T Sareetha - Case Analysis

Pragya Sharma Section- F

T SAREETHA v. T VENKATA SUBBAIAH CASE ANALYSIS

FACTS Sareetha was a high school student (16years) and stayed with her parents in Madras. She got married to Venkata Subbaiah on 13-12-1975. Immediately after their marriage they were separated and had been living apart from each other for five years or more. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. A revised petition was filled by the wife against the order passed by the learned sub ordinate judge of the Cuddapah court overruling her objection raised against Venkata Subbaiah under Section9 of the HMA, 1955. ISSUE Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which provides for Restitution Of Conjugal Rights violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India? RULE 

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: restitution of conjugal rights



Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Right to equality



Article 19 of the Constitution of India: protection of rights regarding freedom of speech.



Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Right to life and liberty.

REASONING Constitutional Validity of Section 9 of the Act is liable to be struck down as violative of the fundamental rights in part III of the Constitution of India, particularly articles 14, 19 and 21. The contention was that the said provision i.e. restitution of conjugal rights offends the guarantee to life, personal liberty and human dignity and decency. Sexual cohabitation is an inseparable ingredient of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Pragya Sharma Section- F Justice P.A.Choudhary of the A.P.High Court held the section ultra vires since it offended Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He termed the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as ‘uncivilized’, ‘barbarous’, and ‘engine of oppression’. The court observed that sexual intercourse is an inseparable decree for the restitution of conjugal rights. This meant that the decree holder not only gets the right to the company of the other person but also to have sexual intercourse with the other person. This means that the choice of whether to have or not have such relations rests with the state and not the individual. Holding a restitution decree violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to life and personal liberty, the judge held that he right to privacy is a part of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is bound to include body’s inviolability and integrity and intimacy of personal identity, including marital privacy. Holding a restitution decree violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees right to life and personal liberty, the judge held that he right to privacy is a part of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is bound to include body’s inviolability and integrity and intimacy of personal identity, including marital privacy. The only advantage of restitution decree is that it provides a ground for divorce at a later stage, but the price for this is very high according to the court, viz. human dignity. The only advantage of restitution decree is that it provides a ground for divorce at a later stage, but the price for this is very high according to the court, viz. human dignity. DISPOSITION The Civil Revision Petition was allowed but without costs for all the above-mentioned directions.