What did the Delhi High Court decide?

The Court upheld Section 9 as valid. It said the provision encourages cohabitation and companionship, not forced sexual relations.

How did the Court treat T. Sareetha?

It disagreed with T. Sareetha and declined to follow it, calling the earlier reasoning narrow and incorrect.

Which rights were argued as violated?

Articles 14 and 21 were invoked, but the Court said constitutional scrutiny is not to be brought into the private sphere of marital cohabitation.

Why is this case important for exams?

It frames Section 9 as a remedy for cohabitation, contrasts with T. Sareetha, and is a lead-up to Saroj Rani, which approved Section 9 at the Supreme Court level.

Law Easy

31 October, 2025

151

Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh (1984) — Restitution of Conjugal Rights | The Law Easy

Home
Cases
Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh

```

Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh (AIR 1984 Del 66)

Q: What was asked in this case?

Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—restitution of conjugal rights—is constitutionally valid.

Delhi High Court 1984 A.B. Rohatgi, J. AIR 1984 Del 66 Family Law 6 min

Section 9 HMA Restitution of Conjugal Rights Constitutional Law

Quick Summary
Issues
Rules
Facts
Arguments
Judgment
Ratio
Why It Matters
Key Takeaways
Mnemonic
IRAC
Glossary
FAQs
Related

```

Quick Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Author: Gulzar Hashmi

Location: India

Publish Date: 31 Oct 2025

Primary: Section 9 HMA; RCR

Secondary: Article 14; Article 21; Cohabitation

Slug: harvinder-kaur-v-harmander-singh

Quick Summary

This Delhi High Court case tests the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—restitution of conjugal rights (RCR).

The Court said Section 9 is a remedy to restart cohabitation—living together, companionship, shared duties—and not a tool to force sexual relations. It disagreed with T. Sareetha and upheld Section 9.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights Section 9 HMA Constitutional Challenge

Issues

Is Section 9 HMA (restitution of conjugal rights) constitutionally valid?
Does an RCR decree unfairly invade privacy or equality under Articles 21 and 14?

Rules

Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: If one spouse withdraws from the society of the other without reasonable excuse, the aggrieved spouse may seek a court decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The court grants it if satisfied that the withdrawal lacks a legal or reasonable excuse.

Facts (Timeline)

The spouses lived together; both were working professionals.

The wife left the shared home alleging cruelty by in-laws and neglect by husband.

She said she would return if the husband set up an independent residence; she produced witnesses.

The husband filed for RCR. The trial court granted it without deep inquiry.

The wife appealed to the Delhi High Court.

Arguments

Appellant (Wife)

Left due to maltreatment and neglect.
Ready to resume if independent residence is provided.
RCR should not be used to push her back into a harmful setup.

Respondent (Husband)

Denied cruelty or neglect.
Claimed unreasonable withdrawal by wife.
Sought court’s help to restore cohabitation.

Judgment

Justice A.B. Rohatgi upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9. The Court viewed RCR as a means to restore cohabitation—companionship, affection, and shared marital duties—rather than compelling intercourse.

It refused to import constitutional doctrine rigidly into private marital life, and disagreed with T. Sareetha, calling its reading narrow.

Ratio Decidendi

Core meaning of cohabitation: living together and sharing marital duties; not synonymous with sexual compulsion.
Section 9 promotes reunion and attempts to save marriage, subject to reasonable excuse test.
Constitutional rights (Arts. 14, 21) are not to be applied in a way that destroys the marriage institution in the home sphere.

Why It Matters

This ruling set the stage for the Supreme Court’s approval of Section 9 in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984). For students, it is the main Delhi view that counters T. Sareetha.

Key Takeaways

Section 9 is about cohabitation, not coercion.
Reasonable excuse is central—facts matter.
T. Sareetha rejected; constitutional lens limited in this context.
Useful contrast with Saroj Rani (SC) for exam answers.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Co-Hab, Not Coerce”

Meaning: Cohabitation = living together & duties.
Test: Was there a reasonable excuse to leave?
Limit: No forced intimacy; Section 9 stays valid.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is Section 9 HMA constitutionally valid under Arts. 14 and 21?

Rule

Section 9 allows a spouse to seek RCR if the other withdrew without reasonable excuse.

Application

Court reads RCR as encouraging reunion, not compulsion; checks if withdrawal is justified.

Conclusion

Section 9 is valid; T. Sareetha not followed.

Glossary

RCR: Restitution of Conjugal Rights—order to resume cohabitation.
Cohabitation: Living together with companionship and shared duties.
Reasonable Excuse: Legally acceptable reason to live apart (e.g., cruelty).

FAQs

Whether Section 9 HMA (RCR) is constitutional under Articles 14 and 21.

No. The Court said RCR supports cohabitation and companionship, not sexual compulsion.

It rejects the reasoning in T. Sareetha and upholds Section 9’s validity.

Check if the withdrawing spouse had a reasonable excuse based on evidence.

Related Cases

T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (AP HC, 1983) Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (SC, 1984)

CASE_TITLE: Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh | PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 9 HMA; Restitution of Conjugal Rights | SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 14; Article 21; Cohabitation; Delhi High Court
PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025 | AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi | LOCATION: India

Reviewed by The Law Easy Family Law Constitution Marriage Remedies

```