Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/356949801/Restitution-of-Conjugal-Rights
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:49:10+00:00

Document:
Signature of the candidate Date: 13th November. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism. The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged. Anil Maurya Sir from July to November. if any. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. Appendix ‘B’ – Certificate CERTIFICATE The project entitled “RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS" submitted to Law School. 2016 2 . detected later on. 2016. as part of internal assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of Dr. Banaras Hindu University for FAMILY LAW – I (HINDU LAW).
Vinod Shankar Mishra and all the people who provided me with the facilities being required and conductive conditions for my project. Acknowledgement I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me throughout the course of this project. Anil Maurya Sir for his support and guidance at Banaras Hindu University. invaluably constructive criticism and friendly advice during the project work. I would also like to thank my coordinator Prof. D. I am thankful for their aspiring guidance. I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and illuminating views on a number of issues related to the project. Yug Pratap Singh B.A.B.) INDEX 3 . K. Sharma and Dr. I express my warm thanks to the Dean. Prof. LL. (Hons.
No PG NO. TOPIC 1 INTRODUCTION 5 2 RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL 7 RIGHTS: CONCEPT & ORIGIN 3 CONSTITUTIONALITY: RELIEF OF 11 RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS 4 PROVISIONS FOR RESTITUTION OF 13 CONJUGAL RIGHTS 5 RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL 16 RIGHTS IN HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 6 CONCLUSION 17 7 BIBLIOGRAPHY 18 INTRODUCTION 4 .Sr.
High Court held the section ultra vires since it offended Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. T. the object of the section is to bring about cohabitation between estranged parties so that they can live together. 1955. the other person may file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. They must give each other company. the petitioner wife alleged that the husband was already married and had suppressed the fact from her. the other person has right to seek restitution of conjugal rights in a court of law. There must be cohabitation between them. it was overruled by the Supreme Court in Saroj Rani v.Venkata Subbaiah (AIR 1983 AP 356). That in the privacy of home and married life neither Article 21 nor Article 14 has any place.LAW IN BRIEF When two people are married.Sareetha v. The Court held that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights is not maintainable since there is no legal marriage. Justice P. A. The court observed that. When either of them fail to fulfill such obligations or refuse to cohabit. LAW IN DETAIL When either of the spouses has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable cause. In Ranjana kejriwal v. However. they owe obligations to each other. P. Choudhary of the A. PROCESS FOR SOLUTION 5 . Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (AIR 1984 SC 1562). Vinod Kumar Kejriwal (AIR 1997 Bom 380). A petition for restitution of conjugal rights is maintainable only when there is a valid marriage. Section 9 was challenged before the court as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in T.
Suman (1996) 1 HLR 24 (P&H) The court will satisfy itself about the truth of the statements made in the petition and also that there is no legal ground for not granting the decree of restitution of conjugal rights.Complaint under which Section? Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.The marriage was solemnized or . b) Such withdrawal is without reasonable excuse. Persistent demand for dowry or causing physical and mental torture was held to be a reasonable cause for the wife to withdraw form the society of the husband in Vijay Kumar v. The person who has withdrawn from the society of his/her spouse may prove that it has become impossible to live with the spouse. c) There is no legal ground disentitling the petitioner from the relief of restitution of conjugal rights.The husband and wife last resided. 1955 Whom to complain / where to complaint? The civil court in whose local limits. The decree is then accordingly granted. How to file the Case? The aggrieved party may apply to the district court by way of petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The burden of proof lies on the person who has withdrawn from the society of his/her spouse to prove that he/she had reasonable cause to withdraw from the society of his/her spouse. 6 . .The husband and wife reside together or . The person seeking restitution must establish that: a) The other spouse has withdrawn from his or her society.
