Mahek Jigneshbhai Manvar, School of Law, Alliance University, Banglore
ABSTRACT:
The landmark case Saroj Rani upheld the Delhi High Court’s decision in Smt. Harvinder Kaur vs. Harmander Singh Choudhry and overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Courts decision in T. Sareetha vs. Venkata Subbaiah (AIR 1983 AP 356). (AIR 1984 Delhi 66). The right to restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which was deemed to violate the basic right to privacy in T. Sareetha, was affirmed by the Supreme Court as being constitutional.
In this case, the Supreme Court noted that recovery of conjugal rights gave a husband and wife the chance to resolve any disagreements amicably and thereby served a social purpose by helping to prevent divorce. The Court ruled that because conjugality extended beyond merely sexual interactions and procreation, Section 9 did not require homosexual cohabitation. The grounds examined in the T. Sareetha ruling by a single judge—namely, that the restoration of marital rights violated women's sexual autonomy, freedom to reproduce, and right to behave in accordance with their own moral convictions—were not upheld by the court.
