The Supreme Court affirmed that divorce can be granted under the Hindu Marriage Act if an order to restore conjugal rights is not complied with for a year. This reiteration of Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came in a case where the marriage had been irretrievably broken for over 16 years.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a divorce can be granted if a judicial order for the restitution of conjugal rights is not followed for at least a year.
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referenced Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, stated,
“According to Section 13(1A)(ii), a divorce petition can be filed on the grounds that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the married parties for a period of one year or more after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights has been passed.”
Read Also: Supreme Court: Ceremonies Required for a Valid Hindu Marriage
The Bench noted this observation while granting a divorce plea by a man who claimed his wife had deserted him around 2008 and had refused to comply with a 2013 family court order for the restitution of conjugal rights.
The top court stated,
“This is a case of a complete breakdown of marriage for the last 16 years and more,”
Restitution of conjugal rights, a legal remedy available to spouses in certain jurisdictions where one spouse has withdrawn from the company of the other without a valid reason. This remedy aims to restore the marital relationship by compelling the deserting spouse to resume cohabitation. The concept deeply rooted in matrimonial law and reflects the mutual rights and duties of married partners.
The case involved an appeal by the man (appellant) against the Punjab and Haryana High Court‘s decision to annul a divorce decree.
To provide some context, the appellant’s marriage took place in March 1999. Following marital discord in 2006, he filed for the restitution of conjugal rights in 2008, which was granted by a family court in May 2013.
At that time, his estranged wife instructed to comply with the order to resume living with her husband within three months. However, she refused, prompting the husband to file for divorce, which eventually granted by a family court.
In 2019, the High Court annulled the divorce decree, leading the man to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially referred the case to mediation, but the parties could not reach an amicable agreement.
On July 8, the Supreme Court allowed the man’s divorce plea.
The Supreme Court reasoned,
“The desertion of the appellant (husband) at least from 2008 till the date of filing the divorce petition in 2013 continued without any reasonable cause. Therefore, a decree for divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) ought to have been passed. Thus, in our view, the High Court ought to have confirmed the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion,”
The Court also noted the man’s offer to pay his estranged wife a one-time alimony of Rs. 30 lakhs. Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to draw up a decree of divorce upon proof of payment.
Read Also: Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Early Divorce Filing Under Exceptional Circumstances
Senior Advocate Sukumar Pattjoshi represented the appellant, while Advocate Shri Sharma represented the respondent (wife).
Restitution of conjugal rights remains a contentious legal remedy, balancing the preservation of marital relationships with individual freedoms. While it serves as a tool to address unwarranted desertion, its implications on personal autonomy and gender justice continue to spark debate. Legal reforms and judicial scrutiny are essential to ensure that the remedy aligns with contemporary understandings of marriage and individual rights.
Read Judgement