CASE Saroj Rani v. Sudershan Kumar

Core idea: The Supreme Court upheld Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act (restitution of conjugal rights). It said the law aims to help spouses live together and protect marriage. The Court found no breach of Article 14 or Article 21.

On facts, a decree for restitution was passed by consent. A year later, the husband sought divorce due to no cohabitation. The Court granted divorce and ordered maintenance for the wife (till remarriage) and for the daughter (till marriage).

• Is Section 9 HMA constitutionally valid?
• Does it violate Article 14 (equality) or Article 21 (life and liberty)?
• Can a spouse seek divorce under Section 13(1A) after an unfulfilled RCR decree?

1. Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Restitution of conjugal rights.
2. Article 14, Constitution: Equality before law; equal protection of laws.
3. Article 21, Constitution: Protection of life and personal liberty.

Held: Section 9 is valid. The Court approved the view in Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh that RCR aims at cohabitation and harmony, not coercion. Marriage implies a shared life; living together symbolizes that sharing.

On facts, unlike Geeta Laxmi v. G.V.R.K. Sareswara Rao, there was no proved cruelty or expulsion by the husband. The husband’s non-compliance alone was not “own wrong” here. Given the breakdown, the Court granted divorce and directed maintenance for the wife (till remarriage) and the daughter (till marriage).

• Section 9 HMA is constitutionally sound; it seeks to preserve marriage.
• Articles 14 & 21: No inherent arbitrariness or denial of liberty in granting an RCR decree.
• Section 13(1A): After one year without cohabitation post-RCR, divorce can be granted if no “own wrong” is proved.

This case shows how constitutional rights interact with family remedies. It explains the purpose of RCR, sets limits on using “own wrong,” and links RCR decrees with divorce. It is a must-know for Family Law and Constitutional Law exams.

• RCR is to repair marriage, not to punish.
• Section 9 does not per se violate Articles 14 or 21.
• No cohabitation for a year after RCR → divorce possible.
• “Own wrong” needs proof of misconduct; mere non-compliance may not suffice.
• Maintenance directions can follow even when divorce is granted.

Mnemonic: “RCR SAVES, NOT SLAYS”

1. RCR’s Aim: Save marriage, encourage cohabitation.
2. Constitution: No breach of Art. 14/21 on its face.
3. Aftermath: No cohabitation → Sec. 13(1A) divorce; check “own wrong”.

Issue

Is Section 9 HMA valid under Articles 14 and 21? Can divorce be granted after an unfulfilled RCR decree?

Rule

Section 9 HMA; Articles 14 & 21; Section 13(1A); Section 23(1)(a) (own wrong).

Application

RCR promotes cohabitation and harmony. No proof that the husband expelled the wife or was cruel. Non-compliance alone, in this case, did not bar divorce.

Conclusion

Section 9 upheld; divorce granted; maintenance ordered.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR)

A decree asking a spouse to live with the other spouse again.

Own Wrong

Misconduct by the petitioner that blocks relief (Sec. 23(1)(a)).

Section 13(1A)

Ground for divorce after no resumption of cohabitation post-decree.