T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983)

Quick Summary

CASE_TITLE: T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (AIR 1983 AP 356)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, restitution of conjugal rights, right to privacy, Articles 14/19/21

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: matrimonial home, Section 19 HMA jurisdiction, autonomy, equality, Andhra Pradesh High Court

PUBLISH_DATE: October 31, 2025   |   AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi   |   LOCATION: India

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 HMA violates Articles 14, 19, 21 because it pressures intimacy and invades privacy and dignity. On jurisdiction, “resided” in Section 19 HMA means the matrimonial home—a stable joint home, not a short or casual stay.

Issues

• Which place counts as where the parties “last resided together” under Section 19 HMA: Cuddapah or Madras?
• Is Section 9 HMA unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 19, 21 by compelling cohabitation and affecting autonomy, dignity, and privacy?

Rules

• Section 19 HMA: “Resided” points to the matrimonial home—a settled joint dwelling, not a temporary stop.
• Article 14: Formal equality that ignores real gender inequalities fails equal protection; Section 9 seen as arbitrary.
• Articles 19 & 21: Personal liberty, dignity, and privacy protect intimate choice; the State cannot force marital intimacy.

Source image (optional):

Arguments

• Jurisdiction: “Resided” in Section 19 refers to the matrimonial home—a stable, joint dwelling. Temporary or casual stays do not count.
• Section 9 struck down: The court held Section 9 unconstitutional as it permits state-backed pressure on consent and intimacy, violating Articles 14, 19, 21.
• Privacy & dignity: Marriage does not dissolve individual privacy; bodily integrity and decisional autonomy remain with each spouse.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 9 fails equality and minimal rationality because it treats unequals as equals and serves no legitimate public purpose that can justify intrusion into intimate choice. Compelling cohabitation threatens privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy protected by Articles 19 and 21.

Why It Matters

• Privacy-first lens: A pioneering rights-based view of marriage and intimacy in Indian family law.
• Jurisdiction clarity: Fixes “resided” to the matrimonial home, guiding forum selection under Section 19 HMA.
• Exam relevance: Contrast with Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984) where the Supreme Court upheld Section 9.

Key Takeaways

1. Section 19 HMA: “Resided” = matrimonial home (not temporary halts).
2. Section 9 HMA: Unconstitutional here for violating Articles 14/19/21.
3. Privacy & Autonomy: Marriage does not erase bodily integrity or decisional freedom.
4. Equality critique: Formal neutrality can mask gendered impact.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “H O M E — P E A”

• H — Home = Matrimonial home for Section 19.
• O — Ownership of body = Autonomy.
• M — Marriage ≠ loss of privacy.
• E — Equality test fails (Article 14).
• P — Privacy & dignity (Article 21).
• E — Expression/Liberty (Article 19).
• A — Arbitrariness of Section 9.

3-Step Hook: Home → Autonomy → Unconstitutional.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Meaning of “resided” under Section 19 HMA; constitutionality of Section 9 HMA vis-à-vis Articles 14, 19, 21.

Rule

“Resided” = matrimonial home; State cannot intrude upon intimate choice and bodily autonomy without a compelling purpose.

Application

Temporary or casual stays do not create jurisdiction; compelling cohabitation coerces consent and undermines privacy and equality.

Conclusion

Section 9 held unconstitutional; jurisdiction lies where the matrimonial home existed.

Glossary

• Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Remedy asking a court to order a spouse to resume cohabitation.
• Matrimonial Home: The joint, settled home of the spouses, not a temporary stop.
• Bodily Autonomy: The right to control one’s own body and intimate choices.

Student FAQs

Related Cases