[4] Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1884, failure to comply with an order of restitution of conjugal rights was no longer punishable by imprisonment, and only served to establish desertion ("statutory desertion") which gave the other spouse the right to an immediate decree of judicial separation, and, if coupled with the husband's adultery, allowed the wife to obtain an immediate divorce.
Failure to comply with an order of restitution of conjugal rights continued to be a ground for judicial separation, but would no longer be considered, on itself, desertion.
In addition, failure to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights also allowed a court to make provisions regarding finances, alimony, property, and custody of children.
[6] In Australia the legal action for restitution of conjugal rights was abolished by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 8(2).
[7] Therefore, since 1975 courts no longer have the power to make a "decree of restitution of conjugal rights" to enforce marital duties.
One problematic provision today is considered to be Section 114(2) of the Family Law Act 1975, which remains on the books, and provides that a court can "make an order relieving a party to a marriage from any obligation to perform marital services or render conjugal rights".
The legal action of restitution of conjugal rights was abolished in British Columbia by the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C.
[12] Not all provinces in Canada had adopted this concept; according to a 1993 report by the Alberta Law Reform Institute, the concept of restitution of conjugal rights has never been a true part of the law of Ontario, which is Canada's most populous province: the report stated that "In Ontario, actions for restitution of conjugal rights have never been entertained".
[13] The concept of restitution of conjugal rights has never been as harsh in Alberta as it has been in England; indeed, according to the 1993 report, unlike in England, "Neither excommunication nor imprisonment has applied in Alberta"; in fact by 1993, the refusal of a spouse to comply with a decree of restitution of conjugal rights only served as giving the other spouse a ground for judicial separation.
[20][21] In India, the concept has been subject to controversy, and was called by Khardekar (MP), at the time of the drafting of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (which contains it), "uncouth, barbarous and vulgar".