but it is powerless to have its specific performance by any law. The court after hearing the petition of the aggrieved spouse. So after the solemnization of the marriage if either of the spouses without reasonable excuse withdraws himself or herself from the society of the other then aggrieved party has a legal right to file a petition in the matrimonial court for restitution of conjugal rights. and if the party complained against still does not comply. Appeal may be made to the High Court challenging the lower court order. The necessary implication of marriage is that parties will live together. The non-compliance of the issued decree results to constructive destruction on the part of the erring spouse. The court though is competent to pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.What Next? The decree of restitution of conjugal rights will be executed as per the Civil Procedure Code. But the execution of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is very difficult. on being satisfied that there is no legal ground why the application shall be refused and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in the petition may pass a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. A husband or wife can file a petition for restoration of their rights to cohabit with the other spouse. the aggrieved party move a petition for a decree of divorce after one year from the date of the passing of the decree and the competent court can pass a decree of divorce in favour of the aggrieved party. At present as per the provisions available under the Indian personal laws. The decree of restitution of conjugal rights can be enforced by the attachment of property. But under no circumstances the court can force the erring 7 . Restitution of conjugal rights is the only remedy which could be used by the deserted spouse against the other. Any voluntary organization may also be approached for support. ALTERNATE REMEDIES The Legal Services Authority may be approached for legal aid. RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS: CONCEPT & ORIGIN Marriage under all matrimonial laws is union imposing upon each of the spouses certain marital duties and gives to each of them certain legal rights. Each spouse is entitled to comfort consortium of the other. the Court may also punish him or her for contempt of court. A decree of restitution of conjugal rights implies that the guilty party is ordered to live with the aggrieved party.
the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights was neither recognized by the Dharmashastra nor did the Muslim law made any provisions for it. Shumsoonissa Begum. the aggrieved party may apply. The concept of restitution of conjugal rights was introduced in India in the case of Moonshee Buzloor Ruheem v. 1955. 1936 and to persons married according to the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. 1869. withdrawn from the society of the other. the court may decree restitution of conjugal rights. As stated by Paras Diwan. 1954. In modern India. the remedy is available to Hindus under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. where marriage was considered as a property deal and wife was part of man’s possession like other chattels. The conceptualization of the provision for restitution of conjugal rights under Muslim law by Tayabji is as follows: “Where either the husband or wife has. may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. without reasonable excuse. to Muslims under general law. It is as follows: “Restitution of conjugal rights When either the husband or the wife has. may put either party on terms securing to the other the enjoyment of his or her rights” 8 . It came with the Raj. 1955. Decree of restitution of conjugal rights could be passed in case of valid marriages only. or neglected to perform the obligations imposed by law or by the contract of marriage. Explanation: Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for withdrawal from the society. The remedy of restitution of conjugal rights is a positive remedy that requires both parties to the marriage to live together and cohabit. for restitution of conjugal rights and the court. The provisions for restitution of conjugal rights are identical in Section 22 the Special Marriage Act. the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. where such actions were regarded as considerations for specific performance. to Christians under Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Divorce Act. without lawful ground withdrawn from the society of the other. Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act. by petition to the district court. Restitution of conjugal rights has its roots in feudal England.spouse to consummate marriage. to Parsis under Section 36 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act.” The restitution of conjugal rights is often regarded as a matrimonial remedy. 1954 and Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 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.
