Restitution of conjugal right
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with restitution of conjugal right. * When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being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 a The Act came into force on 18 May 1955.
1 ** * When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being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.
2[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excuse for withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.]
3 * * * * *
Section 9, The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Siddhartha Chatterjee vs Adrita Chatterjee
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a matrimonial petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has already been filed and is pending in a particular Court, subsequent related matrimonial petitions, including dissolution petitions under Section 13, must ordinarily be dealt with by the same Court as mandated by Section 21A of the Act. Therefore, transfer of such related matrimonial petitions to a different Court is not appropriate, and the appropriate remedy is for the petitioner to move an application in the original petition pending in that Court to consolidate proceedings, enabling the same Court to address all matrimonial matters comprehensively.
On this section: Section 9 relates to maintenance during pendency of proceedings. Section 21A mandates that where matrimonial petitions have been filed in one Court, subsequent related petitions should be dealt with by the same Court to ensure judicial economy and consistency. The Court applied this principle to reject transfer of the divorce petition.
-
Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceeding pending in a Court subordinate to it to any Court subordinate to another High Court. Only the Supreme Court of India, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can effect such transfer. Section 23(3) of the CPC is merely a procedural provision specifying the forum for making an application and does not confer substantive power of transfer. Where courts are subordinate to different High Courts, application for transfer must be made to the Supreme Court under Section 25. The provisions of Sections 22 to 25 of the CPC relating to transfer are exhaustive in nature, and no other provision or inherent power can be invoked to effect inter-High Court transfers.
On this section: Provides for restitution of conjugal rights. In this case, respondent-wife filed such application in Malegaon court. The section does not exclude the operation of CPC provisions on transfer or jurisdiction.
-
K. Srinivas vs K. Sunita
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Filing of even a single false criminal complaint by one spouse against the other and family members constitutes matrimonial cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and entitles the injured spouse to seek dissolution of marriage, particularly where the complaint is shown to be a contrived afterthought, the accused are acquitted, and the complaint was knowingly and intentionally filed to embarrass and incarcerate the other party.
On this section: Restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent wife filed a petition under this section seeking to compel the appellant to resume conjugal relations, which was rejected by the Family Court
-
Saraswathy vs Babu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conduct of the respondent-husband in preventing the appellant-wife from residing in the shared household, even after court orders granting her restitution of conjugal rights, constitutes continuance of domestic violence including economic abuse. Conduct of parties prior to the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be taken into consideration while passing orders under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the PWD Act, 2005. In cases of continued domestic violence following court orders, courts are competent to grant protection orders, residence orders, maintenance, and compensation for mental torture and emotional distress under the PWD Act, 2005.
On this section: Restitution of conjugal rights; Appellant filed petition under this section seeking right to reside with husband
-
Japmeet Kaur vs Avinder Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a matrimonial dispute reach a comprehensive settlement agreement through mediation and seek court endorsement, the Supreme Court may quash the underlying petitions (including divorce and custody applications) and enforce the settlement as a binding court order, provided the court is satisfied that the parties have voluntarily agreed and their decision is in the interest of justice and child welfare.
On this section: Restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by Avinder Singh to be quashed as per settlement agreement
-
Sanghamitra Ghosh vs Kajal Kumar Ghosh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent in matrimonial transfer petitions where: (a) the marriage has irretrievably broken down as evidenced by prolonged separation and complete disappearance of emotional substratum; (b) both parties voluntarily agree to dissolution and have reached a comprehensive settlement; (c) such dissolution serves the interest of justice, the parties, and any minor children by putting quietus to all litigation and enabling peaceful future; and (d) the Court can consolidate all pending related cases across multiple courts and jurisdictions through a single order, overriding strict compliance with statutory procedural requirements of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 where the spirit and purpose of the law are served.
On this section: Restitution of conjugal rights - respondent's right under this section in matrimonial suit No. 437/2002 was rendered infructuous upon divorce by mutual consent
-
Renu Sharma v. Sunil Saxena
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2010-08-16. FAO 718/2003. Kailash Gambhir J. DATE-CHECK false positive (trial/marriage dates); body: Judgment delivered on August 16, 2010. Isolates HMA 9 restitution: the petitioner must prove a Hindu marriage; temple certificate not on letterhead, priest not examined, 7-year delay, and respondent’s later marriage — Issue 1 against petitioner, s.9 refused. Map hindu-marriage-act 9 cited only. Do not pad ipc 494 (already filled).
On this section: HMA 9 restitution needs a proved Hindu marriage; an unproved temple certificate and long delay cannot found a restitution decree (Renu Sharma).
-
Manpreet Kaur vs Vikramjit Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple related proceedings involving the same parties are pending in different courts within the same district, and one of those proceedings is a matrimonial petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is appropriate for the High Court to exercise its transfer jurisdiction to consolidate all proceedings in a single Family Court to ensure judicial efficiency, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and maintain consistency in judicial decisions.
