11. From Child Bride to ‘‘Hindoo Lady": Rukhmabai and the Debate on Sexual Respectability in Imperial Britain

Antoinette Burton

Chapter

Requires Authentication

11. From Child Bride to ‘‘Hindoo Lady"

Rukhmabai and the Debate on Sexual Respectability in Imperial Britain

Antoinette Burton
Antoinette Burton

Search for this author in:

De Gruyter De Gruyter Brill | Google Scholar

or

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00

Published by

View more publications by Duke University Press

To Publisher Page

This chapter is in the book Empire in Question

—11—From Child Bride to ‘‘Hindoo Lady’’Rukhmabai and the Debate on Sexual Respectabilityin Imperial BritainIn March 1884, Dadaji Bhikaji petitioned the Bombay High Court to directthat his wife, Rukhmabai, move into his house and live with him. Rukhma-bai (1864–1955), a Hindu woman who had married Dadaji in 1876 when shewas eleven and he nineteen, had resided for more than a decade with herstepfather, the noted Bombay physician Sakharam Arjun; her mother; andseveral siblings.∞ Although Dadaji was a distant relative of the doctor’s andhad visited the house on occasion, their marriage had never been consum-mated. When Dadaji requested that Rukhmabai live with him, she re-fused. He filed a case for the ‘‘restitution of conjugal rights,’’ therebyinitiating one of the most publicized court cases in Bombay—and, indeed,in India—during the nineteenth century.≤At first, it looked as if Dadaji’s suit would be in vain. Justice Robert HillPinhey dismissed the case in the fall of 1885 on the grounds that it was notmaintainable, first because restitution could not be claimed where noconjugal relations had occurred, and second, because such claims hadno foundation in Hindu law.≥ As Sudhir Chandra has noted, Pinhey sodoubted the legality of Dadaji’s claim that the counsel for the defense wasnot even called on at this juncture. After trying unsuccessfully to recovercosts, Dadaji appealed Pinhey’s judgment, and in March 1886 two appel-late judges ordered that the suit be remanded for a decision. Rukhmabai’scase was heard this time before a Justice Farran. He determined in March1887 in favor of the plainti√, persuaded in part by the argument that whileHindu law did not order restitution, neither did it forbid it. Rukhmabai

You are currently not able to access this content.

Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00

—11—From Child Bride to ‘‘Hindoo Lady’’Rukhmabai and the Debate on Sexual Respectabilityin Imperial BritainIn March 1884, Dadaji Bhikaji petitioned the Bombay High Court to directthat his wife, Rukhmabai, move into his house and live with him. Rukhma-bai (1864–1955), a Hindu woman who had married Dadaji in 1876 when shewas eleven and he nineteen, had resided for more than a decade with herstepfather, the noted Bombay physician Sakharam Arjun; her mother; andseveral siblings.∞ Although Dadaji was a distant relative of the doctor’s andhad visited the house on occasion, their marriage had never been consum-mated. When Dadaji requested that Rukhmabai live with him, she re-fused. He filed a case for the ‘‘restitution of conjugal rights,’’ therebyinitiating one of the most publicized court cases in Bombay—and, indeed,in India—during the nineteenth century.≤At first, it looked as if Dadaji’s suit would be in vain. Justice Robert HillPinhey dismissed the case in the fall of 1885 on the grounds that it was notmaintainable, first because restitution could not be claimed where noconjugal relations had occurred, and second, because such claims hadno foundation in Hindu law.≥ As Sudhir Chandra has noted, Pinhey sodoubted the legality of Dadaji’s claim that the counsel for the defense wasnot even called on at this juncture. After trying unsuccessfully to recovercosts, Dadaji appealed Pinhey’s judgment, and in March 1886 two appel-late judges ordered that the suit be remanded for a decision. Rukhmabai’scase was heard this time before a Justice Farran. He determined in March1887 in favor of the plainti√, persuaded in part by the argument that whileHindu law did not order restitution, neither did it forbid it. Rukhmabai

You are currently not able to access this content.

Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00