Making wild allegations against spouse could lead to divorce: Supreme Court

Making wild allegations against spouse could lead to divorce: Supreme Court

As by Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Jul 2, 2014, 06.07 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that leveling wild allegations repeatedly by one spouse against the other could inflict mental agony and it would be a ground for the aggrieved person to move court seeking divorce citing "irretrievable breakdown of marriage".

Nearly seven years ago, the Supreme Court had formulated "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a ground for grant of divorce to couples and had suggested to the legislature to amend the law to provide statutory backing to this new ground for dissolution of marriage.

On Monday, a bench of justices SJ Mukhopadhaya and Dipak Misra added to that judgment and said leveling of wild allegations inflicts humiliation and affects the reputation of the aggrieved spouse.

Affirming the decree of divorce granted to Dr BV Ravi, an associate professor in a government hospital, the bench said his wife had been making wild allegations which portrayed him to be gender insensitive. The court also noted that she had been, without reason, refusing to go to live with him with their child and making false charges against his relatives.

Writing the judgment, Justice Misra said: "Marriage as a social institution is an affirmation of civilized social order where two individuals, capable of entering into wedlock, have pledged themselves to the institutional norms and values and promised to each other a cemented bond to sustain and maintain the marital obligation."

Justice Misra said different persons react differently to similar situations. "What could be mental cruelty in the life of two individuals belonging to particular strata may not amount to mental cruelty in respect of another couple belonging to a different stratum of society."

Referring to the wife's conduct, the bench said: "From this kind of attitude and treatment it can be inferred that the husband has been treated with mental cruelty and definitely he has faced ignominy being an associate professor in a government medical college. When one enjoys social status working in a government hospital, this humiliation affects the reputation and self-respect."

Despite the breakdown of marriage, the bench kept in mind the interests of the 16-year-old son of the couple and said it was the father's "bounden duty to provide for maintenance and education" of the child. Excluding the amount already paid to the wife, the court asked the husband to pay Rs 25 lakh to her in six months for the purpose of education of the child.

It directed the Bangalore family court to keep the money in a nationalized bank in the joint account of the child and mother, who can draw the interest to spend on her son's education.

Source-http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Making-wild-allegations-against-spouse-could-lead-to-divorce-Supreme-Court/articleshow/37607941.cms?

Child custody law in India: a litigant perspective. - The Hindu

Child custody law in India: a litigant perspective. - The Hindu

Updated: February 2, 2013 13:09 IST

Aveek Jayant

There has been a flurry of activity on the personal law front in our country in the recent past. An amendment seeking to add ‘irretrievable’ breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is in the wings. There are also provisions on sharing matrimonial property and waiving the statutory cooling period before a legal dissolution of marriage. Doubtless, personal law reform is a necessity given that most of our laws are antiquated.

A parody of sorts is that the first move to grant divorce on the basis of irretrievable breakdown was initiated by the Law Commission of India in its 71 report more than three decades ago! In the background is the increased incidence of matrimonial breakdown, the Sample Registration System 2010 data finalised recently quotes figures in the range of around 9% for states like Tamil Nadu (1)). Although exact figures are difficult to obtain the factum of increase seems to be unequivocal; the annual number of divorce petitions in a city like Mumbai has doubled since the 1990s (2). A renowned legal scholar and lawyer in the Madras High Court, Geeta Ramaseshan believes that while ‘more divorce cases are coming to court but this does not mean marital discord did not exist earlier’ (3). Others take a contrarian view and a clinical psychologist attributes it to the ‘complete death of tolerance’ (4).

Be it as it may, my concern in this article is to draw attention to another emotional landmine- the issue of child custody. In my opinion, this continues to languish as a neglected corner of our jurisprudence. The flashes of attention that are drawn to it are mired in sensationalism as the recent dispute regarding custody of two small Indian children in faraway Norway and its current chapter in Kolkata prove.

The laws governing child custody in India are the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act states that the ‘natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s person as well as in respect of the minor’s property …. in the case of a boy or unmarried girl- the father, and after him, the mother, provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother’(5). There are numerous connotations this can take, some of these are: that the law reflects our patriarchal social structure and that small children are always better off with the mother... Matters are also complicated by a legal process that does not view legal guardianship to be co- terminus with physical custody of a child.

Over a year ago I happened to meet a leading lawyer in a metropolitan South Indian city to plead my own petition for child custody. A very warm and affable person, she did her best to dissuade me from litigation: in her considered opinion, it was time to do other things such as focussing on a career since my chances of getting child custody were negligible. At best one could file for ‘visitation rights’ and given my modest financial resources she found it unconscionable to waste my money on futile or near futile litigation. At least, in operational times it therefore seems that mothers most often win custody battles in our country. This is not surprising because this is an international phenomenon. In the United Kingdom only 8% of fathers function as single parents (6). In Germany local laws give sole custody to the mother unless she consents to joint custody. In at least one case the European Court of Human Rights has ruled this provision overtly discriminatory (7); this has led to German law makers taking a re- look at their child custody provisions.

The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that in deciding cases of child custody ‘the first and paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute’ (8). As if to dispel any doubts on the matter the Court held (vide supra) ‘no statute on the subject can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of the welfare of the minor’. In a landmark judgement the SC driving home the equality of the mother to fulfil the role of a guardian held that ‘gender equality is one of the basic principles of our Constitution, and, therefore, the father by reason of a dominant personality cannot be ascribed to have a preferential right over the mother in the matter of guardianship since both fall within the same category ‘(9). To the lay person, this was akin to the highest Court in the country saying gender was not a consideration in deciding matters of child custody and guardianship. It was not to be, the Karnataka High Court held several years later that ‘it is the most natural thing for any child to grow up in the company of one’s mother’ and ‘a child gets the best protection and education only through the mother even in nature’ (10). Again it was the sagacity of the Supreme Court hearing an appeal in the same matter which held that ‘we make it clear that we do not subscribe to the general observations and comments made by the High Court in favour of mother as parent to be always preferable to the father to retain custody of the child’ (11). Despite the over- arching observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of child custody it is thus, often, the subjectivity of an individual judge which decides a case of child custody.

A now popular talk show claims that more than 50% of women (which it claims is a conservative estimate) in our country are victims of domestic violence. An enormous amount of media time was spent on the tragedy of Baby Falak, a battered baby. More topically the horrendous rape and subsequent death of another young woman in Delhi was, for days on end the talk of the town. Concurrent with their anxiety to make their coverage of these tragedies an index of their social conscientiousness, news channels spared no attempt at bashing the prototypical Indian male- lawless, abusive, selfish, greedy, insensitive to the plight of women and children and so and so forth. It is unquestionable that violence against women, the solicitation of dowry and the neglect of children are social crimes, that these are prevalent enough to need special attention is also not in doubt. The problem arises when societal prototyping potentially prejudices the delivery of justice. With the phenomenal impact that visual and increasingly social media have on public opinion can we expect fairly that legislation or jurisprudence will be immune?

As early as 1980 the Law Commission of India submitted a report to the Government of India advising it to amend the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, it suggested that Section 6 of the Act (vide supra) be amended so as ‘ to allow the mother the custody of a minor till it completes the age of 12 years’. In its infinite wisdom this was necessary to prevent the father from ‘using the child as a pawn for securing complete submission of his wife’. Fast forward to 2010 where the SC heard an applicant father who was denied visitation rights for a little more than three years, an order of the Supreme Court notwithstanding. In this case the Court opined that the petitioner’s rights stood ‘completely frustrated’ and that the ‘mind of the child has been influenced to such an extent that he has no affection/ respect for the applicant’ (13). It also minced no words in holding that the respondent had ‘wilfully and deliberately’ committed ‘contempt of this court’. Women therefore are not above ‘using the child as a pawn’.

It does therefore appear that when a marriage fails either party, male or female uses the child to browbeat the opposite partner into submission. In the emotional battle of parents the child is often held hostage by whosoever has physical custody. India urgently needs legislative and judicial action to prevent either parent from alienating the child from the estranged partner. An interim measure can always be that a parent who deliberately alienates the child from the other has his or her rights for custody weakened; the underlying assumption always being that it is never healthy for a child to be denied the love and guidance of a biological parent. It is also moot to point out that the absence of these measures inevitably strengthens inter- parental international child abduction since India is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Let us also briefly look at another area of family law jurisprudence- the laws governing prohibition of dowry and domestic violence. It is nobody’s case that these are not social problems in this country. Implementation of the statute has been vitiated to such an extent that the SC held that ‘as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and filed with obligue motive (sic)’ (14). While solicitation of dowry and any violence is indeed reprehensible (and must be met with the full force of the State) is it not shocking that such stringent laws are misused by women and their families? More cogently when will our society mature enough to view goodness or wickedness as part of our innate human nature, not necessarily endowments of our sex?

