Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T14:36:48.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restitution of Conjugal Rights v. Individual Autonomy: Looking Through the Constitutional Lens in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2025

Shuvro Prosun Sarker  and
Mitu Biswas
Shuvro Prosun Sarker
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur, West Bengal, India, 721302. Email ID: [email protected].
Mitu Biswas
Affiliation:
Research Scholar at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur, West Bengal, India, 721302. Email ID: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Marriage is an institution that varies from religion to religion. For Hindus, it is an indissoluble union; for Muslims, a civil contract; and for Christians, a holy union. However, individual autonomy has entered the forefront through the Indian Constitution and the revolution in Indian family law.

The Constitution of India specifies that the people can decide who they should marry, who they should not, and with whom they want and don't want to continue their marital bond. The remedy of the restitution of conjugal rights (RCR), available under personal law, applies to those who are legally married but withdraw from marital ties without a reasonable excuse.

This study found that RCR is one-sided and used against the other spouse's will. However, the Supreme Court of India has decided that individual autonomy is needed to protect individual liberty and promote national interest, but it has also upheld the validity of RCR, creating a genuine controversy. The object of this paper is twofold—to analyze the individual autonomy enshrined under article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which is contrary to the right to RCR, and to explore this topic through a comparative law technique.

Keywords

MarriageRestitution of Conjugal RightsIndividual AutonomyArticle 21 of the Constitution of India 1950
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Legal Information , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , Spring 2024 , pp. 23 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by International Association of Law Libraries

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References

• Agnes, Flavia. Family Law, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
• Ahmad, Aqil. Mohammadan Law. 26th ed. Allahabad: Central Law Publications, 2016.Google Scholar
• Chandra, Sudhir. Enslaved Daughters: Colonialism, Law and Women's Rights. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195695731.003.0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Desai, Satyajeet A. Hindu Law. 24th ed. Gurgaon, India: LexisNexis, 2021.Google Scholar
• Diwan, Paras. Law of Marriage and Divorce. 5th ed. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2008.Google Scholar
• Fyzee, Asaf A.A. Outlines of Muhammadan Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
• The Laws of Manu. trans. Bühler, George. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886. https://www.onelittleangel.com/download/The-Law-of-Manu.pdf.Google Scholar
• Mahmood, Tahir. Family Law in India. Lucknow, India: Eastern Book Company, 2023.Google Scholar
• Misra, Justice Ranganath, and Kumar, Dr. Vijeendar. Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage. 16th ed. New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2008.Google Scholar
• Mulla, . Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law. 23rd ed. Gurgaon, India: LexisNexis, 2022.Google Scholar
• Saxena, Dr. Poonam Pradhan. Family Law Lectures I. New Delhi: LexisNexis, 2021.Google Scholar
• Singh, Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Textbook on Muslim Law. 10th ed. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2011.Google Scholar
• “A Christian View of Marriage.” Christianity.org. Accessed May 24, 2024. https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/a-christian-view-of-marriage.Google Scholar
• Agarwala, Raj Kumari. “Restitution of Conjugal Rights Under Hindu Law: A Plea for the Abolition of the Remedy.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 12, no. 2 (1970): 257–68.Google Scholar
• Ali, Maha. “Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Islam.” RSIL Law Review II, no. I (2018).Google Scholar
• Belleau, Hélène, and St-Pierre, Pascale Cornut. “Conjugal Interdependence in Quebec: From Legal Rules to Social Representations about Spousal Support and Property Division on Conjugal Breakdown.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Société 29, no. 01 (Aug. 7, 2013): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2013.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Jewish Law in Southern Asia.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 13, no. 1 (Jan. 1964): 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/13.1.288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Deshmukh, Amrita Atul. “Constitutional Validity and Ethicalness of Restitution of Conjugal Rights in India.” Acclaims vol. 4 (Dec. 2018).Google Scholar