On this section: Section 9 deals with restitution of conjugal rights. The original petition filed by Vikramjit Singh was under this section, seeking restoration of marital cohabitation. The transfer application concerns the transfer of this petition from one Family Court to another.
-
Smt. Manjula H vs Sri. Ramachandra G C
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matrimonial transfer applications under Section 24 of CPC, the convenience of the wife, especially when she is a working mother managing the custody and education of a child, and already prosecuting prior litigation at her place of residence, must be given overriding preference.
On this section: Respondent filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.
-
Tandeep Kaur Dutta vs S.satminder Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere pendency of a transfer petition before the Supreme Court does not operate as an automatic stay of proceedings in lower courts, nor does it bar trial courts from exercising their jurisdiction in execution matters related to maintenance orders. Trial courts have a duty to proceed with their functions under law and cannot express disinclination or refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because a transfer petition has been filed before a higher court, unless there is a specific stay order from that higher court. The principle established in Order 41 Rule 5 CPC (that mere preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay) applies by analogy to transfer petitions. Trial courts must distinguish between matters that are genuinely stayed by higher court orders and matters where higher courts have merely issued notice without imposing any restraint on lower court proceedings.
On this section: Petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by respondent before Additional District Court, Delhi; transferred to Family Court Pathankot
-
Ummalaneni Nagaraju vs Ummalaneni Divya Deepthi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C., when a husband claims financial dependence on his father and denies capacity to maintain his wife and children, the court may infer the husband's capacity from: (1) Properties purchased in the husband's name; (2) The family's pattern of property acquisitions; (3) The father's age and inability to manage all businesses independently; (4) Documentary evidence of family business operations (such as GST returns); (5) The family's social and political status (such as the father being a Municipal Chairman); and (6) The husband's lack of independent employment, indicating involvement in family businesses. In such circumstances, the income of the family cannot be disjoined from the husband's income, and the husband cannot disown his membership in the family merely because properties stand in the father's name. The wife's resignation from employment for the marriage and her subsequent unemployment do not disentitle her to maintenance if she lacks current means of support. The wife's separation from the marital home is justified if she can demonstrate fear for her life due to the husband's abnormal behavior or mental health issues, and such separation does not constitute desertion.
On this section: Restitution of conjugal rights; the court noted that the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed, supporting the wife's justification for living separately
-
Suresh Kumar vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In matrimonial offenses under Section 498A of the IPC, where the allegations against the parents-in-law are general and omnibus without specifying any distinct role or overt act of cruelty, the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to prevent unwarranted arrest.
On this section: Restitution of conjugal rights initiated by the husband.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… PC. Admitted is also the fact that the husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[4]( page-4-0) before the Family Court in which the petitioner had appeared and filed a written statement and also initiated a proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA. The petition filed for annulment of marriage by the first respondent was allowed and that filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a common 4 the HMA judgment. An appeal is said to have been filed from the said judgment of the Family Court which is still pending. 6. We even made an attempt to …
-
… Section 13(1)(i-a) was enacted by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976[31]( page-20-0) to provide for divorce in cases of cruelty. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was introduced for providing divorce by mutual consent. Explanation was added to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which relates to restitution of conjugal rights, stating that where a question of whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society arises, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has so withdrawn from the society. The effect of the said …
-
… Section 13(1)(i-a) was enacted by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976[31]( page-20-0) to provide for divorce in cases of cruelty. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was introduced for providing divorce by mutual consent. Explanation was added to Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which relates to restitution of conjugal rights, stating that where a question of whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from society arises, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has so withdrawn from the society. The effect of the said …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 9
What have the courts held on Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Siddhartha Chatterjee vs Adrita Chatterjee (18 Aug 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 9 relates to maintenance during pendency of proceedings. Section 21A mandates that where matrimonial petitions have been filed in one Court, subsequent related petitions should be dealt with by the same Court to ensure judicial economy and consistency. The Court applied this principle to reject transfer of the divorce petition. Another 11 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Hindu Marriage Act 9, section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. People searching for it also type hma 9 indicator. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 12 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Siddhartha Chatterjee vs Adrita Chatterjee (18 Aug 2017).
What should I read with Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently The High Court of Jharkhand Hindu Marriage Rules, 2017 (2017).
When did Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act come into force?
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, commonly called restitution of conjugal rights, and cited as Hindu Marriage Act 9, came into force on 18 May 1955, having been enacted on 18 May 1955. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 13. Divorce913 words
- 3. Definitions499 words
- 23. Decree in proceedings465 words
- 12. Voidable marriages361 words
- 2. Application of Act302 words
- 14. No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage290 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.