The primary object of showing proof or onus rests with the petitioner. it was also attached with the specific performance of the contract of marriage. and ‘withdrawal’ signifies cessation of that cohabitation and bringing to end consortium.Thus the Muslims equate this concept with securing to the other spouse the enjoyment of his or her legal rights. Salima . forms the foundation of the right to bring a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights. Prem Narayan. the requirements of the provision of restitution of conjugal rights are the following: • The withdrawal by the respondent from the society of the petitioner. the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society. the Allahbad High Court decided that the concept of restitution must be decided on the principles of Muslim Law and not on the basis on justice. • There should be no other legal ground for refusal of the relief. When the question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for the withdrawal of the respondent from the society of the aggrieved party. • The court should be satisfied about the truth of the statement made in the petition. The defence to this principle lies in the concept of a ‘reasonable excuse’. Here the term ‘society’ corresponds to cohabitation. the burden of proof then shifts to the other party to prove the defence of a ‘reasonable excuse or cause’. equity and good conscience. Sufficient Cause for Withdrawal and Burden of Proof The fundamental rule of matrimonial law that one spouse is at liberty to the society and comfort of the other spouse. If the respondent has withdrawn from the society of his spouse for 9 . But this concept is only secondary in nature. In Abdul Kadir v. This behaviour was held sufficient to show that he had withdrawn from the society of his wife. In Sushila Bai v. Earlier. This must be a voluntary act of the respondent. and therefore the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. • The withdrawal is without any reasonable cause or excuse or lawful ground. To sum up. Once the petitioner has proved his/her case. The court has the duty of granting a decree for restitution in the cases where either spouse has abandoned or withdrawn from the society of the other. the husband deserted his wife and thereafter was totally unresponsive towards her. under all personal law.
The statements made by the aggrieved spouse in the application are true. ii. The petitioner proves that the respondent spouse has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from his/her society ii. The court will normally order restitution of conjugal rights if: i. It is significant to note that unlike a decree of specific performance of contract. the sanction is provided by the court where the disobedience to such a decree is wilful that is deliberate. CONSTITUTIONALITY: RELIEF OF RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS 10 .a valid reason. A matrimonial misconduct not amounting to a ground of a matrimonial cause. The court has held in various cases that the following situations will amount to a reasonable excuse to act as a defence in this area: i. and iii. it is a complete defence to a restitution petition. A ground for relief in any matrimonial cause. for restitution of conjugal rights. There is no legal ground why the petitioner’s prayer should not be granted. Such an act. iii. if sufficiently weighty and grave. omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent. in spite of opportunities.
Venkatasubbaiah where the Hon’ble High Court held that the impugned section was unconstitutional. Decree of restitution of conjugal rights could be passed in case of valid marriages only. 1955 and over-ruled the decision given in T. Apart from legislation relating to matrimonial law. 1955 provides for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The aggrieved party may apply. The Delhi High Court in Harvinder Kaur v Harminder Singh though had non-conforming views. The earliest being in 1983 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. T. T. 1954 and the Hindu Marriage Act. which guarantees personal liberties and equality of status and opportunity to men and women alike and further confers powers on the State to make special provisions for their protection and safeguard. Hindu Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Venkatasubbaiah . 1955. In Shakila Banu v. for the restitution 11 . This is particularly so after the Constitution of India came into force. Sudharshan gave a judgment which was in line with the Delhi High Court views and upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. there were heated debates in the Parliament for and against it.During the time of introducing the provision for restitution of conjugal rights in the Special Marriage Act. by petition to the District Court.Sareetha v. Gulam Mustafa .” The constitutional validity of the provision for restitution of conjugal rights has time and again been questioned and challenged. the Hon’ble High Court observed: “(The concept of restitution of conjugal rights) is a relic of ancient times when slavery or quasi-slavery was regarded as natural. courts in India in case of all communities have passed decrees for restitution of conjugal rights. Application of the Provision in Different Communities The restitution of conjugal rights is one of the reliefs that are provided to the spouses in distress in the institution of marriage by law. Ultimately Supreme Court in Saroj Rani v. Sareetha v.
