SMT. SAROJ RANI versus SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA

SMT. SAROJ RANI

SUDARSHAN KUMAR CHADHA

August 8, 1984

[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.J

Constitution of India 1950, Articles 13, 14 and 21 .

Remedy of restitlltion of conjugal rights-Sectlon 9, Hindu Marrlage Act 1955-Whether vio!ates human dignity1 right to privacy and per~;,,al liberty-And whether valid and constitutional.

Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Sectlpns 9, 13 and 23(1) (a).

PetUion by wife for restltutz'on of conjugal rights-Hu~band consenting to the passing of decree-Decree passed-Hi~sband after one year filing petf.. tion under section 13 for divorce-Husband whether entitled to decree of divorce.

Code o.f Civil Procedure 1908, Order 21, Rule 32-Decree for restitu .. tlon of conjugal rights-Execution of.

The wife·appetlant filed suit against the husband-respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights. Though the respondent contested the petition contending that he had neither lurned the appellant out from his house nor withdrawn from her !'ociety, later as he made statement in the Court that the application under Section 9 be granted; consent decree was passed by the Sub.Judge for the restitution of conjugal rights between the parties.

After lapse of year, the respondent-husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Act against the appellant for divorce on the ground that though one ye"l.r had lapsed, from the date of passing the decree for restitu-tion of conjugal rights, no actual co-habitation had taken place between the parties. The appellant filed her reply contending that she was taken to the house of the husband by her parents one month after the decree :'>nd that the hu~band kept her in the house for two days and then she was agai, 1urned out. It was further al.leged that an application unc!er Section 28A Qle~ in the Subordina le Court was pending.

The District Judge after considering the evidence of the civil and criminal Proceedings pending between the parties, came to the conclusion that there had been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties and that in view of the provisions of Section 23 and in view of the fact that the previous decree was consent decree 'and that at the time of the ;assing of the said decree, as there was no provision like Section 13B i.e. divorce by mutual consent'; held that as the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed by the consent of the parties, the husband was not entitled to decree for divorce.

The respondent filed an appeal. Single Judge of the High Court fo11owing the decision of this Court in Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumari [1978] l SCR 315, held that it could not be said that the husband was taking advantage of his 'wrongs1, but however expressed the view that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not be passed with the consent of the parties, and therefore being coUusive one disentitled the husband to decree for divorce, and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of Division Bench for consideration of the question.

The Division Bench held following Joginder Singh v. Smt. PuJhpa, AIR 1969 Punjab 1and Haryana page 397 that consent decree could not be termed to be collusive decree so as to disentitle the petitioner to decree tor restitution of conjugal rights, and that in view of the language of Section 23 if the Court had tried to make conciliation bet.ween the parties and conciliation had been ordered, the husband was not disentitledl to get decree. The appea1 was allowed, and the husband granted decree of divorce.

Jn the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the wife-appel1ant that: (a) in view of the expression 'wrong' in Section 23(1) (a) of the Act, the husband was disentitled to get decree for divorce, and (b) Section 9 of the Act was arbitrary and void as offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

Dismissing the Appeal,

HELD : (!) In India conjugal riqhts i.e. right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse is not merely creature of the statute. Such right is inherent in the very institution of marriage itself. There are sufficient safeguards in Section 9 of the Hindi;1 Marria~e Act tQ prevent it from bein~ tyranny. [314 D-EJ

2. Section 9 is only codification of pre-existing law. Rule 32 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights or for an injunction. [314 H]

3. Section 9 of the Act is not violative of Article 14 or Article 21 of the Con~titution if the purpose of the decree for restitution of conju-gal rights in the said Act is understood in its proper perspective and if the method of execution in cases of disobedience is kept in view. (315 G]

T. Sareetha v. Venkata Subbaiah, A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh page 3S6, over-ruled.

Smt. Harvinder Kaur v. Hormander Singh Choudhry, A.I.R. 1984 Delhi, page 66, approved.

