Match List-I and List-II and find correct answer by using the codes given below :

Eduncle Best Answer

Smt. Saroj Rani v/s Sudarshan Kumar Chadha was decided on 8th August 1984. It is considered landmark because it challenged the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein the two-judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India upheld the validity of Restitution of Conjugal Rights enshrined under the Act.
Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra on 10 May, 1985 came at the same time of Shah Bano. A Christian woman was arguing for granting her divorce stating that her husband was impotent. Under Hindu laws and modern laws of the world, that is a justification enough. However, under Christian personal laws it was not. Thus, the High Court refused to nullify the marriage on that grounds, although they were ok with applying laws on cruelty. 
The judge Chinnappa Reddy was sympathetic and said :
It was just the other day that a Constitution Bench of this Court had to emphasise the urgency of infusing life into Art. 44 of the Constitution which provides that "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code through out the territory of India." The present case is yet another which focuses attention on the immediate and compulsive need for a uniform civil code.
Shastri Yagna Purushdasji v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya- It is extremely difficult, though not impossible, to define the Hindu religion in the way the other religions are defined. It embraces numerous views and ways of life.