The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of a provision in the Hindu Marriage Act that exclusively grants wives the right to seek a divorce following a maintenance decree. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the petition, observing that the litigation appeared to be an attempt to settle personal matrimonial grievances under the guise of public interest.
Legal Challenge to Section 13(2)(iii)
The petition, filed by law student Jitender Singh, sought a “gender-neutral” interpretation of Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This specific provision allows a wife to petition for divorce if cohabitation has not resumed for one year or more after an order for maintenance has been passed against the husband. Currently, this right is not reciprocally available to husbands.
The petitioner argued that the provision should be equally available to men to ensure parity in matrimonial laws.
Court’s Observations on ‘Personal Vendetta’
During the proceedings, the bench scrutinized the petitioner’s locus standi and the underlying motive for the challenge. When questioned by Chief Justice Surya Kant on how he was personally affected, the petitioner admitted to being involved in matrimonial litigation for the past seven to eight years.
“Don’t settle personal vendettas via PILs,” the CJI remarked. “This is what I wanted you to confess. Why should we not impose exemplary costs on you?”
The Court further cautioned the petitioner regarding his legal studies, with the CJI noting, “I hope you are not studying law only to conduct maintenance proceedings.”
Constitutional Validity of Special Provisions
Addressing the constitutional aspect of the plea, Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the legislature is empowered to create specific protections for certain groups.
“The State can also enact special laws for women and children,” Justice Bagchi noted, citing the legislature’s competence under the Constitution. He further remarked that if the petitioner sought complete parity in such matters, the appropriate route would be a constitutional amendment rather than a challenge to a special law. “You should have the Constitution amended. This is a special law,” the Justice added.
Ultimately, the bench found no merit in the PIL as a matter of public interest and dismissed the plea.
