Restitution of conjugal rights

Last updated

In English law, restitution of conjugal rights was an action in the ecclesiastical courts and later in the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. It was one of the actions relating to marriage, over which the ecclesiastical courts formerly had jurisdiction.

Contents

This could be brought against a husband or wife who was guilty of "subtraction"; that is, living away from their spouse without a good reason. If the suit was successful, the married couple would be required to live together again. [1]

In 1969 a Law Commission report recommended the abolition of the action, [2] and it was abolished by the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970. [3]

History

United Kingdom

English Law

Prior to 1813

Under the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, which controlled marriage regulations, desertion was not defined as a matrimonial offense, instead a deserted spouse could ask for a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. After such a decree was obtained, the other spouse had to return home and continue marital cohabitation - failure to do so was punished with excommunication. [4]

The Ecclesiastical Courts Act 1813

The Ecclesiastical Courts Act 1813 abolished the excommunication punishment, replacing it with imprisonment of up to six months. [4]

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1884

Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1884, failure to comply with an order of restitution of conjugal rights was no longer punishable by imprisonment, and only served to establish desertion ("statutory desertion") which gave the other spouse the right to an immediate decree of judicial separation, and, if coupled with the husband's adultery, allowed the wife to obtain an immediate divorce. [4]

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1923

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1923 equalized the grounds for divorce of husband and wife, giving the wife the right to divorce her husband on the ground of adultery alone (previously only a husband had such a divorce right), so that asking for an order of restitution of conjugal rights was no longer as needed for wives. [4]

Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925

The Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 repealed the Matrimonial Causes Act 1884. Failure to comply with an order of restitution of conjugal rights continued to be a ground for judicial separation, but would no longer be considered, on itself, desertion. In addition, failure to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights also allowed a court to make provisions regarding finances, alimony, property, and custody of children. [4]

The Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 (abolition)

The Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 abolished the action of restitution of conjugal rights. By that time, the action was seen as outdated and was rarely used. [4]

Scotland

In Scotland, the legal action for "adherence" - the Scottish equivalent for restitution of conjugal rights - was abolished by Section 2(1) of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Act 1984. [5]

Ireland

The legal action for restitution of conjugal rights was abolished in Ireland by the Family Law Act 1988. [6]

Australia

In Australia the legal action for restitution of conjugal rights was abolished by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 8(2). [7] Therefore, since 1975 courts no longer have the power to make a "decree of restitution of conjugal rights" to enforce marital duties. One problematic provision today is considered to be Section 114(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, which remains on the books, and provides that a court can "make an order relieving a party to a marriage from any obligation to perform marital services or render conjugal rights". Although this section is now obsolete (its last recorded use was in 1978; [7] and the 1991 High Court of Australia case of R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379, 398 criminalized marital rape (ruling that, if the common law exemption [8] was ever part of Australian law, it no longer was by 1991), the existence of such wording in the Family Law Act 1975 is argued to send problematic messages to the public; and in a 2010 report the Australian Law Reform Commission strongly recommended its abolition, writing that "Section 114(2) implies that there is a continuing obligation to render conjugal rights and provide marital services—obligations that no longer exist in law and which should not be assumed to form part of a marriage as a social or legal institution" and "The Commissions therefore consider that the power to make an order relieving a party to a marriage from any obligation to perform marital services or render conjugal rights is unnecessary and inconsistent with current principles of family and criminal law, and, as such, should be repealed." (see section on Injunctions to relieve a party to a marriage from rendering conjugal rights). [9] Despite this, this provision still remains on the books. [10]

South Africa

In South Africa, the legal action for restitution of conjugal rights was abolished by the Divorce Act, 1979 (Act No. 70 of 1979), Section 14. [11]

