job. The court ruled that if the wife's inability to grant her husband access and no
hesitation from the woman to go to her home, then she'd simply not give up her work and
the home might get support to regain conjugal rights. The appeal was thus denied.
GROUNDS ON WHICH CONJUGAL RIGHTS RESTITUTION CAN BE REJECTED

In the first, if the respondent has the grounds for seeking any redress in marriage. Second
would be if the petitioner is to be found guilty of any wrongdoing about marriage; and in the
third case, if the petitioner is to be guilty of an act or a mistake, or of behavior, which makes
it difficult for the respondent to live with him.

BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HMA

Proof pressure operates on two occasions. The first is that the burden of evidence rests with
the complainant/petitioner who must prove that he has separated from his culture. When the
applicant relieves the pressure, the respondent must show that there is a fair basis for
withdrawal.

INFRINGEMENT OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

Each person of our country has a natural right, according to his / her wishes, to associate with
others. The marital solution of the restoration of conjugal rights abuses freedom as a wife
must arrange an alliance with her husband against her will. The court ruled against the will of
the wife at Huhhram Vs Misri Bai. Though the wife specifically claimed that she did not want
to stay with her partner, the court nevertheless went ahead and sentenced the partner. In
Atma Ram. V. Narbada Dev reverse judgment was given, where the verdict for the wife was
handed.

SUGGESTIONS 

The topic of marital rights is a somewhat contentious and extremely debatable one. Some
people feel that preserving marriage means that the other party can not be forced to remain
with the aggravated party because they are not at all interested. However, tweaking always
provides scope for improvement.
Instead of strict conjugal rights the principle of mediation should be tried. The notion of
restitution is highly cruel and immoral as it requires every individual to negotiate. The sound
of reconciliation, on the other hand, is highly gentle and demanding. The concern with
restitution is that the situation will look horrific if the sides are expected to coexist
unwillingly. But restitution can not offend either party and also clears the air of
misunderstanding when the solution is reconciliation.

REFERENCES

 Anubhav Pandey, Restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act
iPleaders (2020), https://blog.ipleaders.in/restitution-of-conjugal-rights-under-the-
hindu-marriage-act/#_ftn4 (last visited May 21, 2020).
 Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the Hindu Marriage Act, Kaanoon.com (2020),
https://www.kaanoon.com/indian-law/restitution-of-conjugal-rights-in-hindu-
marriage-act/ (last visited May 21, 2020).
 Mayank Shekhar, Restitution of Conjugal Rights Legal Bites - Law And Beyond
(2020), https://www.legalbites.in/restitution-conjugal-rights/ (last visited May 21,
2020).
 Monshee Bazloor v. Shamssonaissa Begum, 1866-67 (11) MIA 551
 Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332.
 Gobind v. the State of M.P, (1975) 2 SCC 148; AIR 1975 SC 1378.
 Huhhram Vs Misri Bai, AIR 1979 MP 144
 Atma Ram. v. Narbada Dev, AIR 1980 RAJ 35
 Vuyyuru Pothuraju vs Vuyyuru Radha,1964 AIR 1965 AP 407

 Mirchumal vs Smt. Devi Bai, 1976 AIR 1977 Raj 113

 Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh Choudhry,1983 AIR 1984 Delhi 66