Appendix ‘A’ – Front-page and Cover
FAMIL AMILY Y LAW – I (HINDU LAW) L AW) PROJECT
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS
Submitted by Yug Pratap Singh Roll Number: 47 B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Bath: !"#4$#%
Of Law Schoo! "anara# $indu %niver#ity! &arana#i 'n No&ember' !"#
%nder the guidance of r. Anil *aur+a 1
Appendix ‘"’ – Certificate
C()*'F'CA*(
,he pro-et entitle /)(S*'*%*'O+ OF CO+,%AL )'$*S0 submitte to La1 Shool' Banaras Hinu 2ni&ersit+ 3or A*5LY LA6 5 (H5N2 LA6)' as part o3 internal assessment is base on m+ original 1or8 arrie out uner the guiane o3 r. Anil *aur+a Sir 3rom 9ul+ to No&ember' !"#. ,he researh 1or8 has not been submitte else1here 3or a1ar o3 an+ egree. ,he material borro1e 3rom other soures an inorporate in the thesis has been ul+ a8no1lege. 5 unerstan that 5 m+sel3 oul be hel responsible an aountable 3or plagiarism' i3 an+' etete later on.
Signature o3 the aniate ate: #th No&ember' !"#
2
Acknowledgement
I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me throughout the course of this project. I am thankful for their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and friendly advice during the project work. I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and illuminating views on a number of issues related to the project.
I express my warm thanks to the Dean, Prof. D. K. Sharma and Dr. Anil Maurya Sir for his support and guidance at Banaras Hindu University.
I would also like to thank my coordinator Prof. Vinod Shankar Mishra and all the people who provided me with the facilities being reuired and conductive conditions for my project.
Yug Pratap Singh .A. !!.. "#ons.$
INDEX 3
Sr. +o # !
4
=
7
TOPIC
5N,R;2<,5;N R>S,5,2,5;N ; <;N92?AL R5?H,S: <;N<>P, @ ;R5?5N <;NS,5,2,5;NAL5,Y: R>L5> ; R>S,5,2,5;N ; <;N92?AL R5?H,S PR;5S5;NS ;R R>S,5,2,5;N ; <;N92?AL R5?H,S R>S,5,2,5;N ; <;N92?AL R5?H,S 5N H5N2 *ARR5A?> A<, <;N
INTRODUCTION 4
/ +O. = 7
##
#
#
#7 #
LA0 '+ ")'(F When two people are married, they owe obligations to each other. They must give each other company. There must be cohabitation between them. When either of them fail to fulfill such obligations or refuse to cohabit, the other person has right to seek restitution of conjugal rights in a court of law.
LA0 '+ 1(*A'L
When either of the spouses has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable cause, the other person may file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"".
petition for restitution of conjugal rights is maintainable only when there is a valid marriage. #n $anjana kejriwal v. %inod &umar &ejriwal '#$ !99( )om *+-, the petitioner wife alleged that the husband was already married and had suppressed the fact from her. The ourt held that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is not maintainable since there is no legal marriage.
/ection 9 was challenged before the court as being violative of rticle 0! of the onstitution of #ndia in T./areetha v. T.%enkata /ubbaiah '#$ !9+* 1 *"2-. 3ustice 1. . houdhary of the . 1. High ourt held the section ultra vires since it offended rticles !4 and 0! of the onstitution.
However, it was overruled by the /upreme ourt in /aroj $ani v. /udarshan &umar hadha '#$ !9+4 / !"20-. The court observed that, the object of the section is to bring about cohabitation between estranged parties so that they can live together. That in the privacy of home and married life neither rticle 0! nor rticle !4 has any place.
/)OC(SS FO) SOL%*'O+
5
omplaint under which /ection5 /ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9""
Whom to complain 6 where to complaint5 The civil court in whose local limits, 7 The marriage was solemni8ed or 7 The husband and wife reside together or 7 The husband and wife last resided.
