Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.A.CHOUDHARY
T.SAREETHA @ DURGA - Appellant
Versus
T.VENKATA SUBBAIAH - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 2069/81
Decided On : 07-01-83
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. S. Parvatha Rao, Mr. K.N. Jwala
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, Sec. 19(iii)-Expression "parties to the marriage last resided together"-Meaning of.
HELD: Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, is unconstitutional, for the reason that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights provided for by that section is a savage and barbarous remedy, violating the right to privacy and human dignity guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of india.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner argues that this section violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, specifically Articles 14, 19, and 21 (!) (!) (!) .
The court examines the nature and implications of Section 9, highlighting that it enforces a remedy that can compel a spouse to resume cohabitation, including sexual intercourse, against their will. This enforcement is seen as a violation of personal liberty, privacy, and human dignity guaranteed under Article 21 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is rooted in medieval ecclesiastical law and has been abolished in some jurisdictions due to its barbaric and inhuman nature. The modern view considers it incompatible with constitutional protections of individual autonomy and dignity (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the enforcement of such a decree infringes upon the fundamental rights of the individual, particularly the right to privacy and the bodily integrity of the spouse, making it a violation of constitutional rights (!) (!) (!) .
It is noted that the remedy is often used disproportionately by one spouse (typically the husband) and works in practice as a tool of oppression, rather than a means of reconciliation. This practical inequality further undermines the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law (!) .
The court concludes that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it violates the right to privacy and human dignity, and is arbitrary and lacking in social purpose. Consequently, the provision is declared void (!) (!) .
As a result, the court prohibits the trial of any proceedings based on Section 9, rendering any applications filed under this section legally incompetent (!) .
The judgment underscores that the right to privacy and personal liberty is fundamental and extends to bodily autonomy, reproductive rights, and marital intimacy. Enforcing a decree that compels unwilling participation in sexual activity is incompatible with these constitutional protections (!) (!) (!) .
The court also notes that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights has no valid social purpose in contemporary society and has been abolished in other jurisdictions due to its inhumanity. The law must evolve to uphold individual dignity and human rights (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment emphasizes that laws must be consistent with constitutional principles, and any law that infringes upon fundamental rights without compelling justification must be struck down (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by Sareetha, a well-known film-actress of the South Indian screen, against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, overruling her objection raised to the entertaining of an application filed by one Venkata Subbaiah, under section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for restitution of conjugal rights with her.
( 2 ) SAREETHA while studying in a high-school and then hardly aged about sixteen-years and staying with her parents at Madras, was alleged to have been given in marriage to said Venkata Subbaiah, at Tirupathi on 13-12-1975. Almost immediately thereafter, they were separated from each other and have been continuously living apart from each other for these five-years and more. Venkata Subbaiah had, therefore, filed under section 9 of the Act O. P. No. 1 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cuddapah, for restitution of conjugal rights with Sareetha. Sareetha had taken a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Cuddapah Sub-Court to the entertaining of that application. The contention of Sareetha was that the petition filed by Venkata Subbaiah itself showed lack of jurisdiction on the part of Cuddapah court to try the petition and that the Sub Court, Cuddapah, ought to have declined jurisdiction. The basis for this objection was an allegation contained in the husband s petition "that the marriage took place at Tirupathi and that the petitioner and respondent last resided together at Madras. " Sareetha relied upon this statement of Venkata Subbaiah to say that the Cuddapah court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition of Venkata Subbaiah. It was this preliminary objection taken by Sareetha that had been over-ruled by the Cuddapah Sub-Court, leading Sareetha to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition.
( 3 ) VENKATA Subbaiah hails from Cuddapah where he owns a house and agricultural lands. Venkata Subbaiah stated in his petition for restitution of conjugal rights that after his marriage with Sareetha at tirupathi in December, 1975, he and Sareetha went to Cuddapah and lived there together for six montns and that thereafter they went to Madras and stayed at Madras with the parents of Sareetha for some time. According to venkata Subbaiah, their stay at Cuddapah for six months was immediately after their marriage at Tirupathi and that was the place where they last resided together within the meaning of the Act. The subsequent stay at Madras, according to Venkata Subbaiah, should not be regarded as the place where they last resided together. On the other hand, Sareetha contended that as she and Venkata Subbaiah had, on the statement of Venkata subbaiah himself, last lived together at Madras, the Cuddapah court would have no jurisdiction to try the application of Venkata Subbaiah.
( 4 ) BY the date of her marriage, Sareetha was studying in high school and was living with her parents at Madras. Venkata Subbaiah hails from cuddapah. The petition of Venkata Subbaiah disclosed that after their marriage at Tirupathi they lived at Cudappah for six months and that thereafter they went to the parents of Sareetha at Madras and lived there few some time. There can be no doubt that Madras was their last place of living together, because thereafter they parted company with each other. Those were the days when Sareetha was attempting to gain access to the South indian cine-field of which she is to-day one of the most talented top actresses. According to Venkata Subbaiah s allegations, these attempts of Sareetha led to misunderstandings between him and Sareetha on the one hand and also between him and the parents of Sareetha on the other, and forced venkata Subbaiah to return to Cuddapah leaving Sareetha at Madras. There after Venkata Subbaiah and Sareetha never met each other.
( 5 ) NOW the plea of Sareetha objecting to the jurisdiction of Cuddapah court raised two questions. Firstly, did the parties live at C
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
