Marriage in Hindu culture is not merely a legal contract but a sacred bond that transcends lifetimes. The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 was enacted to address inequalities among spouses and safeguard the sanctity of this sacramental union. Section 9 of the Act introduces the concept of Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR), aiming to reunite estranged spouses. However, the constitutional validity of this provision has sparked significant legal debates in India.
The rationale behind Section 9 stems from the ancient declaration of Manu, emphasizing that wives cannot be released from their husbands through sale or desertion. Historically, this principle disadvantaged women, leading to inherent injustice in Hindu law. To rectify such imbalances and preserve the sanctity of marriage, the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 introduced various matrimonial remedies, including RCR.
However, over time, concerns have arisen regarding the misuse of this provision. Critics argue that RCR fails to achieve its intended purpose and exacerbates marital discord. While the remedy seeks to reconcile estranged spouses, it often results in coercion and infringement of individual rights, particularly privacy and autonomy. Moreover, the changing social landscape and evolving notions of marriage challenge the relevance of RCR in contemporary society.
Legal precedents further complicate the issue. While some court rulings, like in the case of T. Sareetha vs T. Venkata Subbaiah, have declared Section 9 unconstitutional, citing violations of privacy and human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, others, such as in Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh Choudhry and Saroj Rani vs SK Chadha, have upheld its validity. The Supreme Court, in particular, has emphasized the social importance of RCR in preserving marriages.
Privacy Concerns:
Central to the debate is the question of whether RCR infringes upon an individual’s right to privacy, including autonomy over one’s body. Indian courts have grappled with this issue, with divergent opinions emerging. While the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh acknowledged the right to privacy within the realm of home and marriage, subsequent judgments like T. Sareetha v. T. Venkatasubbaiah questioned the intrusion posed by Section 9 of RCR on spousal privacy.
The Delhi High Court, however, in Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Chaudhary, upheld Section 9, viewing it as essential for preserving the sanctity of marriage. Yet, concerns persist regarding the potential erosion of bodily autonomy, particularly in light of the absence of legislation criminalizing marital rape, as underscored in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. This underscores the inherent tension between preserving marital bonds and safeguarding individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
Equality Concerns:
The intersection of RCR with gender equality further complicates the discourse. Despite its ostensibly gender-neutral legal framework, societal biases disadvantage women, rendering them vulnerable to coercion and exploitation. Ojaswa Pathak v. Union of India marked a critical juncture in RCR discourse, with petitioners highlighting its discriminatory impact on sexual and reproductive autonomy.
The historical context of RCR’s origins, rooted in patriarchal norms, underscores its incongruity with constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 15(1). The perpetuation of gender disparities and potential harms, including unwanted pregnancies and abuse, underscores its violation of fundamental rights. This raises pertinent questions about the compatibility of RCR with contemporary notions of gender equality and justice.
International Perspectives:
A comparative analysis of RCR across jurisdictions offers valuable insights into evolving legal norms. Countries like Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom have adopted varying approaches to RCR, reflecting shifting societal attitudes and legal frameworks.
Australia’s decision to abolish RCR under the Family Law Act of 1975 signifies a recognition of its incompatibility with modern family law principles. Similarly, the UK’s move to eliminate RCR under the Matrimonial Proceedings Act of 1970 aligns with efforts to discard antiquated legal practices. In Canada, while RCR remains valid in some provinces, its application is subject to evolving family law standards, reflecting a broader trend towards recognizing individual autonomy within marital relationships.
Moreover, the misuse of RCR for ulterior motives, such as obtaining a hassle-free divorce or leveraging it as a defence for maintenance, underscores the need for legislative reform. Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows divorce if a restitution decree remains unfulfilled for a year, contributes to this misuse, as acknowledged by Justice Rohtagi.
Conclusion
In India, matrimony is viewed as a lifelong commitment that should not end. Both spouses should work through their issues, maintain their relationship, and avoid withdrawal or abandonment, as these actions are not viewed as positive or typical. Since a man and a woman are believed to become one soul and cannot survive apart when they get married, certain actions must be taken to reunite the couple so that they can recognize the gravity of their newfound relationship if one of them deserts the other. The action that forces both parties to cohabitate is known as the restitution of conjugal rights.
In light of these complexities, it is imperative to reassess the validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955. While the intention behind RCR is noble, its practical implications often result in more harm than good. Instead of coercing a couple, emphasis should be placed on mediation and reconciliation through alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms. Legislative amendments should prioritise the dignity and autonomy of individuals within marital relationships, fostering genuine reconciliation rather than legal battles. The evolving social norms and constitutional principles necessitate a nuanced approach to matrimonial remedies, ensuring that they uphold the values of justice, equality, and individual rights.
The restitution order aims to facilitate the cohabitation of the divorcing couples, allowing them to dwell peacefully in the marital residence. As a result, Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955, which addresses the restoration of marital rights, is legally enforceable under the Constitution and can be invoked by any party to the marriage.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article is written and submitted by Muskan Singh during her course of internship at B&B Associates LLP. Muskan is a 3rd year B.A. LL.B student at Amry Law School, Mohali.
