Keen to learn more about inclusive workplaces? Want to be inclusive of the LGBTQ+ community? Download our special report with Randstad India on making Inclusion without Exception happen
The Thappad trailer begins with Taapsee Pannu hearing: 'Restitution of Conjugal Rights, a legal notice to return to your husband's home.' Her consent is not asked. Isn't it time we bid goodbye to this outdated provision of law?
The Thappad trailer begins with Taapsee Pannu hearing: ‘Restitution of Conjugal Rights, a legal notice to return to your husband’s home.’ Her consent is not asked. Isn’t it time we bid goodbye to this outdated provision of law?
Under Restitution of Conjugal Rights, either partner who has left the marriage, can be asked by the court to return to the marital home.
The mention of Restitution of Conjugal Rights brings to mind the case of Sareetha, a popular yesteryear actress from the south. She had challenged the order for restitution obtained by her husband! We had discussed this case in great detail in law college…
In the Sareetha case, the judgement passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1983 is considered a landmark judgement. The court held that the provision of restitution “violated the rights to equality and privacy under the Constitution, and was accordingly void”. This was a very progressive step!
But within a few months, the Delhi High Court disagreed with the progressive stand taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. This disagreement was further affirmed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the provision of Restitution of Conjugal Rights has continued till today.
Today almost 39 years after the landmark judgement was passed, the argument on whether is should even exist in modern society has again gained momentum. More so after the right to privacy was accorded the status of a Fundamental Right by the Supreme Court in 2017.
That makes the validity of Restitution of Conjugal Rights even more questionable. Thus, has the time come to bid goodbye to this archaic Victorian provision of law? Does this provision hold any significance in present-day society?
The Supreme Court of India in 1984 stated that that the restitution of conjugal rights did not force an unwilling wife to engage in sexual relations with the husband.
But does this stance hold good in a country where marital rape is not even considered a crime? Where consent, more specifically from the wife is scoffed at? In that sense, isn’t restitution of conjugal rights a direct attack on the rights of the wife?
This provision can be again used by men to needlessly prolong a divorce simply to discourage the wife from escaping the marriage.
The right of filing a petition under the restitution of conjugal rights is available to both spouses. But women stand to be at a strong disadvantage. In a country where women are treated as “paraya dhan” even in the 21st century, it takes extreme courage for a woman to walk out of an abusive marriage. She know she may not be welcome in her parents’ home.
In such a case if the husband resorts to restitution of conjugal rights to force her to come back to him. It would be like forcing her back into the hell which she escaped with much difficulty.
The National Commission for Women has seen a steep increase in complaints of domestic violence in women in 2020 as compared to the previous year as reported here. Which is why the restitution of conjugal rights stands to only encourage such violence.
The reason restitution of conjugal rights receives support from society and the legal fraternity is because of the false belief that it prevents the breakdown of marriages. A study in 2019 stated that India has the lowest divorce rates at less than 1%.
While a good majority of our population gloated over the results of this study, the fact remains that most marriages in our country are not happy marriages. Most couples do not head for a divorce due to fear of what society will say.
Our courts aim at preventing a marriage from breaking up, even if it’s abusive. While disagreeing couples can be given an opportunity to resolve their disputes, would forcing them to live together help the cause? Wouldn’t such a marriage, even if it were to continue actually be a toxic one? Are two people living apart happily not better than two bitter people living together?
The right of filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights is available to both spouses. Men could also be at the receiving end of this.
Either way, this restitution of conjugal rights is a violation of an individual’s right to privacy and liberty. Many times a spouse may resort to filing a petition for restitution solely under family pressure. As a society, we need to dissociate the notion of taboo that we attach to a divorce.
In a country where most couples do not have the right to choose their partners, to expect them to have the right to end the marriage is wishful thinking. But it’s time we change.
It’s interesting to note that this colonial provision of the law was struck down by the British in 1970 in their own home country. Isn’t it time we realize that the outdated restitution of conjugal rights has no place in our country in present times?
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views. Individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times. If you have a complementary or differing point of view, sign up and start sharing your views too!
A dreamer by passion and an Advocate by profession. Mother to an ever energetic and curious little princess. I long to see the day when Gender equality is a reality in the world. read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, indivisual posts do not necessarily represent the platofrom's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Stop glorifying biological parenthood - other methods of growing a family are just as valid, and completely a couple's choice, especially of the woman whose body goes through pregnancy and birth.
Stop glorifying biological parenthood – other methods of growing a family are just as valid, and completely a couple’s choice, especially of the woman whose body goes through pregnancy and birth.
Trigger Warning: Contains derogatory remarks about having a baby through surrogacy or any means other than giving birth through biological means, and may be triggering, especially to adoptive parents.
Recently Priyanka Chopra Jonas announced parenthood by surrogacy. This has once again sparked the debate about ethical surrogacy, which is a discussion for another day.
Arathi Rajagopalan, founder of 'House of Kalart', talks about thinking like a designer & transitioning to thinking like a business owner.
Excerpts from an interview with Arathi Rajagopalan, founder of ‘House of Kalart’ – a fusion jewellery label that merges global aesthetics and traditional craftsmanship.
When did you start ‘House of Kalart’ and what was the intention?
I started House of Kalart in 2017 as a venture where painting, drawing and embroidery are married with metalsmithing to create well-handcrafted fashion jewellery. Along with painting and styling, the venture aims to create a holistic fashion experience for a bold and dramatic woman!” As a child, I had always been fascinated by arts and crafts.
Women can file domestic violence case against their husband and in-laws under 498A from wherever they seek shelter after leaving their marital home - recent Supreme Court judgement.
Women can file domestic violence case against their husband and in-laws under 498A from wherever they seek shelter after leaving their marital home – recent Supreme Court judgement.
In a landmark judgement affecting women who face domestic violence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday passed a ruling stating that a woman who is forced to leave her matrimonial home due to harassment, can file a case against her estranged husband and in-laws at the place where she resides thereafter, even if it is a temporary arrangement.
Earlier, criminal proceedings could only be initiated by the complainant (the victim of domestic violence) from the place where the offence had occurred. This is because Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made it compulsory that a criminal case shall be filed, and trial should be conducted in only those courts which had jurisdiction over where a crime had occurred.
That consent is simply a 'yes' or 'no' is quite easy to understand. However, it is not that easy in India. Here's looking back at history of why consent is so hard to understand
That consent is simply a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is quite easy to understand. However, it is not that easy in India. Here’s looking back at history of why consent is so hard to understand
Let’s admit, consent can be a difficult concept. In my personal exploration of what consent really means, I found it to be not quite black and white.
For example, the Aziz Ansari account. The woman (overcome on meeting the celebrity comedian) felt obligated and coerced. While according to Ansari, he sincerely felt the act to be consensual. But India’s problem with consent runs deeper and dangerous, at a much more basic level.