Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha

Facts

The wife obtained a consent decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the husband; no cohabitation followed. The husband then sought divorce under Section 13(1A) on the ground that there had been no restitution for over a year. The wife resisted, contending the decree was collusive and that the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong; the constitutionality of Section 9 was also raised, the Andhra Pradesh High Court having earlier (T. Sareetha) struck it down.

Issues

• Whether Section 9 HMA (restitution of conjugal rights) violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
• Whether a consent decree for restitution is collusive and bars later divorce
• Whether the husband was taking advantage of his own wrong under Section 23(1)(a)

Arguments

The wife argued Section 9 was a savage remedy violating privacy and dignity (following T. Sareetha) and that the husband, having trapped her into a consent decree he never meant to honour, was profiting from his own wrong. The husband argued Section 9 served a legitimate social purpose and that he was merely exercising his statutory right under Section 13(1A).

Held

The Court upheld Section 9, preferring the Delhi High Court's view in Harvinder Kaur over T. Sareetha: restitution serves the social purpose of preserving marriage, aims at cohabitation and consortium (not forced sex), and is enforced only by attachment of property for wilful disobedience — so it offends neither Article 14 nor Article 21. A consent decree for restitution is not per se collusive. Following Dharmendra Kumar, mere non-compliance was not a 'wrong' under Section 23(1)(a), so the husband was entitled to divorce. The appeal was dismissed, with directions for maintenance.

Ratio decidendi

Section 9 HMA is constitutionally valid as it serves the legitimate purpose of preserving marriage and is not enforced by coercion of the person; a consent restitution decree is not collusive, and non-resumption of cohabitation is not a 'wrong' barring divorce under Section 13(1A).

Significance

The definitive Supreme Court ruling upholding restitution of conjugal rights, settling the T. Sareetha/Harvinder Kaur conflict; it remains the leading authority on Section 9's validity and on consent decrees and Section 23(1)(a) in divorce after restitution.

Related