Marriage is a legally recognized union of two persons in the society . This relationship creates a lot of rights and obligations among them. These rights are commonly known as conjugal rights. The word conjugal rights which means” Right to stay together “.

According to the Hindu ideologies, marriage is a sacrament. It clearly says that marriage is a spiritual union. In the case of smt Saroj Rani vs. Sudharan kumar chadha our Hon’ble Supreme court held that”

The essence of marriage is the sharing of common life, a sharing of all the happiness that life has to offer and all the misery that has to face in life”.

Saroj Rani vs. Sudharan kumar 1984 AIR 1562 1985 SCR (1)303

After the holy union both spouses will have to live together and they should fulfill their marital obligations. If he or she fails to fulfill their obligations the aggrieved party can approach the court for restoration of their rights. Court will grant the matrimonial relief to the aggrieved party. One of the most important matrimonial relief is restitution of conjugal rights. In all matrimonial laws marriage imposes certain legal rights and obligations to the spouses. The husband and wife should give respect to each other. So after the solemnisation of the marriage if either of the parties withdraws himself or herself from the society of the other, then the aggrieved party has the right to file a petition against the guilty party. Thereafter the court will analyse the marital status of the parties and will grant the appropriate remedy known as restitution of conjugal rights. On the basis of the decree restitution of conjugal rights specifies that the court will order the guilty to cohabit with the aggrieved party.

The provisions described in section 9 of the Hindu marriage Act 1955 and section 22 of Special marriage Act 1955 are identical in nature. The restitution of conjugal rights was earlier used in England and thereafter it was implemented by the privy council in India. In India first and foremost applied in the case of Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonissa Begum.


  • The either of the spouses withdrawn from the society of other.
  • Either of the parties withdraws the other party without any reasonable ground and excuse.
  • The matters stated in the petition should be absolutely true and the court wants to be satisfied with that statement.
  • There should not be any other legal grounds for rejecting the petition.


In the famous case sareetha v. venkata subbaiah the court held that section 9 of the Hindu marriage act is absolutely unconstitutional and it is completely an infringement to the right to privacy of a wife. It is not the right way to restore the matrimonial relationship. It clearly violates the privacy of the wife by forcing her to cohabit her husband against her wish. But in the case of Harvinder kaur v. Harmander singh judiciary declared the section 9 of the Hindu marriage act 1955 is valid and also the Delhi high court upheld the constitutional validity of the section 9 of the Hindu marriage act and overruled the decision of sareetha case.


  • The respondent could have filed a petition in the court for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce.
  • There should be a reasonable excuse for withdrawing either of the spouses from the society of the other.
  • The unnecessary delay creating in the process of proceedings


The restitution of conjugal rights is a highly debatable topic. Honestly we can say that this is not the right way to restore the relationship between the husband and wife. No one has the right to compel any other person to live with another. Instead of this we can apply the concept of reconciliation may help to clear misunderstanding among the parties.


Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.


Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: