It is an April 2019 decision on restoration of conjugal rights issued in favour of the man under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) issued by a family court in Gorakhpur that is at the heart of the controversy.
The Supreme Court noted on Tuesday that a woman is not a chattel that can be compelled to live with her husband. The court was hearing a case in which a man requested an order from the court for his spouse to resume living with him again. Chattel is a term that refers to a slave or a physical piece of property.
“What are your thoughts? Is a woman so much of a chattel that we can impose such a decree on her? When the man’s case was heard by a Supreme Court bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, they asked: “Is a wife a chattel that she may be ordered to accompany you?”
It is an April 2019 decision on restoration of conjugal rights issued in favour of the man under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) issued by a family court in Gorakhpur that is at the heart of the controversy. During their 2013 marriage, the lady claimed that she was subjected to psychological torture by her husband over money, which forced her to leave. In 2015, when she sought a restraining order against her husband, a Gorakhpur court ordered him to pay her 20,000 per month as support. Following this, the husband filed a petition in the family court seeking the restoration of his conjugal rights.
The guy went to court after the Gorakhpur family court issued its reparation decision, claiming that the payment of maintenance was unfair since he was ready to live with his ex-wife. During the course of his argument, he brought up the issue of his duty to continue paying maintenance even after receiving an order restoring his conjugal rights. The Allahabad high court rejected his request, and he then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India.
Her lawyer Anupam Mishra argued on her behalf, pointing out that the husband’s whole “game” was to avoid paying support and that he only entered the family court after being directed to do so by the court. While speaking to reporters after his client’s hearing on Tuesday, the man’s attorney said that the top court should encourage the lady to return to her husband, particularly since the family court has decided in his client’s favour. An appeal against that decision is now ongoing before the Allahabad high court, according to Mishra, who is representing the wife.
In response to the man’s repeated demand to have his wife returned to him, the court remarked, “Is a woman a chattel?” Is a wife considered a chattel? In this case, you are requesting that we issue an order as if she may be taken to a location she does not wish to go as if she were a chattel.” The husband’s plea for enforcement of conjugal rights was denied by the bench, which reminded him that his appeal before the Supreme Court was filed in response to the rejection of his case by the Allahabad high court challenging the order to pay child maintenance.