Supreme Court Clarifies Independent Nature of Maintenance and Conjugal Rights

Current Affairs National

Posted by NewAdmin on 2025-01-16 13:33:45 |

Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 88

---

The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance are distinct and independent. This landmark decision reiterates that a husband is obligated to pay maintenance to his wife, even if she fails to comply with a court order for restitution of conjugal rights.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a spouse can file a petition for restitution if the other spouse has withdrawn from their society. This provision is aimed at preserving the traditional family structure.

Challenges to Section 9: In 1983, Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down Section 9, questioning its relevance in contemporary society. Then in 1984, the Supreme Court overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision, asserting that Section 9 helps prevent marital breakdowns. In 2019, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by students of Gujarat National Law University challenged the constitutionality of Section 9, arguing it infringes on the rights to privacy and non-discrimination. This case is currently pending.

Case Background: In the recent case, the wife left her husband in 2015. The husband initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights in 2018, while the wife filed for maintenance in 2019, alleging neglect.

Maintenance Proceedings: In 2022, the family court directed the wife to return to her husband's home, but she did not comply. Despite this, in February 2022, the court granted her a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000, which the husband contested.

Supreme Court's Ruling: The Supreme Court overturned the Jharkhand High Court's decision and ruled that the husband must continue paying maintenance. It emphasized that a wife's refusal to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not automatically disqualify her from receiving maintenance.

Legal Implications: This ruling underscores the need for courts to evaluate individual circumstances when determining maintenance eligibility. The Supreme Court observed that the Jharkhand High Court gave undue weight to the findings in the conjugal rights case.

Ongoing Legal Debate: The constitutionality of Section 9 remains a subject of debate. Critics argue that it perpetuates outdated gender stereotypes and infringes on the right to privacy. However, the Centre contends that the provision serves as a balanced legal mechanism for resolving marital disputes.

Go!