Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)

Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) is a landmark case which centres around the interpretation and constitutionality of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which pertains to the restitution of conjugal rights. The main issue arose regarding the enforcement of this provision and the rights of the parties involved specifically in the reference of divorce proceedings and maintenance obligations. The case of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha also dealt with whether the provisions of Section 9 infringe upon fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

Download Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha PDF

Historical Context and Facts of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)

The case at hand centers around the constitutionality of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. The following are the brief facts of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha -

Petition of Wife for Restitution of Conjugal Rights

The wife Smt Saroj Rani filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and sought restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. The husband Sudarshan Kumar Chadha earlier contested the petition but later consented in Court to grant the application which led to a consent decree for the restitution of conjugal rights.

Petition of Husband for Divorce

A year after the consent decree, the husband Sudarshan Kumar Chadha filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The husband contended that despite the decree for restitution of conjugal rights no cohabitation had resumed between the parties. The wife duly responded to the contention of the husband. She stated that she had been taken to her husband’s house a month after the decree but after two days she was sent back. She also quoted that an application under Section 28A of the Act was pending in the Subordinate Court.

Decision of the District Court

After analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence from both civil and criminal proceedings between the parties the District Judge ruled that no resumption of cohabitation had occurred. In lieu of Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act and the fact that the earlier decree was a consent decree. The Court held that the husband was not entitled to a decree for divorce.

Appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the husband appealed to the Punjab & Haryana High Court. A Single Judge referred to previous precedents held that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not be passed by consent and deemed it collusive. The matter was then referred to the Division Bench. The Division Bench held that a consent decree was not collusive and did not deter the husband from seeking a divorce. Following this, the Court allowed the appeal and the husband was granted a decree for divorce.

Appeal in the Supreme Court 

Dissatisfied by the decision of the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court the wife Smt Saroj Rani appealed to the Supreme Court. The wife argued that the husband was disentitled to a divorce based on Section 23 (1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act. She also challenged the constitutionality of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and claimed that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue addressed in Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)

Whether the husband Sudarshan Kumar Chadha was entitled to the decree of divorce and whether Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act violated Article 14 and Article 21 of Constitution were addressed in the case of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha.

Legal Provisions involved in Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)

Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act and Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India played a significant role in the case of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act: Restitution of Conjugal Rights

Section 9 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. The Court on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such a petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

Article 14 of Indian Constitution: Equality before Law

Article 14 guarantees that the State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. This provision includes two important expressions:

• Equality Before the Law
• Equal Protection of the Laws

Article 21 of Indian Constitution: Protection of life and personal liberty

Article 21 ensures that no person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Judgment and Impact of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji and Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali in Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar held that the right to conjugal rights or the right of one spouse to the society of the other is not merely a statutory provision but an inherent aspect of marriage itself.

The Court highlighted that Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 includes sufficient safeguards to deter it from being oppressive. Section 9 was considered as a codification of pre-existing law and the Court in Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha also referred to Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure which pertains the enforcement of decrees for restitution of conjugal rights or injunctions.

The Supreme Court held that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not violative of Article 14 or Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The Court explained in this case of Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha that if the purpose of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights is understood properly and the execution method is in accordance with legal principles, the provision does not infringe upon constitutional rights.

The Court clarified that decree for restitution of conjugal rights is enforceable by attaching property when one spouse willfully disobeys the decree. It aims to encourage reconciliation between the spouses and prevent the breakdown of marriage. The Court stated that willful disobedience is a necessary condition for such enforcement.

The Supreme Court in Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha regarding maintenance ruled that even after a final decree of divorce the husband must maintain the wife until she remarries and also support their living daughter. The maintenance amounts were set at Rs. 200 per month for the wife and Rs. 300 per month for the daughter subject to change based on future applications or circumstances.

Conclusion

In Smt Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and affirmed that the right to restitution of conjugal rights is inherent in marriage and does not violate Article 14 or Article 21 of the Indian Constitution