Even husband can apply for restitution of conjugal rights. One of the important implications of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1956. The legal grounds for refusing to grant relief are: • For instance. then the wife can apply for restitution of conjugal rights. • Unnecessary or improper delay in instituting the proceeding. But the court can refuse to grant order of restitution of conjugal rights for following reasons: • Cruelty by husband or in-laws • On the failure by the husband to perform marital obligations • On non-payment of prompt dower by the husband Christian A Christian husband and wife can also apply for an order of restitution of conjugal rights. Muslim If the husband either deserts a wife or neglects to perform his marital obligations without any proper reason. • Any conduct on the part of the petitioner or fact tantamount to the petitioner taking advantage of his or her own wrong or any disability for the purpose of such relief. Another important implication of the section is that it provides a ground for divorce under Section 13(1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act. a wife who does not want a judicial separation or disruption of marriage can attain maintenance from her husband without filing a suit for the same under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. 1955. The Court cannot pass the decree for following reasons: 12 . any ground on which the respondent could have asked for a decree for judicial separation or for nullity of marriage or for divorce. 1955. • Reasonable excuse for withdrawing from the society of the petitioner. 1955 is that it provides an opportunity to an aggrieved party to apply for maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. So. Maintenance can also be obtained by the party in case when the action is pending under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.of conjugal rights. 1955 on a condition that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between them for a period of one year or more after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
1955 and all are treated as equals under the Section 9. In Hyde v. the husband can sue for the restitution of conjugal rights and likewise the wife has the right to demand for the fulfilment of marital duties by 13 . may proceed to decree such restitution of conjugal rights accordingly. The position or status of “husband” and “wife” is a recognised one throughout Christendom: the laws of all Christian nations throw about that status a variety of legal incidents during the lives of the parties. The concept of gender discrimination has not been incorporated in the Hindu Marriage Act. PROVISIONS FOR RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS When either of the spouses has withdrawn from the society of the other without reasonable cause. and induce definite lights upon their offspring. There is no classification of sexes in Section 9 and all equals have been treated equally in this area. It creates mutual rights and obligations.” While in Muslim law where a wife refuses to live with her husband without any lawful cause. as all contracts do. the status of partners in Christian marriage was stated as “Marriage has been well said to be something more than a contract. Similarly a Christian husband or wife can file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Divorce Act. the other person may file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. but beyond that it confers a status. A petition for restitution of conjugal rights is maintainable only when there is a valid marriage.• Cruelty of husband or wife • If either of the spouse is insane • If any one of the spouse marries again Parsi Where a husband/wife shall have deserted or without lawful cause ceased to cohabit with his/her spouse. either religious or civil – to be an Institution. though under Muslim law a suit in a civil court has to be filed and not a petition as under other laws. 1955. The provision under Muslim law is almost the same as under the modern Hindu law. 1869. Hyde and Woodmansee . may sue for the restitution of his or her conjugal rights and the court if satisfied of the truth of the allegations contained in the plaint and that there is no just ground why relief should not be granted. the party so deserted or with whom cohabitation shall have so ceased.
Similar is the law with respect to the marriage governed by Mohammedan law and Christian law.While in Muslim law under Section 2 (vii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. Under the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 and the Indian Divorce Act. The defences for the restitution petition under the Hindu Marriage Act. 1869 is very broad and it puts down that if the withdrawal of the respondent from the society of the petitioner is “without reasonable excuse”. Thus the marriage remains a valid marriage. Relief of restitution of conjugal rights is discretionary. marriage avoided by the exercise of option of puberty and other provisions under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. Accordingly under the Section 33 of the Indian Divorce Act. Tyabji has used the expression “without lawful ground”. 14 . 1872 it is required that at the time of marriage the bride should not be less than eighteen years and bridegroom should not be less than twenty-one years. A marriage in violation of the age prescribed under Section 5 (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. and as the Quran enjoins the husband to retain his wife with kindness or to dismiss her with kindness. But this right is not absolute as the Muslim husband being dominant in matrimonial matters. 1955 being neither void nor voidable. In Hindu law the relief of decree for restitution of conjugal rights is an equitable relief and equitable considerations must be considered before compelling the defendant to return to cohabitation with the plaintiff. are defences for a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be refused on the ground of the violation. 1955 anything which constitutes a ground for nullity. Under the Muslim law a Muslim husband can defeat wife’s petition for restitution at any time by pronouncing talaq on her. dissolution of marriage or judicial separation is a defence against a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. the Court leans in favour of the wife and requires strict proof of all allegations necessary for matrimonial relief. Under Muslim law.the husband. a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be refused. It is accepted that the expression “without reasonable excuse” and “without lawful ground” should have same meaning. it is in defence to restitution petition. 1939. For Indian Christian according to Section 60(1) of the Indian Christian Marriage Act. 1939 when the marriage has been avoided in the exercise of option of puberty the suit for restitution of conjugal rights fails. A petition may also be rejected if the husband has been made an outcaste by his community. 1869 applicable for Christians nothing can be pleaded as defence against a petition for restitution of conjugal rights which would not be a ground for judicial separation or for a decree of nullity of marriage. The non-age does not render the marriage void or voidable. Under Muslim law grounds of void and irregular marriages.