It is unfair that women will or should give up their careers to stay at home with toddler children it is equally unfair that men should be disqualified on the basis of statute. The need of the hour is a gender neutral custody law; there is however no way to second guess which way our custody laws are headed.

Within the realm of judicial intervention I would earnestly plead that our higher judiciary enunciate a specific set of guidelines on the matter. In the absence of these child custody matters essentially rest on the discretion of an individual judge, who drawn from our society is not always free from one or other stereotypes.

REFERENCES

Tamil Nadu has the highest percentage of widowed/ divorcees in India. The Times of India 05 April 2012.

With India’s new affluence comes the divorce generation. The New York Times 19 Feb 2008.

Why is the divorce rate climbing up? The Hindu 23 Sep 2002.

For space, young couples snap the knot in no time. The Times of India 15 Dec 2010.

Section 6 (a) -The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956.

Divorced fathers to get more contact with their children. The Guardian Feb 3 2012.

Love before the law: child custody set for overhaul. The Local 2 Jul 2010.

AIR 2008 SC 2262

AIR 1999, 2 SCC 228

II (2003) DMC 288, 2003 (3) KarLJ 530

AIR 2004 SC 1525.

The Law Commission of India 83 report 1980.

2011 1 MLJ (1002)

2006 AIR 670.

Aveek Jayant is on the faculty of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,(Chandigarh) an autonomous institution under the Govt. of India. The views expressed in this article are entirely personal. Email: jayant.aveek@gmail.com

http://m.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/child-custody-law-in-india-a-litigant-perspective/article4371934.ece/

Why is the divorce rate so high (especially in Western countries) if love marriages work?

Why is the divorce rate so high (especially in Western countries) if love marriages work?



Because divorce-rates are mostly a reflection of equal rights for women and social acceptability of divorce, and not how happy people are in their marriages.




There are happy and unhappy marriages everywhere. The biggest difference is not in this, but in what people do if they find themselves in a unhappy marriage.




In some cultures, it's socially unacceptable to ever get a divorce. Especially divorced women are often in a difficult situation. If they were at home as a housewife while the husband worked, they may have little experience with working and few chances of providing well for themselves financially. It is hardly surprising, under such circumstances, that few seek a divorce.




Instead, they endure. Marriages which are without passion. Without love. Without friendship. Sometimes even without basic respect -- nevertheless stay intact on the surface. One of my Iranian friends has parents who are still married to each other despite the fact that they generally try to avoid being in the same room, because they are on so bad terms with each other -- and they have been for more than a decade. Such a couple would almost certainly divorce in a culture where that was more acceptable.




In western countries, the question is not if the marriage is possible to endure. But instead if you think you will be happier inside or outside the marriage. It is common for married people in the west to divorce despite none of them being abusive, despite no cheating, and sometimes even despite a still functional friendship - because one of them, or both, feel that the marriage is holding them back or not providing everything they want from a partner.




To be honest, I am not certain if people in love-marriages are on the average happier than people in arranged marriages. There's a lot to be said for love, for making your own choice, for chemistry. But there's also quite a lot to be said for making a rational choice guided by things like shared values and background and considering pros and cons in a more rational and less emotional light.




Serial monogamy is pretty acceptable in much of "the west" and as such, you should not necessarily consider all marriages that end in divorce as "failures", if 2 people are in love, and live together happily for 3, 5 or 10 years (but not for life), where is the failure in that ? We don't consider other relationships that last for years but not for life a "failure" so why do so for love ?




If you've got a dear friend that you hang out with for 3, 5 or 10 years before you drift apart and lose contact, do you consider that friendship a "failure" ?
http://www.quora.com/Marriage/Why-is-the-divorce-rate-so-high-especially-in-Western-countries-if-love-marriages-work

Controversial Property sharing in IrBM Divorce in India wedlock to deadlock NDTV 24x7 12 may2013

1/2 controversial Property sharing in IrBM Divorce in India wedlock to deadlock NDTV 24x7 12 may2013 







2/2 controversial Property sharing in IrBM Divorce in India wedlock to deadlock NDTV 24x7 12 may2013

Swarup Sarkar demands Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause to be made Gender Neutral on CNNIBN 26Mar2012

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause to be made Gender Neutral demands Swarup Sarkar vehementally on CNNIBN's Face The Nation programme with Sagarika Ghosh on 26th March 2012. 