4. It is significant that unlike decree of specific perfOrmance of contract; decree for restitution of conjugal rights, where the disobedience to such decree is wilful i.e. is deliberate, might be enforced by attach-ment of property. Where tbe disobedience follows as result of wilful conduct i.e. where conditions are there for wife or husband to obey the decree for restitution of conjugal righ~s but disobeys the same in spite of such conditions, then only the properties have to be attached, is provided for. This is so to enable the Court in approPriate cases when the Court has decreed restitution for conjugal rights to offer inducement for the husband or wife to live together and to settle up the matter amicably. It serves social purposeJ as an aid to the prevention of break-up of marriage. [31S C-F]

5. (i) Even after the final decree of divorce the husband would continue to pay maintenance to the wife until she remarries and would maintain the one living daughter of the marriage. Separate maintenance should be paid for the wife and the living daughter. Wife would be entitled to such maintenance only until she remarries and the daughter to her maintenance until she is' married. (316 c; E]

(ii) Until altered by appropriate order on application or proper mate· rials, such maintenance should be Rs. 200 per month for the wife, and Rs. 300 per month for the daughter. (316 D]

CIVIL APPPLLATa JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 187of1983.

From the Judgment and Order <laced the 17th August, 1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in First Appeal From Order No. 199-M of 1979.

R. K. Garg, Mrs. Meera Aggarwal and R. C. Misra for the appellant.

E.C. Agarwala, Mrs. H. Wahiand Rajiv Sharma for the respon-dent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJi, J. The parties herein were married at Jullundur City according to Hindu Vedic rites on or about 24th January, 1975. The first daughter of the marriage Menka was born on 4th January, 1976. On 28th Fcbrnary, 1977 second daughter Guddi was born. It is alleged that 16th May, 1977 was the last day of cohabitation by the parties. It is further alleged that on 16th May, 1977, the respondent-husband turned the appellant out of his house and withdrew himself from her society. The second daughter unfortunately expired in the house of the respondent/father on 6th August, 1977. On 17th October, 1977, the wife-appellant filed suit against the husband/respondent herein under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the said Act for restitution of conjugal rights.In view of the argument now sought to be advanced, it is necessary to refer to the said petition. In the said petition, the wife had set out the history of the marriage as hereinbefore briefly mentioned and alleged several mal-treatments both by the husband as well as by her in-laws and thereaftar claimed decree for restitution of conjugal rights. On 21st March, I 978, the learned Sub-Judge Ist Class passed an order granting Rs. 185 per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 300 as the litigation expenses. On 28th March, 1978, consent decree was passed by the learned Sub-Judge Jst Class for restitution of conjugal rights. It may he mentioned that on the petition of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband-respondent appeared and filed his written statement admitt-ing therein the factum of marriage between the parties but denied the fact that the respondent had ever made any demand from the petitioner as alleged or had ever disliked her or had withdrawn from her society or turned her out from his house as alleged by the wife-petitioner in her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent thereafter made statement in the court that the appli-cation of the petitioner under Section 9 of the said Act be granted and decree thereof be passed. Accordingly the learned Sub:Judge Ist Class on 28th March, 1978 passed the decree for the restitutio'l

of conjugal rights between the parties. It was alleged by the petitioner-wife that the appellant had gone to the house of the respondent and lived with him for two days as husband and wife. This fact has been disbelieved by all the courts. The courts have come to the conclusion and that conclusion is not challenged before us that there has been no cohabitation after the pa!sing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.

On 19th April, 1979, the respondent/husband filed petition under Section 13 of the said Act against the appellant for divorce on the ground that one year had passed from the date of the decree for restitution of confugal rights, but no actual cohabitation had taken place between the parties. The appellant filed her reply to the said petition. The categorical case in reply of the appellant was that it was incorrect that after passing of the decree, there had been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties, positive case of the appellant was that after passing of the decree, the wife was taken to the house of the husband by the parents of the wife after one month of the decree and that the husband kept the wife in his house for two days and she was again turned out. It was further alleged that the wife had filed an application under Section 28A of the said Act in the court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Ju!lundur on 22nd January, 1979 with the request that the husband should be dtrected to comply with the decree passed against him under Section 9 of the said Act and the application was pending at the time when the reply was filed by !he wife to the petition for divorce.

