Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of X v. Y has held that the noncompliance of restitution of a conjugal right can be considered as a ground of granting divorce by the Court. 

What was the Background of the X v. Y Case? 

• In the present case, the husband (appellant) and the wife (respondent) got married in 1999. They had two children, both adults now. 
• In 2006, disputes arose between the couple, after which the husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights in 2008. 
• The trial court passed the decree of restitution of conjugal right and directed the wife to join the husband’s company within 3 months. 
• The wife also filed an appeal to the High court of Punjab and Haryana which was dismissed by the court and confirmed the decree passed by the trial court of Restitution of Conjugal rights. 
• The husband again filed the suit for divorce in 2016 as the wife did not abide by the decree on the grounds of cruelty and desertion in the Family Court, Barnal which passed the decree in favor of the husband and granted divorce. 
• The wife filed an appeal to the High court of Punjab and Haryana which was allowed by the court and decree of divorce was set aside by the High Court. 
• There was other two litigations between the parties: 
  • The wife filed for maintenance before the trial court which was partly allowed by the court with respect to children’s maintenance and denied for the wife’s maintenance as she refused to abide by the decree of restitution of conjugal rights without any sufficient cause. 
  • Another suit was filed by the wife before Judicial Magistrate under the provisions of Sections 406 and Section 498 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC) which was dismissed by the court. 
  • Respondent filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 
• The dispute was referred to the Supreme Court mediation center which also got failed in making the report and no conclusion was drawn after such mediation. 
• The husband filed an appeal to the Supreme Court aggrieved by the decision of the High Court setting aside the decree of divorce. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• It was observed by the Supreme Court that the marriage was a dead marriage for 16 years. 
• It was also stated by the court that respondent’s noncompliance with the decree passed by the High Court of Restitution of Conjugal Rights without any reasonable cause must be noted while passing and order or decree. 
• It is also to be noted that from 2008 till the filing of the divorce petition the respond is not living with the appellant which is desertion. 
• Therefore, the Supreme Court granted divorce on the ground of desertion as there was no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties and hence, reversed the decision of the High Court. 

What is restitution of Conjugal Rights? 

• About: 
  • The expression restitution of conjugal rights means the restoration of conjugal rights which were enjoyed by the parties previously.  
  • Restitution of Conjugal Rights provided under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).  
• Section 9 of HMA: 
  • The objective of Section 9   is to protect the sanctity and legality of the institution of marriage. 
  • This Section states that 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. 
  • Explanation —Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from society. 
• Application: 
  • The aggrieved party may apply to the District Court for restitution of conjugal rights if the husband or wife is withdrawn from the other partner's company without any reasonable ground. 
  • The burden of proof is on the person who has withdrawn from society of the other person to prove that there has been a reasonable excuse to withdraw. 
• Essential Requirements: 
  • The parties must be legally married to one another. 
  • One should exclude themselves from another's social circle. 
  • This withdrawal must be made without valid justification. 
  • The assertion that there is no legal justification for rejecting the decree must be proven to the court's satisfaction. 
• Landmark Judgements: 
  • Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9 of HMA as this section does not violate any fundamental right.  
  • R. Natarajan v. Sujatha Vasudeva (2010),it was held that the wife's decision to leave her husband's society because she finds it difficult to live with his parents does not constitute a reasonable reason to do so. 

What are the Provisions of Indian Penal Code Referred to in this Case? 

Section 406 of IPC: 

• This Section deals with the punishment for criminal breach of trust.  
• It states that whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 
• It is now Section 316 (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (BNS) 

Section 498-A of IPC: 

• Introduced in the year 1983, this section contains provisions in relation to the situations when the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjects her to cruelty. It states that -  
• Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 
  Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, cruelty means 
  (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 
  (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 
• In the case of Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi (2008), the SC held that Section 498-A of IPC has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property.