How to file the ase5 The aggrieved party may apply to the district court by way of petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The person seeking restitution must establish that a- The other spouse has withdrawn from his or her society: b- /uch withdrawal is without reasonable e;cuse: c- There is no legal ground disentitling the petitioner from the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. The burden of proof lies on the person who has withdrawn from the society of his6her spouse to prove that he6she had reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of his6her spouse. The person who has withdrawn from the society of his6her spouse may prove that it has become impossible to live with the spouse. 1ersistent demand for dowry or causing physical and mental torture was held to be a reasonable cause for the wife to withdraw form the society of the husband in %ijay &umar v. /uman '!992- ! H<$ 04 '1=HThe court will satisfy itself about the truth of the statements made in the petition and also that there is no legal ground for not granting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The decree is then accordingly granted.
6
What >e;t5 The decree of restitution of conjugal rights will be e;ecuted as per the ivil 1rocedure ode. ppeal may be made to the High ourt challenging the lower court order.
AL*()+A*( )(2(1'(S The
RESTITUTION
OF
CONJUGAL
RIGHTS:
CONCEPT & ORIGIN Marriage under all matrimonial laws is union imposing upon each of the spouses certain marital duties and gives to each of them certain legal rights. The necessary implication of marriage is that parties will live together. ?ach spouse is entitled to comfort consortium of the other. /o after the solemni8ation of the marriage if either of the spouses without reasonable e;cuse withdraws himself or herself from the society of the other then aggrieved party has a legal right to file a petition in the matrimonial court for restitution of conjugal rights. The court after hearing the petition of the aggrieved spouse, on being satisfied that there is no legal ground why the application shall be refused and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in the petition may pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. decree of restitution of conjugal rights implies that the guilty party is ordered to live with the aggrieved party. $estitution of conjugal rights is the only remedy which could be used by the deserted spouse against the other. husband or wife can file a petition for restoration of their rights to cohabit with the other spouse. )ut the e;ecution of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is very difficult. The court though is competent to pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, but it is powerless to have its specific performance by any law. The non7compliance of the issued decree results to constructive destruction on the part of the erring spouse. t present as per the provisions available under the #ndian personal laws, the aggrieved party move a petition for a decree of divorce after one year from the date of the passing of the decree and the competent court can pass a decree of divorce in favour of the aggrieved party. The decree of restitution of conjugal rights can be enforced by the attachment of property, and if the party complained against still does not comply, the ourt may also punish him or her for contempt of court. )ut under no circumstances the court can force the erring 7
spouse to consummate marriage. @ecree of restitution of conjugal rights could be passed in case of valid marriages only. s stated by 1aras @iwan, the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights was neither recogni8ed by the @harmashastra nor did the Muslim law made any provisions for it. #t came with the $aj. $estitution of conjugal rights has its roots in feudal ?ngland, where marriage was considered as a property deal and wife was part of manAs possession like other chattels. The concept of restitution of conjugal rights was introduced in #ndia in the case of Moonshee )u8loor $uheem v. /humsoonissa )egum, where such actions were regarded as considerations for specific performance.
#n modern #ndia, the remedy is available to Hindus under /ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"", to Muslims under general law, to hristians under /ection *0 and ** of the #ndian @ivorce ct, !+29, to 1arsis under /ection *2 of the 1arsi Marriage and @ivorce ct, !9*2 and to persons married according to the provisions of the /pecial Marriage ct, /ection 00 of the /pecial Marriage ct, !9"4. The provisions for restitution of conjugal rights are identical in /ection 00 the /pecial Marriage ct, !9"4 and /ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"". #t is as follows
“Restitution of conjugal rights
When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable e;cuse, 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. ?;planation Where a Buestion arises whether there has been reasonable e;cuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable e;cuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society .”
The restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded as a matrimonial remedy. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is a positive remedy that reBuires both parties to the marriage to live together and cohabit.