Canada

In Canada, family law has varied significantly (and still varies today) by province/territory. Canadian family regulations have traditionally been based on concepts existing in English common law (except in Quebec, where the principal source of inspiration has been French law). As such, restitution of conjugal rights has been a part of law in most, but not all, provinces. In Canada, it was only in the second part of the 20th century that a standardization of family law has been started. For example, until 1968, there was no uniform federal divorce law in Canada. Although the Divorce Act (Canada) is a federal Act that governs divorce in Canada, applying to all the country, many other issues regarding family law are left to province/territory. The legal action of restitution of conjugal rights was abolished in British Columbia by the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 121, s. 75; in Manitoba by the Equality of Status Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. E140, s. l(2); in Newfoundland and Labrador by the Family Law Act, S. Nfld. 1988, c. 60, s. 76.3, as amended by S. Nfld. 1989, c. 11, s. 2. [12] Not all provinces in Canada had adopted this concept; according to a 1993 report by the Alberta Law Reform Institute, the concept of restitution of conjugal rights has never been a true part of the law of Ontario, which is Canada's most populous province: the report stated that "In Ontario, actions for restitution of conjugal rights have never been entertained". [12] While in many Canadian provinces the family law has been overhauled and modernized in the 1970s and 1980s, in others, such as Alberta, this only happened in the 21st century: the legal action of restitution of conjugal rights was abolished by the Family Law Act (Alberta) which came into force in 2005 (see section 103). [13] The concept of restitution of conjugal rights has never been as harsh in Alberta as it has been in England; indeed, according to the 1993 report, unlike in England, "Neither excommunication nor imprisonment has applied in Alberta"; in fact by 1993, the refusal of a spouse to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights only served as giving the other spouse a ground for judicial separation. [12] In Saskatchewan, the concept of restitution of conjugal rights was effectively abolished by the Family Maintenance Act, SS 1990–91, c F-6.1, [14] through its repeal of the section on restitution of conjugal rights relating to judicial separation (which was defined in the Queen's Bench Act [15] ). In Nova Scotia, the 2012 Matrimonial Statutes Repeal Act ("An Act to Repeal Out-dated Matrimonial Statutes") repealed six pieces of legislation related to family law, which were considered obsolete, including the Alimony Act, which made reference to restitution of conjugal rights. [16] [17] Also in New Brunswick, the 2008 "Act to Repeal the Divorce Court Act" repealed legislation which made reference to restitution of conjugal rights. [18] Although family law in Canada varies by province/territory, the criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government and is the same throughout Canada. Under the criminal law, marital rape was made illegal in 1983. [19]

Current situation in former British colonies and Commonwealth Nations

English law was imported to many parts of the world through colonization, and so was the concept of restitution of conjugal rights, which continues to exist in law, in various forms, in some former British possessions, including India. [20] [21] In India, the concept has been subject to controversy, and was called by Khardekar (MP), at the time of the drafting of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (which contains it), "uncouth, barbarous and vulgar". [21] In 1984, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of the restitution of conjugal rights, in Saroj Rani v Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (which found that the action of restitution of conjugal rights does not violate Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution, and is therefore a valid action). [22] Human Rights Watch has criticized this concept as being a cause of violence and discrimination against women. [23] Recently this law was challenged again in the Supreme Court post the Right to Privacy verdict by Ojaswa Pathak and Mayank Gupta, two students of Gujarat National Law University. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

Divorce is the process of terminating a marriage or marital union. Divorce usually entails the canceling or reorganizing of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage, thus dissolving the bonds of matrimony between a married couple under the rule of law of the particular country or state. It can be said to be a legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body. It is the legal process of ending a marriage.

New York divorce law changed on August 15, 2010, when Governor David Paterson signed no-fault divorce into law in New York state. Until 2010, New York recognized divorces only upon fault-based criteria or upon separation. The State Senate approved the No-Fault Divorce bill on June 30, and the State Assembly passed the bill on July 1.

Legal separation is a legal process by which a married couple may formalize a de facto separation while remaining legally married. A legal separation is granted in the form of a court order. In cases where children are involved, a court order of legal separation often makes child custody arrangements, specifying sole custody or shared parenting, as well as child support. Some couples obtain a legal separation as an alternative to a divorce, based on moral or religious objections to divorce.

Common-law marriage, also known as non-ceremonial marriage, sui iuris marriage, informal marriage, de facto marriage, or marriage by habit and repute, is a legal marriage despite non-compliance with the requirements for a statutory marriage, at least in the jurisdictions where marriage can still be contracted this way.

A prenuptial agreement, antenuptial agreement, or premarital agreement is a written contract entered into by a couple before marriage or a civil union that enables them to select and control many of the legal rights they acquire upon marrying, and what happens when their marriage eventually ends by death or divorce. Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights. A premarital agreement may also contain waivers of a surviving spouse's right to claim an elective share of the estate of the deceased spouse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consummation</span> First sex act as part of a marriage or relationship

In many traditions and statutes of civil or religious law, the consummation of a marriage, often called simply consummation, is the first act of sexual intercourse between two people, following their marriage to each other. The definition of consummation usually refers to penile-vaginal sexual penetration, but some religious doctrines hold that there is an additional requirement that no contraception must be used.

Marital rape or spousal rape is the act of sexual intercourse with one's spouse without the spouse's consent. The lack of consent is the essential element and need not involve physical violence. Marital rape is considered a form of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Although, historically, sexual intercourse within marriage was regarded as a right of spouses, engaging in the act without the spouse's consent is now widely classified as rape by many societies around the world, and increasingly criminalized. However it is repudiated by some more conservative cultures.

No-fault divorce is the dissolution of a marriage that does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party. Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.

<i>Divorce Act</i> (Canada) Canadian federal law governing divorce

The Divorce Act is the federal Act that governs divorce in Canada. The Constitution of Canada gives the federal Parliament exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the law of marriage and divorce.

Australian family law is principally found in the federal Family Law Act 1975 and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Rules 2021 as well as in other laws and the common law and laws of equity, which affect the family and the relationship between those people, including when those relationships end. Most family law is practised in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of Western Australia. Australia recognises marriages entered into overseas as well as divorces obtained overseas if they were effected in accordance with the laws of that country. Australian marriage and "matrimonial causes" are recognised by sections 51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution of Australia and internationally by marriage law and conventions, such as the Hague Convention on Marriages (1978).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Family Law Act 1975</span>

The Family Law Act 1975(Cth) is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. It has 15 parts and is the primary piece of legislation dealing with divorce, parenting arrangements between separated parents (whether married or not), property separation, and financial maintenance involving children or divorced or separated de facto partners: in Australia. It also covers family violence. It came into effect on 5 January 1976, repealing the Matrimonial Causes Act 1961, which had been largely based on fault. On the first day of its enactment, 200 applications for divorce were filed in the Melbourne registry office of the Family Court of Australia, and 80 were filed in Adelaide, while only 32 were filed in Sydney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Divorce law by country</span> Overview of divorce laws around the world

This article is a general overview of divorce laws around the world. Every nation in the world allows its residents to divorce under some conditions except the Philippines and the Vatican City, an ecclesiastical sovereign city-state, which has no procedure for divorce. In these two countries, laws only allow annulment of marriages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matrimonial Causes Act 1857</span> 1857 British divorce reform law

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1857 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Act reformed the law on divorce, moving litigation from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts to the civil courts, establishing a model of marriage based on contract rather than sacrament and widening the availability of divorce beyond those who could afford to bring proceedings for annulment or to promote a private Bill. It was one of the Matrimonial Causes Acts 1857 to 1878.

The Hindu Marriage Act is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1955 which was passed on 18th of May. Three other important acts were also enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bills during this time: the Hindu Succession Act (1956), the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).

<i>R v R</i> English marital rape trial

R v R[1991] UKHL 12 is a decision in which the House of Lords determined that under English criminal law, it is a crime for a husband to rape his wife.

Divorcein South African law refers to the termination of a marital union, the canceling of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage and the dissolving of the bonds of matrimony between a married couple. Divorce is unlike ANNULMENT, which declares the marriage null and void. Divorce requires the sanction of a court in a legal process. The legal process of divorce may also involve issues of alimony, child custody, child support, distribution of property and division of debt.

Marital rape is illegal in all 50 US states, though the details of the offence vary by state.

Marital rape generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse between married spouses. In Singapore, there used to be a partial immunity for marital rape first introduced during British colonial rule because it was deemed not a criminal offence except when the wife is below 13 years of age or when any of the specific circumstances provided under section 375(4) of the Singapore Penal Code are satisfied. Since 1 January 2020, the law was repealed and its immunity lifted under the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, criminalising marital rape.

The history of adultery in English law is a complex topic, including changing understandings of what sexual acts constituted adultery, unequal treatment of men and women under the law, and competing jurisdictions of secular and ecclesiastical authorities. Prosecution for adultery as such ceased to be possible in English law in 1970.

The Family Proceedings Act 1980 is the Act that governs divorce in New Zealand. The New Zealand Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the law of marriage and divorce.

References

  1. ↑ William Blackstone (1753), Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book 3, Chapter VII "Of the cognizance of private wrongs", Section 1.2
  2. ↑ The Law Commission (Law Com. No. 23) Proposal for the abolition of the matrimonial remedy of restitution of conjugal rights
  3. ↑ "Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1970, s.20" (PDF).
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Proposal for the abolition of the matrimonial remedy of restitution of conjugal rights" (PDF). Retrieved 2020-02-10.
  5. ↑ "Law Reform (Husband and Wife) (Scotland) Act 1984". www.legislation.gov.uk.
  6. ↑ http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1988/act/31/enacted/en/html [ bare URL ]
  7. 1 2 Manager, Web (11 November 2010). "Injunctions for personal protection". www.alrc.gov.au.
  8. ↑ This exemption refers to the 17th century jurist Sir Matthew Hale, who in his 1736 legal treatise Historia Placitorum Coronæ wrote that rape in marriage could not be recognized because the wife consents irrevocably to sexual intercourse with her husband as she "hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract". This was accepted as law until the late 20th century in most common law jurisdictions, including in England and Wales until 1991, when it was removed by the House of Lords in the case of R v R, and in Ireland until 1990, when it was removed by the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990
  9. ↑ Anonymous (27 July 2010). "Protection orders and injunctive relief". www.alrc.gov.au.
  10. ↑ Family Law Act 1975 , retrieved 2020-02-10
  11. ↑ "Acts Online". www.acts.co.za.
  12. 1 2 3 http://www.alri.ualberta.ca/docs/fr065.pdf Archived 2014-08-02 at the Wayback Machine
  13. ↑ "Family Law Act, SA 2003" . Retrieved 2020-02-10.
  14. ↑ "The Family Maintenance Act, SS 1990-91, c F-6.1". www.canlii.org. Retrieved 2020-02-10.
  15. ↑ "The Queen's Bench Act" (PDF). Retrieved 2020-02-10.
  16. ↑ "Status of Bills / Bills, Statutes, Regulations / Proceedings / The Nova Scotia Legislature". nslegislature.ca.
  17. ↑ "Matrimonial Statutes Repeal Act". nslegislature.ca. 27 November 2017.
  18. ↑ Brunswick, Communications New. "An Act to Repeal the Divorce Court Act". www.gnb.ca.
  19. ↑ "Redirect Page" (PDF). www.pssg.gov.bc.ca.
  20. ↑ "eSocialSciences". www.esocialsciences.org.
  21. 1 2 "Manupatra Articles". www.manupatrafast.com.
  22. ↑ "Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha on 8 August, 1984". indiankanoon.org.
  23. ↑ ""Will I Get My Dues … Before I Die?"" (PDF). Human Rights Watch. September 2012. Retrieved 2020-02-10.
  24. ↑ "Supreme Court to look into plea against laws for restitution of conjugal rights". The Indian Express. 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2020-02-10.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.