• Didcott, J.M. “Plaintiff's Adultery as a Defence to an Action for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.” South African Law Journal 82, no. 2 (May 1965): 164–68.Google Scholar
• Hands, R.H.M., “The Abolition of the Action for RCR,” South African Law Journal 30, no. 2 (1913): 153–58.Google Scholar
• Hayes, Karl. ‘The Matrimonial Jurisdiction of the High Court.’ Irish Jurist 8, no. 1 (Summer 1973): 55–77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44026605.Google Scholar
• Kaushal, Deepnainee. “The Restitution of Conjugal Rights: An Analysis from Privacy Conundrum.” International Journal of Law Management and Humanities 4, no. 3 (2021): 5302–12.Google Scholar
• Kim, Deborah. “Marital Rape Immunity in India: Historical Anomaly or Cultural Defence?.” Crime, Law and Social Change 69, no. 1 (September 19, 2017): 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9705-3.Google Scholar
• Makhija, Ruchi. “Should RCR Be Removed?.” South Asian Law Review Journal vol. 09 (2023): 76–85. https://doi.org/10.55662/salrj.2023.902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Mines, Mattison. “Conceptualizing the Person: Hierarchical Society and Individual Autonomy in India.” American Anthropologist 90, no. 3 (September 1988): 568–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1988.90.3.02a00030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Petch, Simon. “Law, Equity, and Conscience in Victorian England.” Victorian Literature and Culture 25, no. 1 (1997): 123–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1060150300004666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Powell, Catherine. “Up from Marriage: Freedom, Solitude, and Individual Autonomy in the Shadow of Marriage Equality.” Fordham Law Review 84, no. 1 (October 2015): 69–78.Google Scholar
• “Restitution of Conjugal Right: A Comparative Study Among Indian Personal Laws.” Indian Bar Association (n.d.). Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.indianbarassociation.org/restitution-of-conjugal-right-a-comparative-study-among-indian-personal-laws/.Google Scholar
• Saba. “Marital Rape: A Husband Cannot Be Permitted to Treat His Wife like a Chattel and Violate Her Dignity.” SCC Times, Case Briefs (April 18, 2018). https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/04/18/marital-rape-a-husband-cannot-be-permitted-to-treat-his-wife-like-a-chattel-and-violate-her-dignity/.Google Scholar
• Tripathi, Ashish. “Centre Defends RCR in SC, Says It's a ‘Practical Matrimonial Remedy.’” Deccan Herald, September 6, 2022. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/centre-defends-restitution-of-conjugal-rights-in-sc-says-its-a-practical-matrimonial-remedy-1142796.html.Google Scholar
• “Writ Petition (Ojaswa Pathak) Summary.” Supreme Court Observer (July 8, 2021). https://www.scobserver.in/reports/union-india-restitution-conjugal-rights-writ-petition-ojaswa-pathak-summary/.Google Scholar
• Abdul Kadir v. Salima, 1886 8 All 149.Google Scholar
• Cursetjee v. Perozeboye (6 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 390).Google Scholar
• Dadaji Bhikaji v. Rukhmabai, 1885 ILR 9 Bom 529.Google Scholar
• Daniels v. Daniels, 1 1958 (1) S.A. 513 (A.D.).Google Scholar
• Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co., 1954 AIR 119, 1954 SCR 674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Evans v. Evans, [1948] I K.B. 175 (7).Google Scholar
• Forster v. Forster (1790) I. Hag. Con. 144 (3).Google Scholar
• Gaya Prasad v. Bhagwati, 1965 SCC Online MP 33: AIR 1966 MP 212.Google Scholar
• Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh. AIR (1975) SC 1378, 1975 2 SCC 148, (1975) 3 SCR 946.Google Scholar
• Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhry, AIR 1984 Delhi 66, ILR 1984 Delhi 546, [1984] RLR 187.Google Scholar
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2019 3 SCC 39.Google Scholar
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Retd and Anr. v. Union of India, 2017 10 SCC 1, 2017 SC 420.Google Scholar
• Kailash Wati v. Ayodhya Parkash, ILR 19771 P&H 642 (FB).Google Scholar
• Kharak Singh v. State of UP, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.Google Scholar
• Kulleemooddeen v. Sona Chand Bibi, 1848 Bengal Sudder Court for that year, at p. 795.Google Scholar
• Linda v. Belisario, (1795) 1 Hag. Con. 216 (21).Google Scholar