Panelists

Swarup Sarkar ( SIFF) 

Flavia Agnes (Feminist Lawyer)

Malvika Rajkotia (Feminist lawyer)

Poornima Advani (Former NCW chief)

 

More on 

"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod- Another Legal Extortion tool for Wife. Mens rights organisation Ignored again

http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2012/03/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage.html

"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod- Another Legal Extortion tool for Wife. Mens rights organisation Ignored again

"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod enabling wife to Instant Easy divorce. Will this also be miused by wife ? Geeta Luthra, Sr Advocate takes on Feminist Ranjana Kumari of CSR on Star News on 24 march 2012

  

NewsX discussion on the topic with Manish Mittal of SIFF and Madhu Kishwar, social Activist and Pinky Anand, Sr advocate  on panel on 24 march 2012

 

 

Related TV media coverage of SIFF in 2010-2011

1. IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-BENEFICIAL OR NOT- P7 news 20jun10 

 http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2010/06/ibm.html

2. IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-ON DD NEWS CHANNEL, EPISODE OF SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010

http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2010/06/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage.html

3. Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case (THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 – Panel discussions on DD News Aamne-samne-20feb11

http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2011/02/should-property-be-given-to-wife-at.html

 

4. Irretrievable breakdown marriage as new proposed ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and Feminist Abuse of IPC 498a, Domestic Violence, Child custody laws and Marital laws to Extort and blackmail husband and his family, a LIVE interactive panel discussion on p7 news Channel on Kanoon Special programme on 29 May 2011

 http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2011/05/irretrievable-breakdown-marriage-as-new.html

 

 

'Men's rights organizations should be consulted by the Government'

Read more at: h

by Rohit Karir 24 March, 2012

The union cabinet, on March 23, gave clearance to some changes in the Marriage Act via the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010. While women's rights organizations have largely supported the cleared amendments, Virag R Dhulia, Head, Gender Studies, of Confidare India, a men's rights community center, has voiced grave concern about men's rights not being protected enough. 

THE PROPOSED changes will, for the first time, legally recognize the right of a wife to property acquired by her spouse during their marriage. Equal rights to both adopted and biological children will also be provided. The cabinet also gave its go ahead to consider "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a new ground for granting divorce as against expecting the couple to carry out despite differences in what is named as a cooling off period. Though, the cabinet has left it to the courts to decide its time period. But at the same time, as per the amendments, while a wife can legally oppose her husband's plea for a divorce under the new clause of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage", a husband will not have similar rights.

Read more at: http://www.merinews.com/article/mens-rights-organizations-should-be-consulted-by-the-government/15867577.shtml&cp

The cabinet amendments have already triggered reactions with Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research saying that majority of the women in the country were illiterate and were in no position to know their rights. The All India Democratic Women's Association has welcomed the amendments pertaining to women's right to property in case of dissolution of marriage.In an exclusive interview with merinews.com, Dhulia gives a 'gender' perspective to marriage and gender laws. Confidare India, Dhulia says, recognizes that men face domestic violence and false cases of harassment related to dowry and domestic violence but often find it difficult to prove their innocence and don’t get emotional support from society. Dhulia, 31, also works as an IT professional in Bangalore, and in 2009, was involved in a case of dowry in which he was jailed for two days and later filed a counter-case of dowry against his wife.
Merinews: You personally went through a disturbing experience with your wife accusing you of taking dowry and spending two days in jail. But you maintain that the allegation was false as you did not ‘ask’ for dowry – it was given willingly. But then you also ‘accepted’ the dowry. You then filed a counter dowry case against your wife. Where do things stand today? Have you considered re-marrying?