The learned District Judge on 15th October, 1979 dismissed the petition of the husband for divorc·. The learned Judge framed two issues, one was whether there has been no restitution of con-jugal rights dter the passing of the decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, and secondly to will.I relief was the husband entitled to ? After cqnsidering the evidence of civil and criminal proceed-ings pending between the parties, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that there has been no resumption of cohabitation between the parties after 28th March, 1978 and decided the issue in favour of the husband but on the question of relief the learned Judge was of the view that in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the said Ac, and in view of the fact that the previous decree was consent_ decree and at that time there was no provision like pro-vision of Section 13B of the said Act i.e. 'divorce by mutual consent', the learned Judge was of the view that as the decree for restitution

of conjugal rights was passed by the consent of the parties, the hus-band was not entitled to decree, for divorce.

Being aggrieved by the said decision, there was an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. So far as last mentione4 ground was concerned, the High Court held that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumari, ([1]) this contention was not open to the wife. The court was of the opmion that in view of the said decision of this Court, it could not be said that the husband was taking advantage of his 'wrongs'. In the said decision this Court noted that it would not be reasonable to hold that the relief which was available to the spouse against whom decree for restitution of conjugal rights had been passed ~hould be denied to the one who does not comply with the decree passed against him or her. The expression "in order to be 'wrong" within the meaning of Section 23 \!) (a) the conduct alleged has to be something more than mere disinclination to agree to an offer of reunion, it must be misconduct serious enough to justify denial of the relief to which the husband or the wife is otherwise entitled to. So, therefore, Section 23 ll) (a) provides as follows:-

"23. (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the Court is satisfied that-

(a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5 is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief and").

In that view of the matter, the High Court rejected the con-tention. So far as the other aspect was concerned, the learned Judge expressed the view that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights could not be passed with the consent of the parties and therefore being collusive one disentitled the. husband to decree for divorce. This view was taken by the learned trial judge relying on previous decision of the High Court. Mr. Justice Goyal of the High Court felt that this view required reconsideration and he therefore referred the matter to the Chief Justice for constitution of Division Be11ch of the High Court for the consideration of this question.

(I) [1978] l S.C.R. 315.

The matter thereafter came up before Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Chief Justice Sandhawalia for the sa'd court on consideration of different authorities came to the conclusion that consent decree could not be termed to be collu-sive decree so as to disentitle the petitioner to decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It may be mentioned that before the Division Bench on behalf of the appellant-wife, counsel did not assail the factual finding of the Trial Court that there was no co-habitation after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights nor did he press the first ground of defence namely that the appellant could not take advantage of his 'wrong' because of having refused cohabitation in execution of the decree. However, the ground that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was in sense collu,ive decree was pressed before the Division Bench. In view of the Full Bench deci-sion of the Punjab aud Haryana High Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. Smt. Pushpa(') wherein the m1jority of the Judges of the Full Bench held that consent decree in all cases could not be said to be collusive decree and where the parties had agreed to passing of decree after attempts had been made to settle the matter, in view of the language of Section 23 if the court had tried to !]lake conciliation between the parties and conciliation had been ordered, the husband was not disentitled to get decree.

Section 23 sub-section (2) provides as follows :-

"(2)-Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the natnre and circumstances of the case, to make every endea-vour to bring about reconciliation between the parties :

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in clause (ii), clause (iii), clause (iv), clause (v), clause (vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (I) of section 13."

In this case from the facts on record it appears that there was no collusion between the parties. The wife petitioned against the husband on certain allegations, the husband denied these allegations. He stated that he was willing to take the wife back. decree on that basis was passed. It is difficult to find any collusion as such in

the instant case. Apart from that we are in agreement with the majority of the learned judges of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. Smt. Pushpa (supra) that all cases of consent decrees cannot be said to be collu-sive. Consent decrees per se in matrimoniai matters arc not collusive. As would be evident from legislative intent of Section 13B that divorce by mutual consent is no longer foreign to Indian law of divorce but of course this is sabsequent amendment and was not applicable at the time when the decree in question was passed. In the premises we accept the majority view of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court on this point.