15 .As far as the Hindus and Christians are concerned the existence of a co-wife is a sufficient cause entitling the wife to withdraw herself from the society of her husband which can be taken as a defence by the wife against a restitution petition. a husband’s second marriage may involve cruelty to the first wife justifying her refusal to live with him. and the suit will be dismissed. 1939. in Hindu law as well as Christian law the courts have the wide power and discretion to decide what constitute cruelty. both physical cruelty as well as legal cruelty together with all instances of cruelty is included under the definition of cruelty. a restitution petition filed by the Muslim husband against his first wife the court had held that it cannot compel the wife to live with husband and can refuse the relief if the court feels that it would not be just and reasonable to do or it would be inequitable to pass decree. But in certain situations. If the suit is brought after the consummation of the marriage then a decree for restitution of conjugal rights on payment of prompt dower is to be passed. In Hindu law and Christian law. If the husband sues for restitution of conjugal rights before consummation of the marriage takes place then non-payment of dower is a complete defence to suit. the separation agreements are not part of the matrimonial statutes. 1869. Some High Courts have considered it as cruelty by the husband and denied on that ground the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. 1955 can be used as defence of cruelty against a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The relief of restitution of conjugal rights can be denied to the husband if any of the instances of cruelty as given under the section are proved against him. either at the time of marriage or even after. The Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1872 or the Indian Divorce Act. a Muslim wife cannot refuse the comfort-consortium to husband because of husband’s taking a second wife. restitution of conjugal rights cannot be granted subjected to certain conditions. The concept of dower is specific to Mohammedan law only. Section 2 (viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act. They are regulated by the general law of contract. While under Muslim law controlled polygamy is allowed. In India bigamous marriages are now to great extent disapproved by the courts. fair and necessary in the circumstances of each case. There is no absolute right in a husband to claim restitution of conjugal rights against his wife unconditionally. A Muslim wife living separate from the husband on account of non payment of prompt dower. So. Also a valid separation agreement is a good defence to a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus. While in Muslim law. While in Muslim matrimonial law the spouses are permitted to enter certain agreements. 1955 or the Indian Christian Marriage Act. Cruelty need not always be physical and it can also be mental. In Itwari v Asghari . The definition of ‘cruelty’ or what all actions constitute cruelty has not been specified in the Hindu Marriage Act. the courts have discretion to make the decree conditional on the payment of her unpaid dower debt or to impose other suitable conditions considered just.
the withdrawal must be without any reasonable reason. the aggrieved party applies for the restitution of conjugal rights. Three essential conditions for Section 9 of HMA Firstly. the judge may decree restitution of conjugal rights in his favor. the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 gives you remedy in the form of Section 9 under the restitution of conjugal rights. and thirdly. What the aggrieved party needs to do is file a petition to the district court and 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. secondly. the aggrieved party may apply for restitution of conjugal rights.RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS IN HINDU MARRIAGE ACT If your spouse has left you without giving any reasonable ground. one party must have withdrawn from the society of the other. If the aggrieved party is unable to convince the district court and it founds that the petitioner is guilty then the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is not granted. withdrawn from the society of the other. the district court may decree of restitution of conjugal rights to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties. An added advantage from this is that if the parties are not following the decree for cohabitation after the passing of the decree. Once these conditions are fulfilled. continuously for one year. Reasonable grounds on which petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights can be rejected First. without reasonable excuse. 16 . it becomes a ground for divorce under Section 13. if the respondent has a ground on which he or she can claim any matrimonial relief. The section 9 of the HMA reads that when either the husband or the wife has.
