Juvenile Justice Act

Restitution of Conjugal Rights aimed at preserving marriage and not merely voluntary sexual intercourse: Central government to Supreme Court

In their affidavit, the government stated that the restitution of conjugal rights provision intended to preserve the institution of marriage and that voluntary sexual activity is a necessary component of marriage.

In Ojaswa Pathak v. Union of India, the Central Government argued against the constitutional legitimacy of the clauses relating to the restoration of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act.

The government claimed in an affidavit that the restitution of conjugal rights provision intends to preserve the institution of marriage and that voluntary sexual activity is a necessary component of marriage.

“Marriage fundamentally involves the partners’ deliberate decision to live together, build a house together, and raise a family. The marriage must include voluntary sexual activity, “Affidavit stated.

Because marriage also involves many social and public characteristics, the petitioners are mistaken in believing that it is just a private institution, according to the affidavit.

The response was submitted in response to a petition from two GNLU law students challenging the court’s ruling in the case of Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha.

The Hindu Marriage Act’s Section 9, which deals with the return of conjugal rights, was affirmed by the Supreme Court in this decision.

Chapter 9 declares:

“The aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights when either the husband or wife has, without good cause, withdrew from the other’s company. The court, upon 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 in accordance.”

The Special Marriage Act’s Section 22 contains a similar clause.

The Hindu Marriage Act’s Section 9 and the Special Marriage Act’s Section 22 were petitioned to be repealed. Additionally, it was attempted to invalidate the application of Order XXI Rules 32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure’s provisions for the enforcement of restitution of conjugal rights.

According to the affidavit submitted by the Law Ministry, the claim that Section 9 constitutes a restriction on a person’s intimate personal decision is erroneous and false.

The Central government emphasised that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 only codifies pre-existing law and that restitution of conjugal rights allows “both sexes to enforce the marital rights within a reasonable framework and in no way creates an unequal playing field.”

The Center also emphasised that the main goal of restitution of conjugal rights is to facilitate cohabitation between estranged parties to the marriage so they can live together in the matrimonial home in amity and that the “intention of restitution of conjugal rights is to preserve the institution of marriage and not merely sexual intercourse.”

Regarding the claim that restitution of conjugal rights violates one’s right to privacy, the government affidavit stated that while the Supreme Court recognised this right as a fundamental one under Article 21 of the constitution, it was aware that it must be enforced on a case-by-case basis and that it is subject to reasonable restrictions by the government to protect legitimate state interests.

On Tuesday, September 6, the Supreme Court will hear the case.

Read more legal news here.