In this appeal before this Court, counsel for the wife did not challenge the finding of the Division Bench that the consent decree as such .was not bad or collusive. What he tried to urge before us was that in view of the expression 'wrong' in Section 23(1) (a) of the Act, the husband was disentitled in this case to get decree for divorce. It was sought to be urged that from the very begining the husband wanted that decree for divo'rce should be passed. He therefore did not deliberately oppose the decree for restitution of conjugal rights.' It was submitted on the other hand that the res-pondent/husband had with the intention of ultimately having divorce allowed the wife decree for the restitution of conjugal rights knowing fully well that this decree he would not honour and thereby he misled the wife and the Court and thereafter refused to cohabi-tate with the wife and now, it was submitted, cannot be allowed to take advantage of his 'wrong'. There is, however, no whisper of these allegations in the pleading. As usual, on this being pointed out, the counsel prayed that he should be given an opportunity of amending his pleadings and, the parties, with usual plea, should not suffer for the mistake of the. lawyers. In this case, however, there are inmrmountable difficulties. Firstly there was no pleading, secondly this ground was not urged before any of the courts below which is question of fact, thirdly the facts pleaded and the allegations made by the wife in the trial court and before the Division Bench were contrary to the facts now sought to be urged in support to her appeal The definite case of the wife was that after the decree for restitution of conjugal rights, the husband and wife cohabitated for two days. The ground now sought to be urged is thatthe husband wanted the wife to have decree for judicial separation by some kind of trap and then not to cohabitate with her and thereafter obtain this decree for divorce. This would be opposed to the facts alleged in the defence by the wife. Thereforequite apart from the fact that there was no pleading which is seri-ous and fatal mistake, there is no -scope of giving any opportunity of amending the pleadings at this stage permitting the wife to make an inconsistent case. Counsel for the appellant sought to urge that the experession 'taking advantage of his or her own wrongs' in clause (a) of sub-section 23 must be construed in such manner as would not make the Indian wives suffer at the hands of cunning and dis-honest husbands. Firstly even if there is any scope for accepting this broad argument, it has no factual application to this case and secondly if that is so then it requires legislation to that effect. We are therefore unable to accept the contention of counsel for the appellant that the conduct of the husband sought to be urged against him could possibly come within the expression 'his own wrongs' in section 23(1) (a) of the Act so as to disentitle him to decree for divorce to which he is otherwise entitled to as held by the courts below. Further more we reach this conclusion without any mental compunction because it is evident that for whatever be the reasons this marriage has broken down and the parties can no longer Jive together as husband and wife, if such is the situation it is better to close the chapter.

Our attention, however, was drawn to decision of learned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of ·r. Sareetha v. Venkata Subbaiah.(1) In the_ said decisio;i the learned judge has observed that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights provided for by Section 9 of the said Act was savage and barbar-ous remedy violating the right to privacy and human dignity guaran-teed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, according to the learned judge, Section 9 was constitutionally void. Any statutory provision that abridged the rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would have to be declared void in terms of Article 13 of the Constitution. According to the said learned judge, Article 21 guaranteed right to life and personal liberty against the State action. . Formulated in simple negative terms, its range of operation positi-vely forbidding the State from depriving any person of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by Jaw was of far-reaching dismensions and of overwhelming constitutional significance. Learned judge observed that decree for restitution of conjugal rights constituted the grossest form of violation of any indi-vidual right to privacy. According to the learned judge, it denied the woman her free choice whether, when and how her body was to

(I) A.I.R. 1983 Andhra Pradesh 356.

