Supreme Court Dismisses Man's Challenge To Hindu Marriage Act Provision Which Only Wives Can Invoke For Divorce

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation seeking gender parity in a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act that permits only wives to seek divorce on the ground of non-resumption of cohabitation after a maintenance decree against the husband.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea challenging Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which gives only women the right to seek divorce if there has been no resumption of cohabitation for one year or more after a decree for maintenance has been passed against the husband.

Appearing in person, the petitioner submitted that the provision should be made available to both men and women.

“I am seeking relook of the provision,” the petitioner said.

The CJI, however, questioned the basis of the challenge.

“What is your problem with it?” the Bench asked.

The petitioner replied: “It should be open to both male and female.”

The CJI then remarked: “What is your problem, how is it bothering you?”. The CJI asked if the petitioner was a "self-proclaimed leader of male rights".

When the petitioner said that he was a “personal sufferer”, revealing that he was facing a matrimonial dispute, the CJI observed: “This is what I wanted you to confess. Why should we not impose exemplary cost on you?”

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the provision was protected under the constitutional scheme permitting special laws for women.

“You should have the Constitution amended. This is a special law. Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women,” Justice Bagchi observed.

The Bench also cautioned the petitioner against invoking the Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction for personal disputes.

“Don't settle personal vendettas through Article 32,” the CJI said.

During the hearing, the Court was informed that the petitioner was pursuing a law course.

Addressing him, the CJI said: “You might be having some genuine grievances. We have sympathy for you. But we have sympathy for your estranged wife also. This does not send good message for law students. Wait for the right opportunity.”

The Court thereafter dismissed the PIL.

Case : JITENDER SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA | W.P.(C) No. 460/2026