The document discusses the legal remedy of "restitution of conjugal rights" under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in India. It was introduced by the British for social reforms and allows the aggrieved spouse to petition a district court if the other spouse withdraws from the marriage without reasonable excuse. The key points covered include: the historical background of this remedy; the essential conditions for filing a petition; what constitutes reasonable withdrawal; valid defenses; the burden of proof; and consequences if the spouses do not cohabit after a decree is granted.

1. TOPIC:
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
“RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL
RIGHTS”
UNDER SECTION 9
MS. RITU GAUTAM
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF RCR
THE REMEDY WAS UNKNOWN TO HINDU LAW TILL THE BRITISH INTRODUCED IT IN
THE NAME OF SOCIAL REFORMS. AFTER INDEPENDENCE THIS REMEDY FOUND
PLACE IN THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.
IN MODERN INDIA, THE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE:
• TO HINDUS UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955,
• TO CHRISTIANS UNDER SECTION 32 OF DIVORCE ACT,
• TO PARSIS UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE PARSI MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ACT
• TO PERSONS MARRYING IN THE CIVIL FORM UNDER SECTION 22, SPECIAL
MARRIAGE ACT.

3. ESSENCE OF RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHT
• RESTITUTION MEANS RESTORATION
• CONJUGAL RIGHTS- CONJUX- HUSBAND AND WIFE (SPOUSE)
• COHABITATION IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE
• LEAVING THE SOCIETY OF THE SPOUSE UNLAWFULLY CONSIDERED AS A LEGAL
INJURY TO THE PARTY AND DEFEAT THE MOTIVE OF MARRIAGE.

4. SECTION-9
WHEN EITHER THE HUSBAND OR THE WIFE HAS, WITHOUT REASONABLE EXCUSE,
WITHDRAWN FROM THE SOCIETY OF THE OTHER, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY MAY
APPLY, BY THE 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.

5. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 9
• T. SAREETHA V. VENKATA SUBBAIAH 1983, COURT HELD THAT THE ANDHRA
PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE REMEDY OF RESTITUTION OF
CONJUGAL RIGHTS IS A VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND HUMAN DIGNITY
GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
• HOWEVER IN SMT. HARVINDER KAUR V. HARMANDER SINGH 1984, THE DELHI
HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT IS NOT
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
• IN SAROJ RANI V. SUDARSHAN KUMAR 1991, THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED
THAT SECTION 9 OF THIS ACT CANNOT BE SAID AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14
AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION IF THE PURPOSE OF THE DECREE OF RESTITUTION
OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS IS UNDERSTOOD IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE.

6. THREE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR SECTION 9 OF
HMA 1955
• FIRSTLY, PARTIES SHOULD BE LEGALLY WEDDED HUSBAND AND WIFE
• SECONDLY, ONE PARTY MUST HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THE SOCIETY OF THE
OTHER
• THIRDLY, THE WITHDRAWAL MUST BE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE EXCUSE,
• FOURTHLY, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY APPLIES FOR THE RESTITUTION OF
CONJUGAL RIGHTS.
ONCE THESE CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY DECREE OF
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS TO BRING ABOUT COHABITATION BETWEEN
THE SEPARATED PARTIES.

7. WHAT WILL AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWN?
• WITHDRAWN IS “VOLUNTEER ACT”
• CONCEPT OF MARITAL OBLIGATION
• WITHDRAWN COULD BE PHYSICAL AS WELL MENTAL- INTENTION
• WITHDRAWN IS MENTAL PROCESS WHICH RESULTED INTO PHYSICAL SEPARATION
WHERE PARTIES ARE WILLFULLY AVOIDING MARITAL OBLIGATION
• POWELL V. POWELL AND RAMESH CHAND V. PREMLATA 1978: HUSBAND SEPARATED
HIMSELF IN A COMMON RESIDENCE MAY AMOUNT TO WITHDRAWN.
• ALKA BHASKER VS SATCHIDANANDA BARKE 1991, IF SHE IS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED
IN A PLACE AWAY FROM HER HUSBAND’S RESIDENCE. COURT FURTHER HELD THAT
THE MATRIMONIAL HOME IS NOT NECESSARILY THE HOUSE OF THE HUSBAND OR
THE HOUSE OF HIS PARENTS.