As understood from the previous chapters. burden of proof is on the aggrieved/petitioner who needs to prove that the respondent has withdrawn from his society. omission or conduct which makes it impossible for the respondent to live with him. CONCLUSION You can take a horse to the water. Once that burden is discharged by the petitioner.Second. It tries to protect the society from denigrating. Burden of proof under Section 9 of the HMA Burden of proof operates at two levels. thus is a means of saving the marriage. husband’s neglect of his wife or the constant demand for dowry. But it is to be noted that the court cannot compel the defaulting spouse to physically return to the comfort-consortium of the decree-holder spouse. if the petitioner is guilty of such act. the restitution of conjugal rights is a part of the personal laws of the individual. Firstly. Also under the Indian law a decree of restitution of conjugal rights can be executed by attachment of the respondent’s property. Third. etc. It serves to aid prevention of the breakup of marriage. if the petitioner is guilty of any matrimonial misconduct. thus they are guided by ideals such as religion. tradition and custom. But the final decision is that of the parties whether to obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights and to continue with the matrimony or not. for instance. but you can’t make him drink. it falls on the respondent to prove that there exists a reasonable excuse for the withdrawal. The court can pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights and order the erring spouse to cohabit with the aggrieved spouse. are some reasonable ground for wife not to join the company of her husband. So the restitution of conjugal rights remedy tries in promoting reconciliation between the parties and maintenance of matrimonial. A very important feature of restitution of conjugal rights to be emphasized is that it is a remedy is aimed at preserving the marriage and not at disrupting it as in the case of divorce or judicial separation. is a very popular proverb and the provision for restitution of conjugal rights under the Indian personal laws seems to be akin. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: 17 .
com/news/2008/03_08/03_03_08/030308_culture_files/030308_culture. (4th ED. religion and gender.org/content/19/1/47.Gupte. Culture.com/articles/abol. http://wunrn.Paras Diwan. (Universal Law Publishing Co) 3. Restitution Of Conjugal Rights: Criticism Revisited. 2011) 4 Lucy Carroll. (Last Visited : Feb. 02. Bharatiya. Legal regulation of marital relations: an historical and comparative approach. 2011) 6 Arlette Gautier.1. (Last Visited : Feb. 28. Syed Khalid Rashid’s Muslim Law. 10. http://www. Conjugal Rights: Shift in Emphasis Needed. http://lawfam. (5th ED. http://www. Talaq-i-Tafwid and Stipulations in a Muslim Marriage Contract: Important Means of Protecting the Position of the South Asian Muslim Wife.abstract#target-1. (Last Visited : Mar.: 2008).jstor.P.oxfordjournals. (Last Visited : Mar. Dr. 2011) 18 . Hindu Law in British India. 11.jstor.org/stable/4372307. V.legalserviceindia.: 2004) (Eastern Book Company Lucknow) 2. 2011) 3 Vimal Balasubrahmanyan. (Last Visited : Mar. Conjugal Rights vs Personal Liberty: Andhra High Court Judgment. http://www. 27. 2011) 2 Vimal Balasubrahmanyan. Constitutional Validity of Restitution of Conjugal Rights: Scope and Relevance.pdf . 2011) 5 Saloni Tuteja. 03.htm.: 1947) (Premier Publishers Delhi) Articles: 1 Aditya Swarup.com/adityaswarup/8 . Law of Marriage and Divorce. 2011) 7 Frances Raday. http://www. 02.bepress. S.jstor.org/stable/4373507.P. (Last Visited : Mar. (Last Visited : Mar. (2nd ED. http://works.org/stable/312203.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.