SMT. SAROJ RANI versus SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not violative of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution if understood in proper perspective with limited enforcement; consent decrees in matrimonial matters are not per se collusive, and a decree for divorce can follow if cohabitation does not resume after decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Parties: Appellant: Smt. Saroj Rani; Respondent: Sudarshan Kumar Chadha
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 08 August 1984
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Divorce, Right to Privacy, Maintenance

Constitutional Law Family Law Restitution of Conjugal Rights Divorce Right to Privacy Maintenance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Smt. Saroj Rani

Appellant

Sudarshan Kumar Chadha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
2 Whether consent decree for restitution of conjugal rights is collusive and disentitles the husband to divorce
3 Interpretation of 'wrong' under Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Husband to continue paying Rs. 200 per month maintenance to wife until she remarries.
Husband to pay Rs. 300 per month maintenance for daughter Menka until she marries.