• Maulvi Abdul Wahab v. Mussumat Hingu, decided in 1832 and reported in 5 Ben. Sud. Dew. Ad. Rep., p. 200; of Mussumaut Ameena v. Kuttoo Khan 1841.Google Scholar
• Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonissa Begum, (1867) 1 MIA 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Nazrul Islam v. Mustt. Sajeda Begum's, (2006) SCC OnLine Gau. 14 AIR 2006 Gau. 159.Google Scholar
• Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, R/CR.MA/14508/2021.Google Scholar
• Ojaswa Pathak v. Union of India, MANU/SCOR/18703/2021.Google Scholar
• Pallavi Bhardwaj v. Pratap Chauhan, 2011 15 SCC 531.Google Scholar
• Pushkar Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, MAT. APP.(F.C.) 123/2014.Google Scholar
• Pushpa Kumari v. Parichhit Pandey, 2005 (1) BLJR 486, 2005 (1) JCR 134 Jhr.Google Scholar
• Russell v. Russell, [1897] A.C. 395.Google Scholar
• Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar, 1984 AIR 1562, 1985 SCR (1) 303.Google Scholar
• Sh. Amit Chopra v. Smt Pooja, AIR 2012 P&H 112011 SCC OnLine P&H 6859.Google Scholar
• Shakila Banu v. Gulam Mustafa, AIR 1971 Bom. 166, I.L.R. 1971 Bom.Google Scholar
• Shri Satish Saha v. Smt. Madhabi Saha, on 1 August 2019.Google Scholar
• Shri. Satish Saha v. Smti. Madhabi Saha, on 10 July 2019, High Court of Meghalaya FA. No. 1 of 2016.Google Scholar
• Shyamal Samaddar v. Shampa Samaddar, AIR 2012 Cal 220.Google Scholar
• Sonal Aashish Madhapariya v. Aashish Harjibhai Madhapariya, AIR 2020 Guj. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84, 1951 53 BOMLR 779, ILR 1951 Bom 775.Google Scholar
• Surinder Kaur v. Gurdeep Singh, 1972 SCC Online P&H 234: AIR 1973 P&H 13.Google Scholar
• Sushila Bai v. Prem Narayan, AIR 1986 MP 225.Google Scholar
• Swaraj Garg v. R.M. Garg, AIR 1978 Del. 296.Google Scholar
• T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1983 SC 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Thomas v. Thomas, [1948] 2 K.B. 294.Google Scholar
• Tirath Kaur v. Kirpal Singh, AIR 1964 Punj 29.Google Scholar
• Van Vuuren v. Van Vuuren, 1959 (3) S.A. 765 (A.D.).Google Scholar
• Van Wyk v. Van Wyk and Another, 1962 (3) S.A. 976 (D).Google Scholar
• Weatherley v. Wentherley, [1946] 2 All E. R. I (II) (6).Google Scholar
• “Divorce | Family Relationships Online.” Australian Government. January 28, 2022. https://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/separation/divorce.Google Scholar
• DiFonzo, J. Herbie. “Changing Matrimonial Practice in 21st-Century New York: A Report of the 2017 Matrimonial Bar Summit.” Family Court Review 56, no. 4 (October 2018): 626–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Gajendragadkar, Justice P.B., Chairman. “Law Commission of India Report no. 59.” Union Minister of Law and Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Law Commission of India. New Delhi. https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/report_sixth/.Google Scholar
• Lakshmanan, Hon'ble Dr. Justice AR. “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Another Ground for Divorce.” Law Commission of India (Report no. 217). New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, March 30, 2009. http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in.Google Scholar
• The Law Commission. “Proposal for the Abolition of the Matrimonial Remedy of RCR.” London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. July 24, 1969. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228673/0369.pdf.Google Scholar
• National Commission for Women. “Annual Report 2019–2020.” New Delhi. http://ncw.nic.in/annual-reports/annual-report-2019-2020.Google Scholar
• NSW Law Reform Commission. “Family Violence —A National Legal Response.” ALRC Report 114 NSWLRC Report 128. Australia: Ligare Pty. Ltd. July 14, 2009. https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ALRC114_WholeReport.pdf.Google Scholar
• “Report on Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Jactitation of Marriage and Related Matters, Ireland.” (1983). https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rJactitation.htm.Google Scholar
• Constitution of India 1950.Google Scholar
• Code of Civil Procedure 1908. (India).Google Scholar
• Divorce Act 1979 (Act no. 70 of 1979). (India).Google Scholar
• Hindu Marriage Act 1955. (India).Google Scholar
• Indian Divorce Act 1869.Google Scholar
• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936. (India).Google Scholar
• Special Marriage Act 1954. (India).Google Scholar
• Family Law Act 1975. December 2, 2020. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00374. (Australia).Google Scholar
• Family Law Act, 1988. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1988/act/31/enacted/en/html. (Ireland).Google Scholar
• Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2018. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00097/latest/text. (Australia).Google Scholar
• Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Act, 1984. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/15/section/2.Google Scholar
• Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb. “Writings and Speeches.” 17 vols. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. Accessed July 5, 2024. https://archive.org/details/Dr.BabasahebAmbedkarWritingsAndSpeechespdfsAllVolumes/Volume_14_01/page/n671/mode/1up?q=restitution+.Google Scholar
• Member of the Constituent Assembly. “Constituent Assembly Debates.” New Delhi, India: Reprinted By Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, Sixth Reprint 2014, November 25, 1949. https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/763285/1/cad_25-11-1949.pdf.Google Scholar
• Mrs. Renu Chakravarty's Observation on the Deletion of Section 9 from the Hindu Marriage Bill (as it was then). Lok Sabha Debates, pt. 2, session 9th, 1955, vol. 4, p. 7625.Google Scholar
• Agnes, Flavia. Family Law, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
• Ahmad, Aqil. Mohammadan Law. 26th ed. Allahabad: Central Law Publications, 2016.Google Scholar
• Chandra, Sudhir. Enslaved Daughters: Colonialism, Law and Women's Rights. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195695731.003.0003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Desai, Satyajeet A. Hindu Law. 24th ed. Gurgaon, India: LexisNexis, 2021.Google Scholar
• Diwan, Paras. Law of Marriage and Divorce. 5th ed. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2008.Google Scholar
• Fyzee, Asaf A.A. Outlines of Muhammadan Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
• The Laws of Manu. trans. Bühler, George. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886. https://www.onelittleangel.com/download/The-Law-of-Manu.pdf.Google Scholar
• Mahmood, Tahir. Family Law in India. Lucknow, India: Eastern Book Company, 2023.Google Scholar
• Misra, Justice Ranganath, and Kumar, Dr. Vijeendar. Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage. 16th ed. New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2008.Google Scholar
• Mulla, . Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law. 23rd ed. Gurgaon, India: LexisNexis, 2022.Google Scholar
• Saxena, Dr. Poonam Pradhan. Family Law Lectures I. New Delhi: LexisNexis, 2021.Google Scholar
• Singh, Dr. Rakesh Kumar. Textbook on Muslim Law. 10th ed. New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2011.Google Scholar
• “A Christian View of Marriage.” Christianity.org. Accessed May 24, 2024. https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/a-christian-view-of-marriage.Google Scholar
• Agarwala, Raj Kumari. “Restitution of Conjugal Rights Under Hindu Law: A Plea for the Abolition of the Remedy.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 12, no. 2 (1970): 257–68.Google Scholar
• Ali, Maha. “Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Islam.” RSIL Law Review II, no. I (2018).Google Scholar
• Belleau, Hélène, and St-Pierre, Pascale Cornut. “Conjugal Interdependence in Quebec: From Legal Rules to Social Representations about Spousal Support and Property Division on Conjugal Breakdown.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society/Revue Canadienne Droit et Société 29, no. 01 (Aug. 7, 2013): 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2013.34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Jewish Law in Southern Asia.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 13, no. 1 (Jan. 1964): 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/13.1.288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Deshmukh, Amrita Atul. “Constitutional Validity and Ethicalness of Restitution of Conjugal Rights in India.” Acclaims vol. 4 (Dec. 2018).Google Scholar
• Didcott, J.M. “Plaintiff's Adultery as a Defence to an Action for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.” South African Law Journal 82, no. 2 (May 1965): 164–68.Google Scholar
• Hands, R.H.M., “The Abolition of the Action for RCR,” South African Law Journal 30, no. 2 (1913): 153–58.Google Scholar
• Hayes, Karl. ‘The Matrimonial Jurisdiction of the High Court.’ Irish Jurist 8, no. 1 (Summer 1973): 55–77. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44026605.Google Scholar
• Kaushal, Deepnainee. “The Restitution of Conjugal Rights: An Analysis from Privacy Conundrum.” International Journal of Law Management and Humanities 4, no. 3 (2021): 5302–12.Google Scholar
• Kim, Deborah. “Marital Rape Immunity in India: Historical Anomaly or Cultural Defence?.” Crime, Law and Social Change 69, no. 1 (September 19, 2017): 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9705-3.Google Scholar
