HARVINDER KAUR Vs. HARMANDER SINGH CHOUDHRY
LAWS(DLH)-1983-11-31
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on November 15,1983

HARVINDER KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
HARMANDER SINGH CHOUDHRY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JAKSON V. JACKSON [REFERRED]
SARETTHA VS. VENKATA SUBBAIAH [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

VIJAY KUMAR VS. KAMLA [LAWS(J&K)-1987-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
S SIVANARUL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1984-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
VALSAMMA VS. BINU JOSE [LAWS(KER)-2013-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. KALP SHIKHA [LAWS(P&H)-1984-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ERNAKULAM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI [LAWS(KER)-2016-9-127] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI - (1.)This appeal raises'an issue of great importance to the well-being of the nation, as it goes to the very root of the marriage relationship. The husband petitioned for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife opposed. The Additional District Judge granted a decree of restitution of conjugal rights to the husband. From that dscree ths wife appeals to this Court.
(2.)0n appeal counsel for the wife. attacked' the constitutional validity of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. I issued 'notice to attorney-general. He appeared and argued' the case. This part of the judgment deals with the constitutional question. The rest is concerned with the facts of the case.
(3.)In the forefront of his arguments, counsel referred me to T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1983 Andhra Pradesh. 356 (1). In that case P. A. Chaudhary J. held that section 9- of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (the Act) offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and therefore declared it null and; void. It was a simple case in which the husband had filed an application against the wife for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Act. The wife raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court. The subordinate judge held that Cuddapah Court had jurisdiction to try the petition. The wife went. in revision to the High Court. Chaudhary J., in agreemeat with; the subordinate judge, held that Cuddapah Court had jurisdiction to try the petition.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.