Wedlock or Wed-Lockup? A Case for Abolishing Restitution of Conjugal Rights in India

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES International Journal of Law Policy and the Family Pub Date : 2021-03-18 DOI:10.1093/lawfam/ebab004
S. Uma
{"title":"Wedlock or Wed-Lockup? A Case for Abolishing Restitution of Conjugal Rights in India","authors":"S. Uma","doi":"10.1093/lawfam/ebab004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Colonialism in India consisted of a “civilizing mission” when the British rulers sought to initiate reforms in India, by projecting themselves to be the forerunners of modernity. Ironically, restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) runs contrary to any claims of modernity. Through an RCR, an unwilling spouse could be directed by the coercive machinery of the law to cohabit with his/her spouse, in recognition of the right of married persons to conjugality and consortium. Although couched in gender neutral terms, the remedy had and continues to have grave ramifications for women. This was applied by British judges to family law cases in India in the 1800s, and incorporated in family law statutes in post-independent India. RCR remains in force and is a legal remedy sought in the Indian courts till date, although it was abolished in England in 1970. This article critically examines RCR through historical, legal, feminist and comparative law perspectives. It analyses the impact of the English remedy on the norms of marriage and family in India, which are sites of oppression of, violence against and subordination of women. It argues for the repeal of RCR from the Indian statute books as it undermines bodily integrity and sexual autonomy of women in intimate relationships, and is incongruent with constitutional principles and India’s international human rights obligations.","PeriodicalId":51869,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law Policy and the Family","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebab004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Colonialism in India consisted of a “civilizing mission” when the British rulers sought to initiate reforms in India, by projecting themselves to be the forerunners of modernity. Ironically, restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) runs contrary to any claims of modernity. Through an RCR, an unwilling spouse could be directed by the coercive machinery of the law to cohabit with his/her spouse, in recognition of the right of married persons to conjugality and consortium. Although couched in gender neutral terms, the remedy had and continues to have grave ramifications for women. This was applied by British judges to family law cases in India in the 1800s, and incorporated in family law statutes in post-independent India. RCR remains in force and is a legal remedy sought in the Indian courts till date, although it was abolished in England in 1970. This article critically examines RCR through historical, legal, feminist and comparative law perspectives. It analyses the impact of the English remedy on the norms of marriage and family in India, which are sites of oppression of, violence against and subordination of women. It argues for the repeal of RCR from the Indian statute books as it undermines bodily integrity and sexual autonomy of women in intimate relationships, and is incongruent with constitutional principles and India’s international human rights obligations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
婚姻还是婚姻锁?印度废除归还夫妻权利的案例
当英国统治者试图在印度发起改革时,印度的殖民主义包含了一项“教化使命”,他们把自己塑造成现代性的先驱。具有讽刺意味的是,恢复夫妻权利(RCR)与现代性的任何主张背道而驰。通过RCR,法律的强制机制可以指示不愿意的配偶与他/她的配偶同居,以承认已婚人士的婚姻和同居权利。虽然这一补救办法是中性的,但它已经并将继续对妇女产生严重影响。19世纪,英国法官将其应用于印度的家庭法案件,并将其纳入独立后的印度家庭法法规中。RCR仍然有效,迄今为止是印度法院寻求的一种法律补救措施,尽管它于1970年在英国被废除。本文从历史、法律、女权主义和比较法的角度对RCR进行了批判性的考察。它分析了英国补救措施对印度婚姻和家庭规范的影响,这些规范是压迫、暴力侵害和奴役妇女的场所。它主张从印度法典中废除RCR,因为它破坏了亲密关系中妇女的身体完整和性自主权,并且不符合宪法原则和印度的国际人权义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The subject matter of the International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family comprises the following: - Analyses of the law relating to the family which carry an interest beyond the jurisdiction dealt with, or which are of a comparative nature - Theoretical analyses of family law - Sociological literature concerning the family which is of special interest to law and legal policy - Social policy literature of special interest to law and the family - Literature in related disciplines (such as medicine, psychology, demography) which is of special relevance to law and the family - Research findings in the above areas, reviews of books and relevant reports The journal has a flexible policy as to length of contributions, so that substantial research reports can be included.
期刊最新文献
Surrogates’, intended parents’, and professionals’ perspectives on ways to improve access to surrogacy in Australia Introducing a randomized controlled trial into Family Proceedings: Describing the ‘how?’ and defending the ‘why?’ The expert witness—psychologists and judicial gatekeepers in the family court Individual realities and legal responsibilities: a study of non-resident parents who dispute child maintenance obligations in Swedish administrative courts, 2014–2019 Healthcare Decision Making for Children in Singapore: The Missing Chapter in Comparison with English Law
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1