The conceptualization of the provision for restitution of conjugal rights under Muslim law by Tayabji is as follows:
CWhere either the husband or wife has, without lawful ground withdrawn from the society of the other, or neglected to perform the obligations imposed by law or by the contract of marriage, the court may decree restitution of conjugal rights, may put either party on terms securing to the other the enjoyment of his or her rightsD 8
Thus the Muslims eBuate this concept with securing to the other spouse the enjoyment of his or her legal rights. ?arlier, it was also attached with the specific performance of the contract of marriage. #n bdul &adir v. /alima , the llahbad High ourt decided that the concept of restitution must be decided on the principles of Muslim
To sum up, under all personal law, the requirements of the provision of restitution of conjugal rights are the following:
E The withdrawal by the respondent from the society of the petitioner. E The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or e;cuse or lawful ground. E There should be no other legal ground for refusal of the relief. E The court should be satisfied about the truth of the statement made in the petition.
Sufficient Cau#e for 0ithdrawa and "urden of /roof The fundamental rule of matrimonial law that one spouse is at liberty to the society and comfort of the other spouse, forms the foundation of the right to bring a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights. The court has the duty of granting a decree for restitution in the cases where either spouse has abandoned or withdrawn from the society of the other. When the Buestion arises whether there has been reasonable e;cuse for the withdrawal of the respondent from the society of the aggrieved party, the burden of proving reasonable e;cuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. )ut this concept is only secondary in nature. The primary object of showing proof or onus rests with the petitioner. Fnce the petitioner has proved his6her case, the burden of proof then shifts to the other party to prove the defence of a Greasonable e;cuse or causeA. Here the term GsocietyA corresponds to cohabitation, and GwithdrawalA signifies cessation of that cohabitation and bringing to end consortium. This must be a voluntary act of the respondent.
#n /ushila )ai v. 1rem >arayan, the husband deserted his wife and thereafter was totally unresponsive towards her. This behaviour was held sufficient to show that he had withdrawn from the society of his wife, and therefore the wifeAs petition for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. The defence to this principle lies in the concept of a Greasonable e;cuseA. #f the respondent has withdrawn from the society of his spouse for 9
a valid reason, it is a complete defence to a restitution petition. The court will normally order restitution of conjugal rights if i. The petitioner proves that the respondent spouse has without reasonable e;cuse withdrawn from his6her society ii. The statements made by the aggrieved spouse in the application are true, and
iii. There is no legal ground why the petitionerAs prayer should not be granted.
The court has held in various cases that the following situations will amount to a reasonable e;cuse to act as a defence in this area
i. ground for relief in any matrimonial cause. ii. matrimonial misconduct not amounting to a ground of a matrimonial cause, if sufficiently weighty and grave.
iii. /uch an act, omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent.
#t is significant to note that unlike a decree of specific performance of contract, for restitution of conjugal rights, the sanction is provided by the court where the disobedience to such a decree is wilful that is deliberate, in spite of opportunities.
CONSTITUTIONALITY: RELIEF OF RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS
10
@uring the time of introducing the provision for restitution of conjugal rights in the /pecial Marriage ct, !9"4 and the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"", there were heated debates in the 1arliament for and against it. #n /hakila )anu v. ulam Mustafa , the HonAble High ourt observed C'The concept of restitution of conjugal rights- is a relic of ancient times when slavery or Buasi7slavery was regarded as natural. This is particularly so after the onstitution of #ndia came into force, which guarantees personal liberties and eBuality of status and opportunity to men and women alike and further confers powers on the /tate to make special provisions for their protection and safeguard.D
The constitutional validity of the provision for restitution of conjugal rights has time and again been Buestioned and challenged. The earliest being in !9+* before the ndhra 1radesh High ourt in T./areetha v. T. %enkatasubbaiah where the HonAble High ourt held that the impugned section was unconstitutional. The @elhi High ourt in Harvinder &aur v Harminder /ingh though had non7conforming views. Iltimately /upreme ourt in /aroj $ani v. /udharshan gave a judgment which was in line with the @elhi High ourt views and upheld the constitutional validity of the /ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" and over7ruled the decision given in T. /areetha v. T. %enkatasubbaiah .
