Restitution Of Conjugal Rights
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 8
- 2 min read
Mankirat Singh Chawla, Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida
In Indian family law, a deserted spouse may get a court order requiring their partner to return to marital cohabitation under the legacy remedy known as restitution of conjugal rights (RCR). This remedy is codified in Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Islamic, Parsi, and Christian personal laws all contain comparable provisions (e.g. Parsi Marriage Act, 1936 s.36; Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ss.32–33; Special Marriage Act, 1954 s.22). RCR prioritizes maintaining a marriage over ending it, in contrast to divorce or separation. Supporters see it as a way to preserve marital harmony, while critics see it as an outdated state interference into the marital bedroom. RCR is quite problematic because of the conflicting values of individual autonomy and privacy versus marital solidarity. The paper in question investigates whether RCR can withstand the rigors of contemporary constitutional ethics. We discuss whether forced cohabitation permissible under the Indian Constitution in a time when everyone has the fundamental right to equality, autonomy, and dignity? Or has RCR devolved into a "anachronistic relic" that infringes on gender justice and privacy?
HISTORICAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
The RCR remedy has strong colonial origins. Its roots are in medieval English ecclesiastical law, which allowed a divorced couple to ask church courts to allow them to live together again. The British introduced this idea to India. RCR was outlawed in England by the Law Reforms (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1947, which declared it to be "very barbarous”. In independent India, the treatment was kept in place, though. Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 states that the aggrieved party may file for RCR if one spouse leaves the other's society "without reasonable excuse”. Similar measures were passed in the Special Marriage Act.
