Facts of the cases :
Sareetha while studying in High school and aged about 16 years was alleged to have given in marriage to Venkata Subbaiah at Tirupati on 13-12-1975. Venkata Subbaiah filed and application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for the restitution of conjugal rights with Sareetha. Sareetharaised and objection to the jurisdiction of Cuddapah sub-court to entertain the application, contented that the court should have declined jurisdiction. The sub-court overruled her objection and Venkata Subbaiah and Sareetha never met each other after that.
Issue raised before the court :
1. Whether the sub court has jurisdiction to entertain the application of Venkata Subbaiah under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 ?
2. Whether section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is constitutional?
Judgement of the court
Justice P.A. Chaudhary of the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allowed the Court to pass an order for ‘restitution of conjugal rights.’ In simple language, if the Court was convinced that either a husband or a wife had ‘without reasonable cause, withdrawn from the society‘ of their spouse, then it could decree that the defaulting spouse was required to go back to the company of their partner – a decree that could be enforced by attaching the defaulter’s property. Justice Chaudhary held that Section 9 violated the rights to equality and privacy under the Constitution, and was accordingly void. Within five months, the Delhi High Court handed down a judgment disagreeing with this conclusion. And a little over a year later, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Delhi High Court, bringing the legal controversy to a close.
Nidhi verma ; BBALLB (H)
2nd yer student
shri Ramswaroop Memorial University Lucknow
22 October 2024.
Comments