Should Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Be Removed?

Ruchi Makhija
{"title":"Should Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Be Removed?","authors":"Ruchi Makhija","doi":"10.55662/salrj.2023.902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In India, the societal opinion on marriage has historically been very conservative; divorce is considered to be taboo. Being in line with such views, personal laws are shaped in India in such a way where judges are directed to be very paternalistic; to try their best at reconciliation first. This is clearly mentioned in both, the Hindu Marriage Act[i] and the Special Marriage Act[ii]. In addition, similar provisions relating to the restitution of conjugal rights exist throughout various personal laws[iii]. Jani & Anr. v. Mohammed Khan[iv] and Monshee Bazloor v. Mohammed Khan[v]are some examples of Muslim personal law providing such a matrimonial relief of restoration of cohabitation. Owing to this deeply rooted relief in Indian law, there are a majority of cases which have come to Court requesting this decree to be passed. A majority of these cases have been ruled in favour of the party petitioning for restitution of conjugal rights. However, keeping in mind the changing times and the recent debate on the right to privacy[vi], the law must adapt to the new sentiments of its citizens. Numerous petitions have come about, arguing that such a law is archaic and in violation of the constitutional right to privacy, the most recent one in front of the Supreme Court being Ojaswa Pathak v. Union of India[vii] (2019-date). This topic has become the basis of a debate among Courts. Therefore I explore the question, ‘Should restitution of conjugal rights be retained or removed?’ Restitution of conjugal rights is a matrimonial relief provided to spouses of a valid marriage[viii] under Indian law. The aim of such a law was the idea that the people in a marriage are entitled to the consortium of each other; comfort, affection and aid. This was believed to be fundamental to the institution of marriage. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states, “When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being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 with 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.” Let us break this down and understand what this actually means.","PeriodicalId":131737,"journal":{"name":"South Asian Law Review Journal","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Asian Law Review Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55662/salrj.2023.902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In India, the societal opinion on marriage has historically been very conservative; divorce is considered to be taboo. Being in line with such views, personal laws are shaped in India in such a way where judges are directed to be very paternalistic; to try their best at reconciliation first. This is clearly mentioned in both, the Hindu Marriage Act[i] and the Special Marriage Act[ii]. In addition, similar provisions relating to the restitution of conjugal rights exist throughout various personal laws[iii]. Jani & Anr. v. Mohammed Khan[iv] and Monshee Bazloor v. Mohammed Khan[v]are some examples of Muslim personal law providing such a matrimonial relief of restoration of cohabitation. Owing to this deeply rooted relief in Indian law, there are a majority of cases which have come to Court requesting this decree to be passed. A majority of these cases have been ruled in favour of the party petitioning for restitution of conjugal rights. However, keeping in mind the changing times and the recent debate on the right to privacy[vi], the law must adapt to the new sentiments of its citizens. Numerous petitions have come about, arguing that such a law is archaic and in violation of the constitutional right to privacy, the most recent one in front of the Supreme Court being Ojaswa Pathak v. Union of India[vii] (2019-date). This topic has become the basis of a debate among Courts. Therefore I explore the question, ‘Should restitution of conjugal rights be retained or removed?’ Restitution of conjugal rights is a matrimonial relief provided to spouses of a valid marriage[viii] under Indian law. The aim of such a law was the idea that the people in a marriage are entitled to the consortium of each other; comfort, affection and aid. This was believed to be fundamental to the institution of marriage. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 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 with 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.” Let us break this down and understand what this actually means.
应否取消归还夫妻权利?
在印度,社会对婚姻的看法历来非常保守;离婚被认为是禁忌。与这种观点相一致,印度的属人法是以这样一种方式形成的,即法官被指示为非常家长式的;首先要尽力和解。《印度婚姻法》[i]和《特别婚姻法》[ii]都明确提到了这一点。此外,各种属人法中也有关于恢复夫妻权利的类似规定[iii]。贾尼和安。v. Mohammed Khan[iv]和Monshee Bazloor v. Mohammed Khan[v]是穆斯林属人法提供恢复同居关系的婚姻救济的一些例子。由于印度法律中这种根深蒂固的救济,大多数案件都向法院提出要求通过这一法令。在这些案件中,多数判决有利于请求恢复夫妻权利的一方。然而,考虑到时代的变迁和最近关于隐私权的辩论[vi],法律必须适应公民的新情绪。有许多请愿书提出,认为这样的法律是过时的,违反了宪法隐私权,最近在最高法院面前的是Ojaswa Pathak诉印度联邦案[vii](2019年日期)。这个话题已经成为法院之间辩论的基础。因此,我探讨了这样一个问题:“夫妻权利的恢复应该保留还是取消?”“根据印度法律,恢复夫妻权利是对有效婚姻的配偶提供的一种婚姻救济[viii]。这样一项法律的目的是,婚姻中的人有权成为彼此的联合体;安慰、关爱和帮助。这被认为是婚姻制度的基础。1955年《印度婚姻法》第9条规定:“当丈夫或妻子在没有合理理由的情况下退出另一方的社会时,受害方可以通过请愿书向地区法院申请恢复夫妻权利,法院对该请愿书中陈述的真实性感到满意,并且没有法律依据证明不应批准该申请,可裁定恢复夫妻权利。”让我们来分解一下,理解一下这到底是什么意思。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信