When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.

Explanation: Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.

Explained:

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with the restitution of conjugal rights. It provides a legal remedy when either the husband or the wife withdraws from the society of the other without reasonable excuse. The aggrieved spouse may approach the appropriate matrimonial court seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

Essential Conditions Under Section 9

To obtain relief under Section 9, the petitioner must establish that:

1. A valid marriage exists between the parties.
2. The respondent has withdrawn from the petitioner’s society.
3. The withdrawal occurred without reasonable excuse.
4. The court is satisfied that the petitioner’s statements are true and there is no legal ground to refuse the relief.

The burden of proving a reasonable excuse for withdrawal rests on the person who has withdrawn, as provided in the statutory explanation to Section 9.

The purpose of this provision is to provide an opportunity for reconciliation and the restoration of matrimonial life. However, a court order does not authorise forced sexual relations or remove a person’s other legal protections. Each case depends on its facts, evidence and applicable law.

Important Judgments

1. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9, holding that it did not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court recognized its objective of preserving marriage and encouraging reconciliation.

2. Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh (2017)

The Supreme Court considered restitution of conjugal rights where evidence showed that the husband had withdrawn from the wife’s company without reasonable cause. The decision is an important authority on the requirements for obtaining relief under Section 9.

3. T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983)

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held Section 9 unconstitutional on privacy and personal-liberty grounds. However, this view was subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani. The Supreme Court’s ruling is the governing authority on this constitutional issue.

Conclusion

Section 9 provides a matrimonial remedy intended to encourage spouses to resume married life where one has withdrawn without reasonable excuse. Courts assess the circumstances carefully before granting relief, and legal advice may be necessary when safety, cruelty or other matrimonial disputes are involved.