• Makhija, Ruchi. “Should RCR Be Removed?.” South Asian Law Review Journal vol. 09 (2023): 76–85. https://doi.org/10.55662/salrj.2023.902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Mines, Mattison. “Conceptualizing the Person: Hierarchical Society and Individual Autonomy in India.” American Anthropologist 90, no. 3 (September 1988): 568–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1988.90.3.02a00030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Petch, Simon. “Law, Equity, and Conscience in Victorian England.” Victorian Literature and Culture 25, no. 1 (1997): 123–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1060150300004666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Powell, Catherine. “Up from Marriage: Freedom, Solitude, and Individual Autonomy in the Shadow of Marriage Equality.” Fordham Law Review 84, no. 1 (October 2015): 69–78.Google Scholar
• “Restitution of Conjugal Right: A Comparative Study Among Indian Personal Laws.” Indian Bar Association (n.d.). Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.indianbarassociation.org/restitution-of-conjugal-right-a-comparative-study-among-indian-personal-laws/.Google Scholar
• Saba. “Marital Rape: A Husband Cannot Be Permitted to Treat His Wife like a Chattel and Violate Her Dignity.” SCC Times, Case Briefs (April 18, 2018). https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/04/18/marital-rape-a-husband-cannot-be-permitted-to-treat-his-wife-like-a-chattel-and-violate-her-dignity/.Google Scholar
• Tripathi, Ashish. “Centre Defends RCR in SC, Says It's a ‘Practical Matrimonial Remedy.’” Deccan Herald, September 6, 2022. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/centre-defends-restitution-of-conjugal-rights-in-sc-says-its-a-practical-matrimonial-remedy-1142796.html.Google Scholar
• “Writ Petition (Ojaswa Pathak) Summary.” Supreme Court Observer (July 8, 2021). https://www.scobserver.in/reports/union-india-restitution-conjugal-rights-writ-petition-ojaswa-pathak-summary/.Google Scholar
• Abdul Kadir v. Salima, 1886 8 All 149.Google Scholar
• Cursetjee v. Perozeboye (6 Moore's Ind. App. Cases, 390).Google Scholar
• Dadaji Bhikaji v. Rukhmabai, 1885 ILR 9 Bom 529.Google Scholar
• Daniels v. Daniels, 1 1958 (1) S.A. 513 (A.D.).Google Scholar
• Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay v. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co., 1954 AIR 119, 1954 SCR 674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Evans v. Evans, [1948] I K.B. 175 (7).Google Scholar
• Forster v. Forster (1790) I. Hag. Con. 144 (3).Google Scholar
• Gaya Prasad v. Bhagwati, 1965 SCC Online MP 33: AIR 1966 MP 212.Google Scholar
• Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh. AIR (1975) SC 1378, 1975 2 SCC 148, (1975) 3 SCR 946.Google Scholar
• Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Choudhry, AIR 1984 Delhi 66, ILR 1984 Delhi 546, [1984] RLR 187.Google Scholar
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India, 2019 3 SCC 39.Google Scholar
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy Retd and Anr. v. Union of India, 2017 10 SCC 1, 2017 SC 420.Google Scholar
• Kailash Wati v. Ayodhya Parkash, ILR 19771 P&H 642 (FB).Google Scholar
• Kharak Singh v. State of UP, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.Google Scholar
• Kulleemooddeen v. Sona Chand Bibi, 1848 Bengal Sudder Court for that year, at p. 795.Google Scholar
• Linda v. Belisario, (1795) 1 Hag. Con. 216 (21).Google Scholar
• Maulvi Abdul Wahab v. Mussumat Hingu, decided in 1832 and reported in 5 Ben. Sud. Dew. Ad. Rep., p. 200; of Mussumaut Ameena v. Kuttoo Khan 1841.Google Scholar
• Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonissa Begum, (1867) 1 MIA 551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Nazrul Islam v. Mustt. Sajeda Begum's, (2006) SCC OnLine Gau. 14 AIR 2006 Gau. 159.Google Scholar
• Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, R/CR.MA/14508/2021.Google Scholar
• Ojaswa Pathak v. Union of India, MANU/SCOR/18703/2021.Google Scholar
• Pallavi Bhardwaj v. Pratap Chauhan, 2011 15 SCC 531.Google Scholar
• Pushkar Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, MAT. APP.(F.C.) 123/2014.Google Scholar
• Pushpa Kumari v. Parichhit Pandey, 2005 (1) BLJR 486, 2005 (1) JCR 134 Jhr.Google Scholar
• Russell v. Russell, [1897] A.C. 395.Google Scholar
• Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar, 1984 AIR 1562, 1985 SCR (1) 303.Google Scholar
• Sh. Amit Chopra v. Smt Pooja, AIR 2012 P&H 112011 SCC OnLine P&H 6859.Google Scholar
• Shakila Banu v. Gulam Mustafa, AIR 1971 Bom. 166, I.L.R. 1971 Bom.Google Scholar
