NEW DELHI: <\/em>The Supreme Court of India<\/strong> recently dismissed a petition challenging a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong> that allows only wives to seek divorce<\/strong> in certain situations connected to maintenance orders passed against husbands. The matter was heard by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant<\/strong> and Justice Joymalya Bagchi<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner argued that the law should apply equally to both husband and wife<\/strong>. According to him, if a wife can seek divorce after there is no resumption of cohabitation following a maintenance decree<\/strong>, then husbands should also have the same legal remedy available to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned why the provision was causing difficulty to the petitioner personally. The Court asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat is your problem with it?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n When the petitioner replied:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt should be open to both male and female,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judges continued examining the reason behind the challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Chief Justice then remarked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat is your problem, how is it bothering you?\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also asked whether the petitioner was a \u201cself-proclaimed leader of male rights\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As the hearing continued, the petitioner admitted that he himself was involved in a matrimonial dispute and described himself as a \u201cpersonal sufferer\u201d.<\/em><\/strong> After hearing this, the CJI observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis is what I wanted you to confess. Why should we not impose exemplary cost on you?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Justice Joymalya Bagchi explained that the Constitution itself permits laws that provide special benefits or protections only for women. He stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou should have the Constitution amended. This is a special law. Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench further warned against using constitutional remedies to fight personal matrimonial battles. The Chief Justice told the petitioner:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDon’t settle personal vendettas through Article 32\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court was also informed that the petitioner was pursuing legal studies. Addressing him during the hearing, the CJI stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court finally dismissed the plea and refused to change the provision<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n