{"id":2973,"date":"2025-01-03T12:51:14","date_gmt":"2025-01-03T12:51:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=2973"},"modified":"2025-03-12T16:17:38","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T10:47:38","slug":"smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-1984-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-1984-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha 1984 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"2973\" class=\"elementor elementor-2973\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha 1984 AIR 1562(Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1007\" height=\"415\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-01-03-221946.png\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-2986\" alt=\"Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha 1984 AIR 1562\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-01-03-221946.png 1007w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-01-03-221946-300x124.png 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-01-03-221946-150x62.png 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-01-03-221946-768x317.png 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1007px) 100vw, 1007px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this significant case, The Supreme Court of India addressed key legal issues relating to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case revolved around whether a husband who had consented to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights could later seek a divorce on the ground of non-cohabitation following the decree. The case addressed whether compelling a spouse to cohabit with the other infringes upon personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-1984-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Smt_Saroj_Rani_v_Sudarshan_Kumar_Chadha\" >Facts of Smt. Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar Chadha\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-1984-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-1984-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-1984-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Smt_Saroj_Rani_v_Sudarshan_Kumar_Chadha\" >Judgment of Smt. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/family-law\/smt-saroj-rani-vs-sudarshan-kumar-chadha-1984-case-summary\/#Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\" >Click here to Read the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Smt_Saroj_Rani_v_Sudarshan_Kumar_Chadha\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Smt. Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar Chadha\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Smt. Saroj Rani and Sudarshan Kumar Chadha were married in 1975 and had two daughters. The relationship between the couple deteriorated, and Saroj Rani was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial home in 1977.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Saroj Rani filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which was eventually decreed in her favor in March 1978 after her husband consented.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Despite the decree, the couple did not resume cohabitation. After one year of non-compliance with the decree, Sudarshan Kumar filed for divorce under Section 13(1-A), claiming that the non-cohabitation amounted to grounds for divorce.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether a husband, after consenting to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, can seek divorce on the ground of non-compliance with the decree after one year under Section 13(1-A)?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows for the restitution of conjugal rights, violates Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Personal Liberty and Privacy) of the Indian Constitution?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Hindu Marriage Act&#8217;s Section 9 provides for the restoration of conjugal rights, and the trial court granted Saroj Rani&#8217;s request. However, the trial court awarded Sudarshan Kumar a divorce under Section 13(1-A) when he later applied for divorce on the grounds of non-cohabitation for more than a year. It held that the marriage dissolution was warranted because of the non-compliance with the restitution decision.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Saroj Rani filed an appeal of the divorce order, claiming her spouse was not entitled to a divorce because he had approved the restitution decree. The Punjab and Haryana High Court maintained the trial court&#8217;s ruling, finding that the husband&#8217;s entitlement to file for divorce under Section 13(1-A) was legitimate and that the couple&#8217;s failure to live together following the restitution decree was sufficient justification for a divorce.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Smt_Saroj_Rani_v_Sudarshan_Kumar_Chadha\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Smt. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court reviewed Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 13(1-A), which allows for divorce if cohabitation does not resume within one year after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court also examined the constitutional challenge to Section 9. <\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court held that Section 9 is constitutional, rejecting the argument that it violated Articles 14 and 21. The Court stated that restitution of conjugal rights aims to preserve marriage and cannot be viewed as coercive or tyrannical. Regarding divorce, the Court held that the husband could seek divorce under Section 13(1-A), as non-compliance with the restitution decree indicated irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court dismissed Saroj Rani\u2019s appeal and granted Sudarshan Kumar a divorce. The Court reaffirmed that consent to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not bar a party from seeking divorce later if there is non-compliance.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Click_here_to_Read_the_Judgment\"><\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Smt.-Saroj-Rani-vs-Sudarshan-Kumar-Chadha-1984-AIR-1562.pdf\"><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Click here to Read the Judgment<\/strong><\/span><\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8af0c99 elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"8af0c99\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Smt.-Saroj-Rani-vs-Sudarshan-Kumar-Chadha-1984-AIR-1562.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this significant case, The Supreme Court of India addressed key legal issues relating to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case revolved around whether a husband who had consented to a decree for restitution of conjugal rights could later seek a divorce on the ground of non-cohabitation following the decree.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2986,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[72,67,12],"class_list":["post-2973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law","tag-divorce","tag-hindu-marriage-act-1955","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2973"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2973\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4374,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2973\/revisions\/4374"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}