• Shri Satish Saha v. Smt. Madhabi Saha, on 1 August 2019.Google Scholar
• Shri. Satish Saha v. Smti. Madhabi Saha, on 10 July 2019, High Court of Meghalaya FA. No. 1 of 2016.Google Scholar
• Shyamal Samaddar v. Shampa Samaddar, AIR 2012 Cal 220.Google Scholar
• Sonal Aashish Madhapariya v. Aashish Harjibhai Madhapariya, AIR 2020 Guj. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84, 1951 53 BOMLR 779, ILR 1951 Bom 775.Google Scholar
• Surinder Kaur v. Gurdeep Singh, 1972 SCC Online P&H 234: AIR 1973 P&H 13.Google Scholar
• Sushila Bai v. Prem Narayan, AIR 1986 MP 225.Google Scholar
• Swaraj Garg v. R.M. Garg, AIR 1978 Del. 296.Google Scholar
• T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1983 SC 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Thomas v. Thomas, [1948] 2 K.B. 294.Google Scholar
• Tirath Kaur v. Kirpal Singh, AIR 1964 Punj 29.Google Scholar
• Van Vuuren v. Van Vuuren, 1959 (3) S.A. 765 (A.D.).Google Scholar
• Van Wyk v. Van Wyk and Another, 1962 (3) S.A. 976 (D).Google Scholar
• Weatherley v. Wentherley, [1946] 2 All E. R. I (II) (6).Google Scholar
• “Divorce | Family Relationships Online.” Australian Government. January 28, 2022. https://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/separation/divorce.Google Scholar
• DiFonzo, J. Herbie. “Changing Matrimonial Practice in 21st-Century New York: A Report of the 2017 Matrimonial Bar Summit.” Family Court Review 56, no. 4 (October 2018): 626–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
• Gajendragadkar, Justice P.B., Chairman. “Law Commission of India Report no. 59.” Union Minister of Law and Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, Law Commission of India. New Delhi. https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/report_sixth/.Google Scholar
• Lakshmanan, Hon'ble Dr. Justice AR. “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Another Ground for Divorce.” Law Commission of India (Report no. 217). New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, March 30, 2009. http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in.Google Scholar
• The Law Commission. “Proposal for the Abolition of the Matrimonial Remedy of RCR.” London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. July 24, 1969. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228673/0369.pdf.Google Scholar
• National Commission for Women. “Annual Report 2019–2020.” New Delhi. http://ncw.nic.in/annual-reports/annual-report-2019-2020.Google Scholar
• NSW Law Reform Commission. “Family Violence —A National Legal Response.” ALRC Report 114 NSWLRC Report 128. Australia: Ligare Pty. Ltd. July 14, 2009. https://www.alrc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ALRC114_WholeReport.pdf.Google Scholar
• “Report on Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Jactitation of Marriage and Related Matters, Ireland.” (1983). https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rJactitation.htm.Google Scholar
• Constitution of India 1950.Google Scholar
• Code of Civil Procedure 1908. (India).Google Scholar
• Divorce Act 1979 (Act no. 70 of 1979). (India).Google Scholar
• Hindu Marriage Act 1955. (India).Google Scholar
• Indian Divorce Act 1869.Google Scholar
• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936. (India).Google Scholar
• Special Marriage Act 1954. (India).Google Scholar
• Family Law Act 1975. December 2, 2020. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00374. (Australia).Google Scholar
• Family Law Act, 1988. https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1988/act/31/enacted/en/html. (Ireland).Google Scholar
• Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2018. https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00097/latest/text. (Australia).Google Scholar
• Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Act, 1984. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/15/section/2.Google Scholar
• Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb. “Writings and Speeches.” 17 vols. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. Accessed July 5, 2024. https://archive.org/details/Dr.BabasahebAmbedkarWritingsAndSpeechespdfsAllVolumes/Volume_14_01/page/n671/mode/1up?q=restitution+.Google Scholar
• Member of the Constituent Assembly. “Constituent Assembly Debates.” New Delhi, India: Reprinted By Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, Sixth Reprint 2014, November 25, 1949. https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/763285/1/cad_25-11-1949.pdf.Google Scholar
• Mrs. Renu Chakravarty's Observation on the Deletion of Section 9 from the Hindu Marriage Bill (as it was then). Lok Sabha Debates, pt. 2, session 9th, 1955, vol. 4, p. 7625.Google Scholar