LegalReform – Supreme Court Rejects Plea Seeking Gender-Neutral Divorce Provision

LegalReform –  The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act that permits only women to seek divorce in specific circumstances linked to maintenance orders. The court observed that judicial forums should not be used to pursue personal grievances under the guise of public interest litigation.

Court Declines to Examine Constitutional Challenge

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition filed by law student Jitender Singh, who appeared before the court in person. The petitioner had argued that the existing provision under the Hindu Marriage Act should be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner so that men could also seek similar legal relief.

The case focused on Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The provision grants a wife the right to file for divorce if the couple has not resumed cohabitation for more than one year after a court has passed a maintenance decree against the husband.

Bench Questions Petitioner’s Personal Interest

During the proceedings, the bench repeatedly questioned the petitioner about his direct connection to the matter. The Chief Justice asked how the provision personally affected him and whether he intended to represent the interests of all men through the litigation.

In response, the petitioner informed the court that he had been involved in matrimonial disputes for the past several years. He maintained that divorce-related provisions should apply equally to both husbands and wives in modern legal practice.

However, the bench appeared unconvinced by the explanation. The judges remarked that the petition seemed motivated by personal dissatisfaction rather than broader public interest concerns.

Strong Remarks From the Supreme Court

The court made strong oral observations while dismissing the plea. The bench stated that public interest litigation should not be used to settle personal disputes or frustrations arising from ongoing legal battles.

The Chief Justice also questioned whether exemplary costs should be imposed on the petitioner for bringing such a matter before the court. Although the court ultimately refused to proceed with the plea, it did not impose any monetary penalty.

The remarks reflected the judiciary’s cautious approach toward PILs that may stem from private grievances rather than genuine constitutional concerns affecting the wider public.

Legislature Empowered to Create Special Laws

Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted during the hearing that the Constitution allows lawmakers to enact special provisions for women and children when considered necessary. He observed that Parliament has the authority to frame laws that offer additional protections or remedies to specific sections of society.

According to the bench, the provision under challenge falls within the scope of such special legislation. Justice Bagchi further remarked that if complete parity was being sought in matters governed by special laws, broader constitutional changes would be required through legislative processes.

The observations highlighted the court’s view that policy decisions involving gender-specific legal protections primarily fall within the domain of Parliament rather than judicial intervention.

Hindu Marriage Act Provision Remains Unchanged

With the dismissal of the petition, the existing provision under the Hindu Marriage Act continues to remain in force without any modification. The ruling indicates that the Supreme Court is not inclined to reconsider the validity of the section through a PIL in its current form.

The hearing also underscored the court’s broader position on maintaining the distinction between public interest cases and litigation driven by individual disputes. Legal experts believe the decision reinforces judicial restraint in matters where the legislature has already enacted specific protections through statutory law.

The Hindu Marriage Act, enacted in 1955, remains one of the key laws governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, and related family matters among Hindus in India.