Appication of the /rovi#ion in 1ifferent Communitie# The restitution of conjugal rights is one of the reliefs that are provided to the spouses in distress in the institution of marriage by law. @ecree of restitution of conjugal rights could be passed in case of valid marriages only. part from legislation relating to matrimonial law, courts in #ndia in case of all communities have passed decrees for restitution of conjugal rights.
$indu /ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" provides for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the @istrict ourt, for the restitution 11
of conjugal rights. Fne of the important implications of /ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" is that it provides an opportunity to an aggrieved party to apply for maintenance under /ection 0" of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"". Maintenance can also be obtained by the party in case when the action is pending under /ection 0" of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"". /o, a wife who does not want a judicial separation or disruption of marriage can attain maintenance from her husband without filing a suit for the same under the Hindu doptions and Maintenance ct, !9"2. nother important implication of the section is that it provides a ground for divorce under /ection !*'!- of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" on a condition that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between them for a period of one year or more after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The legal grounds for refusing to grant relief are E Jor instance, any ground on which the respondent could have asked for a decree for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce: E $easonable e;cuse for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner: E ny conduct on the part of the petitioner or fact tantamount to the petitioner taking advantage of his or her own wrong or any disability for the purpose of such relief: E Innecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding.
2u#im #f the husband either deserts a wife or neglects to perform his marital obligations without any proper reason, then the wife can apply for restitution of conjugal rights. ?ven husband can apply for restitution of conjugal rights. )ut the court can refuse to grant order of restitution of conjugal rights for following reasons E ruelty by husband or in7laws E Fn the failure by the husband to perform marital obligations E Fn non7payment of prompt dower by the husband
Chri#tian hristian husband and wife can also apply for an order of restitution of conjugal rights. The ourt cannot pass the decree for following reasons 12
E ruelty of husband or wife E #f either of the spouse is insane E #f any one of the spouse marries again
/ar#i Where a husband6wife shall have deserted or without lawful cause ceased to cohabit with his6her spouse, the party so deserted or with whom cohabitation shall have so ceased, may sue for the restitution of his or her conjugal rights and the court if satisfied of the truth of the allegations contained in the plaint and that there is no just ground why relief should not be granted, may proceed to decree such restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.
PROVISIONS FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS When either of the spouses has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable cause, the other person may file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under /ection 9 of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"". /imilarly a hristian husband or wife can file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under /ection *0 and ** of the #ndian @ivorce ct, !+29. The provision under Muslim law is almost the same as under the modern Hindu law, though under Muslim law a suit in a civil court has to be filed and not a petition as under other laws. petition for restitution of conjugal rights is maintainable only when there is a valid marriage.
The concept of gender discrimination has not been incorporated in the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" and all are treated as eBuals under the /ection 9. There is no classification of se;es in /ection 9 and all eBuals have been treated eBually in this area. #n Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee , the status of partners in hristian marriage was stated as CMarriage has been well said to be something more than a contract, either religious or civil K to be an #nstitution. #t creates mutual rights and obligations, as all contracts do, but beyond that it confers a status. The position or status of ChusbandD and CwifeD is a recognised one throughout hristendom the laws of all hristian nations throw about that status a variety of legal incidents during the lives of the parties, and induce definite lights upon their offspring.D While in Muslim law where a wife refuses to live with her husband without any lawful cause, the husband can sue for the restitution of conjugal rights and likewise the wife has the right to demand for the fulfilment of marital duties by 13
the husband. )ut this right is not absolute as the Muslim husband being dominant in matrimonial matters, and as the Luran enjoins the husband to retain his wife with kindness or to dismiss her with kindness, the ourt leans in favour of the wife and reBuires strict proof of all allegations necessary for matrimonial relief. Inder the Muslim law a Muslim husband can defeat wifeAs petition for restitution at any time by pronouncing talaB on her.
