Restitution and Judicial Separation Questions and Answers

Q: Which of the following is not a valid defence available to wife in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights ?

The option that is not a valid defence is that the husband is living with his parents.A wife can resist a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by showing a reasonable excuse for living apart: cruelty making it unsafe to live with the husband, his gross neglect of marital obligations, or a defect in the marriage itself, such as its being irregular or void. These are recognised defences.The mere fact that the husband lives in a joint family with his parents is not a reasonable excuse; courts have held that a wife's insistence on a separate home, without more, does not justify withdrawing from his society.

Which of the following is not a valid defence available to wife in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights ?

A.It is unsafe for her to live with her husband because of his cruelty
B.The husband grossly neglects the performance of the marital obligations
C.The marriage is irregular
D.The husband is living with his parents

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2020, SET Exam - 2020,

Answer: D

The option that is not a valid defence is that the husband is living with his parents.

A wife can resist a suit for restitution of conjugal rights by showing a reasonable excuse for living apart: cruelty making it unsafe to live with the husband, his gross neglect of marital obligations, or a defect in the marriage itself, such as its being irregular or void. These are recognised defences.

The mere fact that the husband lives in a joint family with his parents is not a reasonable excuse; courts have held that a wife's insistence on a separate home, without more, does not justify withdrawing from his society.

Discuss in Forum

In which of the following case the Court held that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was Constitutionally violative of right to Human dignity and privacy ?

A.Bipin Chandra vs. Prabhavati
B.T. Sareetha vs. T. Venkatasubah
C.Lachman vs. Meena
D.None of the above

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2012,

Answer: B

The court held Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act unconstitutional, as violating the right to human dignity and privacy, in T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbaiah (1983), a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by Justice Choudary, option B. Later the Delhi High Court in Harvinder Kaur v. Harmander Singh took the opposite view, and the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar upheld Section 9. Bipin Chandra v. Prabhavati (A) and Lachman v. Meena (C) are not the case in the key, so B is the answer.

Discuss in Forum

Match List - I with List - II and select correct answer from the codes :

List - I	List - II
a. Judicial separation	i. Section 9
b. Divorce	ii. Section 10
c. Voidable Marriages	iii. Section 13
d. Restitution of Conjugal Rights	iv. Section 12

Codes : a b c d

A.i iii ii iv
B.ii iv iii i
C.i ii iv iii
D.ii iii iv i

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: D

The correct matching is a-ii, b-iii, c-iv, d-i, which is code D. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 judicial separation is in Section 10, divorce in Section 13, voidable marriages in Section 12 and restitution of conjugal rights in Section 9.

Codes A, B and C move at least one of these to a wrong section, for example restitution to Section 10. Only code D is right.

These sections are also asked together because the remedies run in a graded order.

Discuss in Forum

In which of the following case the question of constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, came for consideration for the first time ?

A.Saroja Rani V. Sundarshan Kumar
B.Bipin Chandra V. Prabhavati
C.Savitry Pandey V. Premchandra Pandey
D.Lachman V. Meena

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: A

The constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on restitution of conjugal rights, first came up in Saroja Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar. The Supreme Court upheld the section, rejecting the argument of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Sareetha that it violated Article 21. So option A is correct. Bipin Chandra, Savitry Pandey and Lachman are other matrimonial cases. The Supreme Court in Saroja Rani held that restitution of conjugal rights does not offend Article 14 or Article 21, which settled a conflict among High Courts on the point.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Restitution and Judicial Separation Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Restitution and Judicial Separation Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications