Tanisha Rana
Published on: September 5, 2022 at 21:46 IST
The Central Government argued against the constitutional legitimacy of the clauses pertaining 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 clause intends to preserve the institution of marriage and that consensual sexual activity is a necessary component of marriage.
“Matrimony essentially entails a voluntary expression of spouses to cohabit and have a home and family together. Voluntary sexual intercourse in integral part of the marriage,” the affidavit read.
Because marriage also has 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 by 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 restitution of conjugal rights, was affirmed by the Supreme Court in this decision.
Section 9 states:
“When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being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.”
The Section 22 of Special Marriage Act’s has 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The Hindu Marriage Act’s Section 9 and the Special Marriage Act’s Section 22 were petitioned to be repealed.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 restoration 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 merely codifies the pre-existing legislation and that recovery of conjugal rights permits “both sexes to enforce the marital rights within a reasonable framework and a no way does it create an unequal playing field.”
The Centre 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 the restoration of conjugal rights breaches one’s right to privacy, the government’s statement noted that even while Article 21 of the Constitution declares that right to private is a basic right.
The Supreme Court has not been unaware of the fact that the “the state may impose reasonable limits on the exercise of this right in order to safeguard legitimate state interests or the public welfare. Enforcement of this right must be done on a case-by-case basis.”
On Tuesday, September 6, the Supreme Court will hear the case.