#n Hindu law the relief of decree for restitution of conjugal rights is an eBuitable relief and eBuitable considerations must be considered before compelling the defendant to return to cohabitation with the plaintiff. /imilar is the law with respect to the marriage governed by Mohammedan law and hristian law. $elief of restitution of conjugal rights is discretionary. The defences for the restitution petition under the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" and the #ndian @ivorce ct, !+29 is very broad and it puts down that if the withdrawal of the respondent from the society of the petitioner is Cwithout reasonable e;cuseD, it is in defence to restitution petition. Inder Muslim law, Tyabji has used the e;pression Cwithout lawful groundD. #t is accepted that the e;pression Cwithout reasonable e;cuseD and Cwithout lawful groundD should have same meaning. Inder the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" anything which constitutes a ground for nullity, dissolution of marriage or judicial separation is a defence against a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. ccordingly under the /ection ** of the #ndian @ivorce ct, !+29 applicable for hristians nothing can be pleaded as defence against a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which would not be a ground for judicial separation or for a decree of nullity of marriage. Inder Muslim law grounds of void and irregular marriages, marriage avoided by the e;ercise of option of puberty and other provisions under the @issolution of Muslim Marriage ct, !9*9, are defences for a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. petition may also be rejected if the husband has been made an outcaste by his community.
marriage in violation of the age prescribed under /ection " 'iii- of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" being neither void nor voidable, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be refused on the ground of the violation. Jor #ndian hristian according to /ection 2'!- of the #ndian hristian Marriage ct, !+(0 it is reBuired that at the time of marriage the bride should not be less than eighteen years and bridegroom should not be less than twenty7one years. The non7age does not render the marriage void or voidable. Thus the marriage remains a valid marriage: a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be refused.While in Muslim law under /ection 0 'vii- of the @issolution of Muslim Marriage ct, !9*9 when the marriage has been avoided in the e;ercise of option of puberty the suit for restitution of conjugal rights fails.
14
s far as the Hindus and hristians are concerned the e;istence of a co7wife is a sufficient cause entitling the wife to withdraw herself from the society of her husband which can be taken as a defence by the wife against a restitution petition. While under Muslim law controlled polygamy is allowed. /o, a Muslim wife cannot refuse the comfort7consortium to husband because of husbandAs taking a second wife. )ut in certain situations, a husbandAs second marriage may involve cruelty to the first wife justifying her refusal to live with him. #n #twari v sghari , a restitution petition filed by the Muslim husband against his first wife the court had held that it cannot compel the wife to live with husband and can refuse the relief if the court feels that it would not be just and reasonable to do or it would be ineBuitable to pass decree. #n #ndia bigamous marriages are now to great e;tent disapproved by the courts. /ome High ourts have considered it as cruelty by the husband and denied on that ground the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.
ruelty need not always be physical and it can also be mental. The /ection !* '!- 'ia- of the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" can be used as defence of cruelty against a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The definition of GcrueltyA or what all actions constitute cruelty has not been specified in the Hindu Marriage ct, !9"" or the #ndian hristian Marriage ct, !+(0 or the #ndian @ivorce ct, !+29. Thus, in Hindu law as well as hristian law the courts have the wide power and discretion to decide what constitute cruelty. While in Muslim law, /ection 0 'viii- of the @issolution of Muslim Marriage ct, !9*9, both physical cruelty as well as legal cruelty together with all instances of cruelty is included under the definition of cruelty. The relief of restitution of conjugal rights can be denied to the husband if any of the instances of cruelty as given under the section are proved against him. #n Hindu law and hristian law, the separation agreements are not part of the matrimonial statutes. They are regulated by the general law of contract. While in Muslim matrimonial law the spouses are permitted to enter certain agreements, either at the time of marriage or even after. lso a valid separation agreement is a good defence to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
The concept of dower is specific to Mohammedan law only. Muslim wife living separate from the husband on account of non payment of prompt dower, restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted subjected to certain conditions. #f the husband sues for restitution of conjugal rights before consummation of the marriage takes place then non7payment of dower is a complete defence to suit, and the suit will be dismissed. #f the suit is brought after the consummation of the marriage then a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on payment of prompt dower is to be passed. There is no absolute right in a husband to claim restitution of conjugal rights against his wife unconditionally: the courts have discretion to make the decree conditional on the payment of her unpaid dower debt or to impose other suitable conditions considered just, fair and necessary in the circumstances of each case.
15
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS IN HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
#f your spouse has left you without giving any reasonable ground, the Hindu Marriage ct !9"" gives you remedy in the form of /ection 9 under the restitution of conjugal rights. The section 9 of the HM reads that when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable e;cuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply for restitution of conjugal rights. What the aggrieved party needs to do is file a petition to the district court and 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, the judge may decree restitution of conjugal rights in his favor. Three essential conditions for /ection 9 of HM Jirstly, one party must have withdrawn from the society of the other: secondly, the withdrawal must be without any reasonable reason, and thirdly, the aggrieved party applies for the restitution of conjugal rights. Fnce these conditions are fulfilled, the district court may decree of restitution of conjugal rights to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties. #f the aggrieved party is unable to convince the district court and it founds that the petitioner is guilty then the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not granted. n added advantage from this is that if the parties are not following the decree for cohabitation after the passing of the decree, continuously for one year, it becomes a ground for divorce under /ection !*.
Reasonable grounds on which petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights can be rejected
Jirst, if the respondent has a ground on which he or she can claim any matrimonial relief: 16
/econd, if the petitioner is guilty of any matrimonial misconduct: Third, if the petitioner is guilty of such act, omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the respondent to live with him: for instance, husbandAs neglect of his wife or the constant demand for dowry, etc. are some reasonable ground for wife not to join the company of her husband. Burden of proof under Section 9 of the HMA
)urden of proof operates at two levels. Jirstly, burden of proof is on the aggrieved6petitioner who needs to prove that the respondent has withdrawn from his society. Fnce that burden is discharged by the petitioner, it falls on the respondent to prove that there e;ists a reasonable e;cuse for the withdrawal.
CONCLUSION ou can take a horse to the water, but you canAt make him drink, is a very popular proverb and the provision for restitution of conjugal rights under the #ndian personal laws seems to be akin. The court can pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and order the erring spouse to cohabit with the aggrieved spouse. lso under the #ndian law a decree of restitution of conjugal rights can be e;ecuted by attachment of the respondentAs property. )ut it is to be noted that the court cannot compel the defaulting spouse to physically return to the comfort7consortium of the decree7holder spouse.
s understood from the previous chapters, the restitution of conjugal rights is a part of the personal laws of the individual, thus they are guided by ideals such as religion, tradition and custom. very important feature of restitution of conjugal rights to be emphasi8ed is that it is a remedy is aimed at preserving the marriage and not at disrupting it as in the case of divorce or judicial separation. #t serves to aid prevention of the breakup of marriage, thus is a means of saving the marriage. /o the restitution of conjugal rights remedy tries in promoting reconciliation between the parties and maintenance of matrimonial. #t tries to protect the society from denigrating. )ut the final decision is that of the parties whether to obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and to continue with the matrimony or not.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Books:
17
!. %.1. )haratiya, /yed &halid $ashidAs Muslim
Artic!s:
! ditya /warup, onstitutional %alidity of $estitution of onjugal $ights /cope and $elevance, http66works.bepress.com6adityaswarup6+ , '
?mphasis
>eeded,
4
18