become the vehicle for the procreation of another human being. decree for restitution of conjugal rights deprived, according to the learned judge, woman of control over her choice .as and when and by whom the various parts of her body should be allowed to be sensed. The woman loses her control over her most intimate decisions. The learned judge therefore was of the view that the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 was flagrantly violated by decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned judge was of the view that wife who was keeping away from her husband because of permanent or even temporary estrangement cannot be forced, without violating her right to privacy to bear child by her husband. During time when she was probably contemplating an action for divorce, the use and enforcement of Section 9 of the said Act against the e;tranged wife coilld irretrievably alter her position by bringing about forcible conception permanently ruin;ng her mind, body and life and everything connected with it. The learned judge was there-fore clearly of the view that Section 9 of th<: said Act violated Arti-cle 21 of the Constitution. He reffered to the Scarman Commission's report in England recommending its abolition. 1he learned judge was also of the view that Section 9 of the said Act, promoted no legitimate public purpose based on any conception of the general good. It did not therefore subserve any social good. Section 9 of the said Act was, therefore, held to be arbitrary and void as offending Article 14 of the Ccnstitution. Learned judge further observed that though Section 9 of the Sdid Act did not in form offend the classi-fication test, inasmuch as it made no discrimination between hus-band and wife, on the other hand, by making the remedy of re;ti-tution of conjugal rights equally available both to wife and husband, it apparently satisfied the equality test. But bare equality of treat-ment regardless of the inequality of realities was neither justice nor homage to the constitutional principles. He relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Murthy Match Works, Etc. Etc. v. The Assistant Collector of Central Exice Etc.([1]) The learned judge, how-ever, was of the opinion based on how this remedy was found used almost exclusively by the husband and was rarely resorted to by the wife.

The learned judge noticed and that is very significant point that decree for restitution of conjugal rights can only be enforced under Order 21 Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure. He also referred to certain trend in· the American law and came to the

(I) (1974}3 S.C.R. 121.

conclusion that Section 9 of the said Act was null and void. The above view of the learned single judge of Antlhra Pradesh was dissented from in decision of the learned single judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Smt.Harvfnder Kaur v. Harmander Singh Chaudhry('). In the said decision, the learned judge of the Delhi High Court expr"ssed the view that Section 9 of the said Act was not violative of Articles 14 and 21 oi the Constitution. The learned judge noted that the object of restitution decree was to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties so that they could live together in the matrimonial home in amity. The leading idea of Section 9 was to preserve the marriage. From the definition of cohabitation and consortium, 'it appeared to the learned judge that sexual intercourse was one of the elements that went to make up the marriage, but that was not the summum bonum. The courts do not and can not enforce sexual intercourse. Sexual relations constituted an important element in the conception of marriage, but it was also true that these did not constitute its whole content nor could the remaining aspects of matrimonial consortium be· said to be wholly unsubstantial or of trivial character. The remedy of restitution aimed at cohabitation and consortium and not merely at sexual intercourse. The learned judge expressed the view that t\le restitution decree did not enforce sexual intercourse. It was fallacy to hold that the restitution of c!:mjugal rights constituted "the starkest form of governmental invasion" of "marital privacy''.

This point namely validity of Section 9 of the said Act was not canvassed in the instant case in the courts below counsel for the appellant, however, sought to urge this point before us as legal proposition. We have allowed him to do so.

Having considered the views of the learned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Conrt and that of learned single judge of Delhi High Court, we prefer to accept on this aspect namely on the validity of Section 9 of the said Act the views of the learned single judge of the Delhi High Court. It may be mentioned that conjugal rights may be viewed in its proper perspective by keeping in mind the dictionary meaning of the expression "Conjugal". Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edn. Vol. I page 371 notes the meaning of 'conjugal' as "of or portaining to marriage or to husband and wife in their relations to each other''. In the Dictionary of English Law, 1959 Edn. at page 453, Earl Jowitt defines 'conjugal rights' thus :

"The right which husband and wife have to each other's society and marital intercourse. The suit for restitution of conjugal rights is martimonial suit, cognizable in the Divorce Court, which is brought whenever either the husband or t~e wife lives separate from the other without any sufficient reason, in which case the court will decree restitution of conjugal rights (Martimonial Causes Act, 1950, s. 15), but will not enforce it by attachment, substi-tuting however for attachment, if the wife be the petitioner, an order for periodical payments by the husband to the wife (s.22).

Conjugal rights cannot be enforced by the act of either party, and husband cannot seize and detain his wife by fo1ce (R. V. Jackson [1891] l Q .. B. 671)".

