Supreme Court bins PIL challenging Hindu law granting women right to seek divorce over non-cohabitation

A bench dismissed the plea seeking "gender-neutral" interpretation of divorce provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act that grants only the wife the right to seek divorce if cohabitation has not resumed for one year or more after a maintenance decree against the husband.

"Don't settle personal vendettas via PILs (public interest litigations)," the bench said.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea filed by law student Jitender Singh, who appeared in person and sought a "gender-neutral" interpretation of divorce provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, grants only the wife the right to seek divorce where cohabitation has not resumed for one year or more after a maintenance decree against the husband.

During the hearing, the CJI questioned the petitioner on how he was personally affected by the provision.

"How are you affected? Do you think you head the entire male gender group?" the CJI asked.

The petitioner responded that he had been involved in matrimonial litigation for the last seven to eight years and said that the provision should be gender-neutral and equally available to men.

"You want to settle personal vendetta through this PIL," the bench said.

"This is what I wanted you to confess. Why should we not impose exemplary costs on you?" the CJI asked.

Justice Bagchi said the legislature is competent to enact special provisions for women and children, and it is empowered under the Constitution to do so.

"The State can also enact special laws for women and children," Justice Bagchi said.

"I hope you are not studying law only to conduct maintenance proceedings," the CJI said, while refusing to entertain the PIL.

Justice Bagchi further noted that if the petitioner sought complete parity in such matters, "You should have the Constitution amended. This is a special law."