Dhulia: I have never said that I “accepted” dowry or that it was “given”. In the case that I have filed against my wife and in-laws, it says, “Because they have themselves made a claim of giving dowry to me, which is an equal crime under the Dowry Prohibition Act, criminal proceedings be initiated against them. It is only an unproved allegation against me but they are admitting the crime, hence they should be punished before me.” The judiciary was more than happy to stay the proceedings of the case even before serving the notice to me and now the case is not coming up for hearing at all. I have gone through a lot of harassment and right now I have to focus on getting my innocence back. All other options are secondary. The way society treats men in marriages, has left deep psychological scars, which have to heal before I think of re-marrying.Merinews: Why do you object to the amendment that recognizes “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce, in the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010?
Dhulia: We do not object to the ground of “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” per se. If a relationship does not make a person happy, he/she should have every legal right to walk out of the relationship gracefully. That being said, it does not mean, the same step has to be achieved at the cost of the other person. Our objections particularly target property division clauses. This is a dangerous one. India is a complex society and definitely very different from the western society. In India, we still have a good mix of nuclear families, joint families, and the concept of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), etc. Still, there are large number of people who share common ancestral property. There may arise a lot of complications with this law coming in, which may even lead to more crime as people can go berserk when it comes to property. This law has the potential to wreak social havoc. Furthermore, the power of division of property wresting with the judiciary is far more dangerous provision. Indian judiciary is incompetent and people have lost faith on its integrity what with judges being caught cheating in exams and found indulging in massive corruption. This power will make a fish-market of the Indian criminal justice system especially in the arena of matrimonial disputes.
Merinews: The belief in the country persists that women, especial in rural and semi-urban areas, are not empowered enough and need protection by law when it comes to a husband not filing a counter divorce against his wife. Do you think this protection is required or is it being more misused than serving its purpose?
Dhulia: As the question itself says, it’s a belief. Some people believe in God, some do not. Can we have laws based on beliefs? There is a famous saying, “I may not die for my beliefs for they may not be true”. Jokes apart, laws must be based on actual ground research and data. The data is not available. In a country where only 3% of the population pays income tax, we can well imagine the condition of the Government when it comes to knowledge about its citizens. However, if we look at the suicide statistics, which include all areas – urban, rural, semi-urban, the story is clear. It’s the men who are suffering and not the women as men are committing suicides almost to the tune of 2 times compared to women, year over year, especially married men. Why would a young married man, full of life and aspirations, end his life? Something is definitely wrong which is being ignored. As far as economic problems in rural and semi-urban areas are concerned, it’s not a gender issue. It’s a social issue in which men suffer more as they are forced to bear the primary financial responsibility. Moreover, as of now, men’s rights organizations are still largely prevalent on the internet. Men in these areas do not have proper access to the Internet and thus they are not even aware that there is some help available. Hence, they suffer in silence and do not speak about their abuse fearing social ridicule. Women’s organizations are found more frequenting Pizza huts.
Merinews: Do you think the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 should contain more conditional clauses when it comes to allocation of property after dissolution of marriage?
Dhulia: This is a complex situation. We need to consider many factors such as the tenure of marriage, contribution of either partner towards the property, tenure during which the savings were made to build the property because property is never built overnight; it takes a lifetime’s savings to build a property. It will be foolish to think that a man can lose his property if his marriage breaks within months and he will lose his lifetime fortune. Moreover, now women will marry keeping this thing in mind and walk-out of marriages eyeing the man’s property. Men’s rights organizations should be consulted by the Government before finalizing the law and its clauses, else it might just end up annoying 50% of the population in order to appease the other half.
Merinews: Feminists suggest that marriage laws might appear to be loaded in favour of women as this gender finds it much more difficult to re-marry compared to men after a divorce. Do you think this compensates for leaving dangerous loopholes that can be exploited?
Dhulia: Statements of feminists need to be taken with a pinch of salt. For, from the way they are operating, it seems they are more inclined on harassing men than uplifting women. They leave genuine issues faced by women unaddressed like plight of widows, domestic violence faced by daughters in natal homes, and only focus on inventing ways to transfer tax-free wealth from husband to wife. But this method only promulgates parasitism in women and this law will become a legal channel for women to extort men. Earlier, it was only by lodging a false criminal complaint (under Section 498A) and getting few lakhs/millions from the man. Now, just file for divorce and walk away with a plush apartment.
Merinews: Some of the proposals in the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 seem to suggest that women are less devious than men, and men are out to harm the interests of women. Do you think this is case?
Dhulia: These proposals are a direct result of social misandry (hatred of males), which is an age-old social curse on men. Men face misandry day in and day out. Whether it is while working late night shifts so that women can go home early or taking more risks and endangering their lives or living in a society that celebrates anti-male and gender-biased laws. One more clause does not make much of a difference. It’s a different question altogether that there is absolutely no basis or data-backing for such claims. Such gender biases harm men beyond levels imaginable.
Merinews: Should pre-nuptial agreements be made mandatory for all couples in India? Will this address some of the heartache post dissolution of marriage?
Dhulia: Somehow Indians feels copying the West is a good idea. This may work as far as movies are concerned, but laws should strictly be made on the basis of our own societal constraints, structures and norms. Pre-nups may sound lucrative but we must keep in mind that when it comes to implementation, India has always underperformed. So, the best solution to this is that property matters must be kept completely away from marriage. Life will be much more peaceful then.