In India it may be borne in mind that conjugal rights i.e. right of the husband or the wife to the society of the other spouse is not merely creature of the statute. Such right is inherent in the very institution of marriage 'itself. See in this connection Mulla's Hindu Law-15th Edn. p. 567-Para 443. There are sufficient safeguards in Section 9 to prevent it from being tyranny. The importance of the concept of conjugal rights can be viewed in the light of Law Commission-7lst Report on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955-"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as Ground of Divorce, Para 6.5 where it is stated thus :-

"Moreover, the essence of marriage is sharing of common life, sharing of all the happiness that life has to offer and all the misery that has to be faced in lifr, an experience of the joy that comes from enjoying, in· common, things of the matter and of the spirit and from showering love and affection on one's offspring. Living together is symbol of such sharing in all its aspects. Living apart is symbol indicating the negation of such sharing. It is indicative of disruption of the essence of marriage-" breakdown" and if it continues for fairly long period, it would indicate destruction of the essence of marriage-"irretrievable breakdown".

Section 9 only is codification of pre-existing law. Rule 32 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights or for an

injuction. Sub-rule (I) of Rulp 32 is in these terms:

"Where the party against whom decree for the speci-fic performance of contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of decree for the specific performance of contract, or for an injuction by his deten-tion in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his pro-perty, or by both.''

It is significant to note that unlike decree of specific perfor-mance of contract, for restitution of conjugal rights the sanction j, rovided by court where the disobedience to snch decree is wilful! f.e. is deliberate, in spite of the opportunities and there are no other impediments, might be enforced by attachment of property. So the only sanction is by. attachmen~ of property against disobedience of decree for restitution of conjugal rights where the disobedience follows as result°of wilfull conduct i where conditions are there for wife or husband to obey the decree for restitution of conjugal rights but disob~ys the same in spite of such conditions, then only financial sanction, provided he or she has properties to be attached, is provided for. This is so as an inducement by the court in appropriate case when the court has decreed restitutwn for conjugal rights and that the court can only decree if there is no just reason for not passing decree for restitution of conjugal rights to offer induceroent for the husband} or wife to live together in order to give th< m an opportunity to settle up the matter amicably. It serves social purpose as an aid to the prevention of break-up of marriage., It cannot be viewed in the manner the learned single judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court has viewed it and we are therefore unable to accept the position that Section 9 of the said Act is violative of Artiole 14 or Article 21 of the Constitutition if the purpose of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights in the said Act is understood in its proper perspective and if the method of its execution in cases of disobedience is kept in view.Another decision to which our attention was drawn is also Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Geeta Laxmi v. G.V.R.K. Sarveswara Rao<[1]). There on the admitted

misconduct of the husband is not only in not complying with the decree for restitution of conjugal rights but ill-treating the wife and finally driving her awey from the house, it was held that the husband was not entitled to decree under Section 13(1A) of the said Act in view of the wrong as contemplated under Section 23(1) (a) of the Act.· The facts of that case were entirely different from the facts of the instant case before us. There is no such allegation or proof of any ill-treatment by the husband or any evidence of the husband driving the wife out of the house. In that view of the matter, this decision cannot be of any assistance to the appellant in the instant case.

Counsel for the appellant, however, contended before us that in the social reality of the Indian society, divorced wife would be materially at great disadvantage. He is right in this submission. In view, however, of the position in law, we would direct that even after the final decree of divorce, ~he husband would continue to pay maintenance to the wife until she remarries and would maintain the one living daughter of the marriage. Separate maintenance should be paid for the wife and the living daughter. Until altered by appropriate order on application on proper materials such mainte-nance should be Rs. 200 per month for the wife appellant and Rs. 300 per month for the daughter Menka. Wife would be entitled to such maintenance only until she .re-marries and the daughter Menka to her maintenance until she is married. Parties . will· be at liberty to ask for variation of the amounts by proper application on proper materials made before Sub-judge Ist Class Jullunder. The respondent would pay costs of this appeal to appellant assessed at Rs. 1500.

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.