Restitution of the intention of conjugal rights to protect the marriage as an institution of marriage, from the Centre to SC

New Delhi, Sep 5 : The Centre has argued to the Supreme Court against the constitutional legality of the provisions that relate to the restoration of rights to couples in the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage ActThe Centres affidavit argued that the purpose of the ceremony of marriage needs to be understood and appreciated before analyzing the reasoning of the cure of marriage rights.

"It is established law that according to Hindu Personal Law, especially regarding the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the marriage is not an union, but is an ceremony.

In other terms, it is established law that Hindu Personal Law attaches a greater amount of sacredness to the ceremony of marriage." It further stated that "the legal mechanism that is provided in the various enactments that allow for the restoration of conjugal rights is designed to bring in cohabitation between estranged couples in order to allow them to be able to live in the matrimonial residence in peace.

The goal of the restitution of conjugal rights is to safeguard the tradition of marriage by allowing spouses to have a legal remedy through which they can settle disputes that arise from of the stress and wear of matrimony with the help of a judge.It is designed to facilitate cohabitation and consortium, not just sexual relations".

The Centres response was based on an application filed by two law students challenging the decision of the court in the case of Saroj Rani v.Sudarshan Kumar Chadha.The plea had claimed that the restitution of conjugal rights is in violation of the right of privacy.

The Centres affidavit stated that "the decision made by the judge in its privacy ruling had in effect upheld the earlier ruling in Saroj Rani.It also confirmed the legality of various provisions for the restitution of conjugal rights.

It declared that the right of privacy isnt absolute, and can be subject to reasonable limitations by the government in order to protect the public interest that in the present instance is the"institution of the marriage ceremony and family".The plea has been scheduled to be heard on Tuesday.

The petitioner filed a petition with the apex court via advocates Atul Vinod and Pranjal Kishore to direct the court to implement section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and order 21 rule 32 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are in violation of fundamental rights and , therefore in violation of the Constitution.ss/vd A .