The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking gender parity in Section 13(2)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a provision that presently allows only a wife to seek divorce on the ground of non-resumption of cohabitation for one year or more after a maintenance decree against the husband.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the maintainability of the plea after the petitioner, appearing in person, admitted that he was himself embroiled in a matrimonial dispute for the past several years.

“What is your problem with it?” CJI Surya Kant asked the petitioner who argued that the benefit under the provision should be made available to both men and women.

He stated that he was “personally suffering in matrimonial litigation and wants a ray of hope for men.” The CJI sharply responded, “This is what I wanted you to confess. Why should we not impose exemplary cost on you?”

Justice Bagchi observed that the issue pertained to a “special law” and suggested that such policy considerations lay within the legislative domain. “You should have the Constitution amended. This is a special law,” he said.

The Bench further cautioned against invoking the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction for personal grievances disguised as constitutional challenges. “Don’t settle personal vendettas through Article 32,” the CJI remarked.

During the hearing, the Court was informed that the petitioner was pursuing a law course. While dismissing the PIL, the Bench advised restraint and sensitivity in matrimonial disputes.

“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 CJI said.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.