2 weeks ago
1
The Supreme Court connected Monday (May 11, 2026) refused to entertain a plea challenging the law validity of a proviso of the Hindu Marriage Act that grants lone the woman the close to question divorcement if cohabitation has not resumed for 1 twelvemonth oregon much aft a attraction decree against the husband. "Don't settee idiosyncratic vendettas via PILs (public involvement litigations)," the Bench said.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea filed by instrumentality pupil Jitender Singh, who appeared successful idiosyncratic and sought a "gender-neutral" mentation of divorcement provisions nether the Hindu Marriage Act.
Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, grants lone the woman the close to question divorcement wherever cohabitation has not resumed for 1 twelvemonth oregon much aft a attraction decree against the husband. During the hearing, the CJI questioned the petitioner connected however helium was personally affected by the provision. "How are you affected? Do you deliberation you caput the full antheral sex group?" the CJI asked.
The petitioner responded that helium had been progressive successful matrimonial litigation for the past 7 to 8 years and said the proviso should beryllium gender-neutral and arsenic disposable to men. "You privation to settee idiosyncratic vendetta done this PIL," the Bench said. "This is what I wanted you to confess. Why should we not enforce exemplary costs connected you?" the CJI asked.
Justice Bagchi said the legislature is competent to enact peculiar provisions for women and children, and it is empowered nether the Constitution to bash so. "The State tin besides enact peculiar laws for women and children," Justice Bagchi said.
"I anticipation you are not studying instrumentality lone to behaviour attraction proceedings," the CJI said, portion refusing to entertain the PIL.
Justice Bagchi further noted that if the petitioner sought implicit parity successful specified matters, "You should person the Constitution amended. This is simply a peculiar law."
