Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Gender‑Neutral Divorce Provision in Hindu Marriage Act

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Gender‑Neutral Divorce Provision in Hindu Marriage Act The apex judicial body of India, the Supreme Court , on 13 May 2026 rejected a PIL that aimed to extend a divorce right, currently exclusive to women, to men as well. Key Developments The petition challenged Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(2)(iii) , which permits only wives to seek divorce on the ground of non‑resumption of cohabitation after a maintenance decree. The bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Court emphasized that the provision is a "special law" for women, protected by Article 15(3) of the Constitution. The petitioner, a law student facing a personal matrimonial dispute, was warned against using Article 32 for personal grievances. The bench dismissed the petition and hinted at imposing exemplary costs on the petitioner. Important Facts • Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act allows a wife to file for divorce if the husband does not resume cohabitation for at least one year after a maintenance decree. • The provision is justified as a protective measure for women, reflecting the Constitution’s commitment to gender‑sensitive legislation. • The petitioner’s argument was that the clause should be gender‑neutral, but the Court found no constitutional violation. UPSC Relevance • Understanding the interplay between statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards is essential for GS2: Polity syllabus. • The case illustrates the doctrine of "special legislation" for disadvantaged groups, a recurring theme in questions on gender justice and constitutional law. • Knowledge of Article 32 and its appropriate usage is vital for answering jurisprudence‑related questions. Way Forward • While the Court upheld the gender‑specific provision, future debates may focus on whether such "special laws" perpetuate inequality or serve as necessary safeguards. • Law‑making bodies could consider a nuanced amendment that balances women’s protection with gender equality, possibly by introducing parallel rights for men under specific circumstances. • Aspirants should monitor subsequent judgments or legislative reviews that may revisit the scope of Article 15(3) in the context of family law.