Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when a husband or wife withdraws from the society of the other without reasonable excuse, the aggrieved party can seek which remedy from the court?

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 allows a spouse who has been abandoned by the other, without any reasonable excuse, to petition the district court for restitution of conjugal rights, essentially seeking a decree compelling the erring spouse to resume marital cohabitation. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of this provision in the landmark case Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), holding that the right to companionship of a spouse is inherent in the institution of marriage itself, not merely a statutory creation. Importantly, the burden of proving a "reasonable excuse" for withdrawing from the marital relationship lies on the spouse who withdrew, not on the petitioner seeking restitution. This remedy is closely linked to divorce law, since non-compliance with a restitution decree for a continuous period of one year becomes an independent ground for divorce under Section 13(1-A)(ii). While the decree itself cannot be enforced through arrest of the disobedient spouse, Order 21 Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code permits enforcement through attachment of that spouse's property.