Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha

The appellant, Saroj Rani, was married to the respondent, Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, on January 24, 1975, according to Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. Two daughters were born of the wedlock in 1976 and 1977. Shortly after the birth of the second female child, the husband and his family subjected Saroj Rani to severe ill-treatment, humiliation, and cruelty, ultimately expelling her and the infant children from the matrimonial home in Jalandhar.

Desiring to preserve her marriage and secure a safe home for her infant daughters, Saroj Rani instituted a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Sub-Judge First Class at Jalandhar. In those proceedings, the husband appeared and made a statement consenting to the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, which was duly passed by the court on March 28, 1978. Despite the decree, the husband made zero attempts to resume cohabitation or take the wife and daughters back into the matrimonial home.

In 1979, upon the lapse of more than one year from the date of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of the marriage on the sole ground that there had been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution. The wife resisted the divorce, pleading that the husband had obtained the consent decree under Section 9 collusively as a premeditated trap to engineer a divorce after one year, and was taking advantage of his own wrong within the meaning of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act.

The Sub-Judge dismissed the husband's divorce petition. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed the judgment and granted a decree of divorce to the husband. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the dispute, a sharp constitutional conflict arose between High Courts: the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (AIR 1983 AP 356) struck down Section 9 HMA as unconstitutional and barbaric for violating privacy and bodily autonomy under Article 21, whereas the Delhi High Court in Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhry (AIR 1984 Del 66) upheld its constitutional validity. Saroj Rani appealed to the Supreme Court of India, placing the constitutional validity of Section 9 and the interpretation of Section 13(1-A)(ii) directly before the apex bench.

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 9 HMA: Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—providing for the restitution of conjugal rights—violates the fundamental right to bodily autonomy, personal liberty, and human dignity under Article 21, or the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Reconciliation of T. Sareetha and Harvinder Kaur: Whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court's view (striking down Section 9 as a savage violation of bodily privacy) or the Delhi High Court's view (upholding Section 9 as an instrument of matrimonial preservation) represents the correct constitutional position.
3. Doctrine of Taking Advantage of One's Own Wrong: Whether a spouse who suffered a decree of restitution of conjugal rights by consent and deliberately refused to resume cohabitation is dis-entitled under Section 23(1)(a) HMA from obtaining a divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii).
4. Nature and Purpose of Section 9 Decree: Does a decree of restitution of conjugal rights enforce involuntary sexual intercourse, or does it merely provide a legal umbrella for cohabitation and reconciliation.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Saroj Rani, affirming the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting a decree of divorce to the husband under Section 13(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

However, to ensure the lifelong sustenance of Saroj Rani and her two daughters, the Supreme Court directed the husband to pay permanent maintenance of ₹200 per month for the wife and ₹150 per month for each child, reserving the wife's right to seek substantial enhancement under Section 25(2) HMA.

Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha remains the governing constitutional precedent on Section 9 HMA:

• Reaffirmed by 3-Judge and Constitution Benches: Cited consistently to uphold statutory reconciliation mechanisms under personal laws.
• Pending Challenge in Supreme Court (Ojaswa Pathak v. Union of India): Currently cited as the foundational precedent in the ongoing constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court examining the privacy dimensions of Section 9 post-K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
• Consistently applied by all High Courts across India to dismiss Section 23(1)(a) objections where divorce is sought under Section 13(1-A)(ii) after non-resumption of cohabitation.