Marriage is an institution that varies from religion to religion. For Hindus, it is an indissoluble union; for Muslims, a civil contract; and for Christians, a holy union. However, individual autonomy has entered the forefront through the Indian Constitution and the revolution in Indian family law.

The Constitution of India specifies that the people can decide who they should marry, who they should not, and with whom they want and don't want to continue their marital bond. The remedy of the restitution of conjugal rights (RCR), available under personal law, applies to those who are legally married but withdraw from marital ties without a reasonable excuse.

This study found that RCR is one-sided and used against the other spouse's will. However, the Supreme Court of India has decided that individual autonomy is needed to protect individual liberty and promote national interest, but it has also upheld the validity of RCR, creating a genuine controversy. The object of this paper is twofold—to analyze the individual autonomy enshrined under article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which is contrary to the right to RCR, and to explore this topic through a comparative law technique.