8. TEST OF REASONABILITY
• REASONABLE EXCUSE AND JUST CAUSE- DISCRETIONARY POWER OF THE COURT
• SMT. SUMANBAI VS ANANDRAO ONKAR PANPATIL 1976 THE COURT HELD THAT
THERE CAN BE NO MORE INSULTING INJURY TO THE WIFE THAN HER OWN
HUSBAND QUESTIONING HER CHASTITY.
• R. NATARAJAN V. SUJATHA VASUDEVAN 2011,COURT HELD THAT IS A WIFE IS
ASKING TO LIVE SEPARATELY FROM HUSBAND’S AGED PARENTS IS NOT A
REASONABLE EXCUSE TO WITHDRAWN AND RCR CAN BE GRANTED.

9. VALID GROUNDS FOR SEPARATE LIVING
DISENTITLING THE OTHER SPOUSE TO A DECREE OF
RCR#
HARVINDER KAUR V. HARMINDER KAUR, AIR 1984 & PUSHPA RANI V. VIJAY PAL SINGH,
AIR 1994 COURT HELD THAT,
• GROSSLY INDECENT BEHAVIOR
• EXTRAVAGANCE OF LIVING ON PART OF WIFE AFFECTING FINANCIAL POSITION AND
PROSPECT OF HUSBAND
• EXCESSIVE DRINKING TO SUCH EXTENT TO RENDER IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCHARGE
MARITAL DUTIES
• PERSISTENCE IN A FALSE CHARGE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT OF HAVING COMMITTED
AN UNNATURAL OFFENCE
• REFUSAL OF MARITAL INTERCOURSE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT REASON
• APPREHENSION OF VIOLENCE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT OF INSANITY
• AGREEMENT TO LIVE SEPARATELY
• MISCONDUCT APPROACHING CRUELTY BUT FALLING SHORT OF IT
• IMPUTATION OF UNCHASTITY BY THE HUSBAND PERSISTENTLY

10. BURDEN OF PROOF U/S 101, 102 OF INDIAN EVIDANCE
ACT, 1872
• BURDEN OF PROOF OPERATES AT TWO LEVELS
• FIRSTLY, BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AGGRIEVED/PETITIONER WHO NEEDS TO
PROVE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS WITHDRAWN FROM HIS SOCIETY. ONCE
THAT BURDEN IS DISCHARGED BY THE PETITIONER, IT FALLS ON THE
RESPONDENT TO PROVE THAT THERE EXISTS A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE
WITHDRAWN.
• IN THE CASE OF DEEPA SUYAL V. DINESH CHANDRA SUYAL- 1993 COURT HELD
THAT, BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THE PARTY WHO WITHDRAWN FROM THE
MARITAL OBLIGATIONS.

11. WHAT IF PARTIES DID NOT COHABIT AFTER PASSING
DECREE?
• IF THE PARTIES ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE DECREE FOR COHABITATION AFTER
THE PASSING, CONTINUOUSLY FOR ONE YEAR, IT BECOMES A GROUND FOR
DIVORCE UNDER SECTION 13 (1A)(II) ON THE GROUND OF NON-COMPLIANCE
WITH THE DECREE.
• IN FACT, JUSTICE ROSTAGI IN HARVINDER KAUR V. HARMINDER SINGH,
1984 RECOGNIZED THAT “THE LEGISLATURE HAS CREATED RESTITUTION OF
CONJUGAL RIGHTS AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR DIVORCE.
OTHER CASES:-
• SAROJ RANI V. SUDARSHAN KUMAR -1984
• KAMALADEVI V. SHIVA KUMAR SWAMY- 2003
• KARABI DAS V. PARITOSH DAS- 2003 ( ONE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD)

12. THANKS YOU