It was observed that Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The purpose of a restitution decree was to facilitate the reconciliation of estranged spouses and enable them to reside together harmoniously in their matrimonial home.

The underlying objective of Section 9 was to uphold the institution of marriage and foster marital unity. While sexual intercourse was recognized as a component of marital cohabitation and consortium, it was not the sole focus. Courts were not tasked with enforcing sexual relations, as they understood that marriage encompassed broader aspects beyond mere physical intimacy.

Although sexual relations were integral to the marital bond, they did not constitute its entirety, and other facets of matrimonial companionship were equally significant. Therefore, the remedy of restitution aimed at promoting cohabitation and consortium, rather than solely emphasizing sexual intercourse. The court emphasized that a restitution decree did not compel sexual relations and did not represent an extreme form of governmental intrusion into marital privacy.