The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation challenging a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act related to divorce rights after non-cohabitation following a maintenance decree.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a provision of the Hindu Marriage Act that grants a specific divorce right to wives in cases where cohabitation has not resumed after a maintenance decree.
The bench, while refusing to entertain the plea, observed that PILs cannot be used to address personal disputes or grievances and reaffirmed that such legal questions fall within the domain of the legislature.
Also Read
PIL challenged Section 13(2)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act
The petition was filed by law student Jitender Singh, who appeared in person before the court. He challenged the constitutional validity of Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
This provision allows a wife to seek divorce if cohabitation with her husband has not resumed for one year or more after a maintenance decree has been passed against him.
The petitioner argued that the provision should be interpreted in a gender-neutral manner, allowing similar rights to be extended to men as well.
Supreme Court questions maintainability of petition
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the maintainability of the PIL and sought to understand how the petitioner was personally affected by the provision.
During the hearing, the court observed that the matter appeared to stem from personal litigation rather than a broader public issue.
The bench also remarked that PILs are not meant to be used to pursue individual legal grievances under the guise of public interest litigation.
According to the proceedings, the petitioner stated that he had been involved in matrimonial litigation for several years and raised concerns about unequal application of divorce provisions.
However, the bench rejected the argument and emphasised that PIL jurisdiction cannot be invoked for settling personal disputes.
The court also questioned the broader intent behind the petition, indicating that it did not reflect a genuine public interest issue.
Legislature’s role in framing gender-specific laws
Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted during the hearing that Parliament has the constitutional authority to enact special provisions for women and children.
The court observed that such classifications are permitted under the Constitution and fall within legislative policy decisions.
The bench further indicated that if complete parity across all such provisions is sought, it would require a constitutional amendment rather than judicial intervention.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition and dismissed it.
The bench reiterated that judicial forums cannot be used to convert individual disputes into PILs and cautioned against misuse of the process.
The matter was accordingly closed by the court.
(With PTI inputs)
Published: 11 May 2026, 01:51 pm IST
Disclaimer: Kindly avoid objectionable, derogatory, unlawful and lewd comments, while responding to reports. Such comments are punishable under cyber laws. Please keep away from personal attacks. The opinions expressed here are the personal opinions of readers and not that of Mathrubhumi.