The Supreme Court refused to extend Section 13(2)(iii) HMA to husbands, holding that the special provision remains available only to wives.
Can A Husband Continue Paying Maintenance Yet Still Not Get Equal Divorce Rights?
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed a petition challenging a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act that allows only wives to seek divorce in certain situations connected to maintenance orders passed against husbands. The matter was heard by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The petitioner argued that the law should apply equally to both husband and wife. According to him, if a wife can seek divorce after there is no resumption of cohabitation following a maintenance decree, then husbands should also have the same legal remedy available to them.
During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned why the provision was causing difficulty to the petitioner personally. The Court asked:
“What is your problem with it?”
When the petitioner replied:
“It should be open to both male and female,”
The judges continued examining the reason behind the challenge.
The Chief Justice then remarked:
“What is your problem, how is it bothering you?”.
The Court also asked whether the petitioner was a “self-proclaimed leader of male rights”.
As the hearing continued, the petitioner admitted that he himself was involved in a matrimonial dispute and described himself as a “personal sufferer”. After hearing this, the CJI observed:
“This is what I wanted you to confess. Why should we not impose exemplary cost on you?”
Justice Joymalya Bagchi explained that the Constitution itself permits laws that provide special benefits or protections only for women. He stated:
“You should have the Constitution amended. This is a special law. Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women.”
The Bench further warned against using constitutional remedies to fight personal matrimonial battles. The Chief Justice told the petitioner:
“Don’t settle personal vendettas through Article 32”.
The Court was also informed that the petitioner was pursuing legal studies. Addressing him during the hearing, the CJI stated:
“You might be having some genuine grievances. We have sympathy for you. But we have sympathy for your estranged wife also. This does not send good message for law students. Wait for the right opportunity.”
The Supreme Court finally dismissed the plea and refused to change the provision.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | Relevance In This Case |
| Section 13(2)(iii), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Gives only a wife the right to seek divorce if cohabitation does not resume after a maintenance decree against the husband | The petitioner challenged this provision as discriminatory against husbands |
| Article 15(3), Constitution of India | Permits special provisions and protections for women and children | The Supreme Court relied on this constitutional protection to uphold the provision |
| Article 32, Constitution of India | Allows direct approach to the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights | The Court observed that Article 32 should not be used for personal matrimonial grievances |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Governs Hindu marriage, divorce, maintenance, and matrimonial rights | The disputed provision forms part of this legislation |
Case Details
- Case Title: Jitender Singh Vs Union of India
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil)
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 460/2026
- Bench: CJI Surya Kant | Justice Joymalya Bagchi
- Date of Order: 11 May 2026
- Issue Involved: Challenge to Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking equal divorce rights for husbands
- Outcome: Petition dismissed by the Supreme Court
Key Takeaways
- Equality in responsibilities should also mean equality in legal remedies for both husband and wife.
- Gender-specific matrimonial provisions continue to leave many husbands without similar protections available to women.
- Personal suffering of men in matrimonial litigation is often acknowledged emotionally but not addressed structurally in law.
- Debate around gender-neutral family laws is becoming stronger as more men raise concerns about one-sided legal provisions.
- Constitutional protection for special laws for women remains one of the biggest legal barriers to achieving complete gender neutrality in matrimonial laws.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.