The Supreme Court on Monday (11 May) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which currently allows only wives to seek divorce if cohabitation does not resume after a maintenance decree against the husband.
A bench observed that the petition appeared to stem from a personal matrimonial dispute rather than a genuine public interest issue.
Background of the Case
The plea was filed by law student Jitender Singh, who sought a “gender-neutral” interpretation of Section 13(2)(iii). The petitioner argued that husbands should also have the same legal remedy available under the provision.
During the hearing, the bench questioned how the petitioner was personally affected. Singh admitted that he had been involved in matrimonial litigation for the past several years.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed concern over the use of PIL jurisdiction for personal grievances.
“Don’t settle personal vendettas through Article 32,” the bench orally remarked while warning against invoking constitutional remedies for individual matrimonial disputes.
The Court also noted that special protections for women are constitutionally permissible. Justice Bagchi observed,
“Article 15(3) allows special provisions for women. This is a special law.”
The bench further told the petitioner that if broader parity in matrimonial law was sought, the matter would fall within the legislature’s domain.
Refusing to entertain the petition, the Supreme Court held that no case for interference was made out in public interest and dismissed the PIL.
Case Details:
Case Title: Jitender Singh v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 460/2026
Judges: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Decision Date: May 11, 2026