Read more at:

Read more at: http://www.merinews.com/article/mens-rights-organizations-should-be-consulted-by-the-government/15867577.shtml&cp

http://www.merinews.com/article/mens-rights-organizations-should-be-consulted-by-the-government/15867577.shtml

 India :

Are you planning to marry Indian Girl? It is easy to get married (’Legal Trap’) in India if Boy is with handsome earning and have credible wealth.

“According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a
husband’s plea for a divorce under the new “irretrievable
breakdown of marriage” clause, the husband will have no such
rights to oppose if the wife moves court on the same grounds.”

The word husband/wife must be replaced by the word Spouse, otherwise it will lead a total Extrotion business of your hard earned money/property and as the more awareness will come, maximum men will stop saving and will spend their earling, result more and more crime/fraud/stress in society and yes a huge father less child society on the way, which today some male haters do not understand , but will value the contrubution of husabnds family the day they will take oath to die as debit man than credit man. We do not understand why so called educated and libiral Women and LAW makers afrid to make law on the Principal with the word “Spouse”, both get euall responsibility and Libility.

PRESS RELEASE: Strongly condemning the upcoming Marriage Laws (amendment) Bill by Fight for Justice.

Introduction:

Confidare Research is the education and research wing of Confidare Consultancy that specializes in dealing with problems of men.
Confidare Research strongly condemn the upcoming “Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill” that was supposed to be tabled today before the Cabinet.

This bill is a further evidence of the growing misandry (male hatred) in the society and how the society treats men as disposable entities. Even in this modern age when we talk of Gender Equality, the stereotypical patriarchal notion that the financial responsibility of a family should lay on a husband still prevails in the society, and this pervert social mindset is the root cause of abuse of men, especially husbands in a marriage.

In such a situation, where men are already burdened with so much of load, another law which makes divorce extremely costly for them is thoroughly unwelcome.

Highlights of the law:

This law recognizes “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground for divorce.
While the law empowers the wife to oppose the divorce at any point of time if the husband has filed for divorce, it restrains the husband from doing so when the wife has filed for the same.
This law also contains a clause by which courts will be empowered to snatch away half the property of husband and give it away to wife.
This law only talks about women’s rights and has no considerations whatsoever for men.
Brief Background:

Due to demand from various quarters, this ground for divorce was introduced by the Govt. of India by way of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 which sought to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act. However, the bill contained clauses that facilitated financial extortion of men.

The bill read that courts would have power not to grant the divorce unless the wife was paid adequate amount of money under the cute name of “Financial Security of Woman”.

And the bill also mentioned about special powers being given only to wives to oppose the divorce if the wife was unhappy with the money she received from the husband.

Such clauses being outright anti-male and gender-biased in nature were vehemently opposed by various men’s rights activists and organizations, who even deposed in front of the Standing Committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice. The panel, chaired by Shri Santaram Naik, was presented with the objections raised by men’s rights organizations who sought to make the bill gender-neutral and ensure that no man faced any kind of financial hardship because of gender-biased clauses in the bill.

Oppositions ignored:

However, the objections raised by men’s rights organizations have been conveniently ignored by the standing committee panel, that has gone ahead and recommended the very clauses to the Govt. of India for the bill to be tabled, to which the men’s rights organizations has raised objections against.

What will happen if?

Husband purchases a property just 6 months after marriage out of his hard-earned savings earned before marriage and his marriage breaks and he loses half of the property. In that case the husband will be doomed.
Men start fearing this law and stop buying real estate which adversely affects the economy of the country.
Husband has dependent parents and owns a single property and if 50% of that goes to wife post-divorce, how will the husband take care of his old parents? Is the concept of family restricted to only husband-wife in the Indian context?
What, if the family is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) owning a single joint property? Will the wife get 50% of that? What about other sibling’s share in it?
Confidare’s objections:

Marriages are tumultuous for men. This fact reflects in the suicide statistics that are published year-over-year by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and it’s the married men who top the list of suicide. Suicide rate of husbands’ increases 4 times the rate of wives’ and 6 times the rate they are born. Every 9 minutes a married man commits suicide. This fact clearly proves how bad marriages turn out for men and if divorces are also made costlier by way of such laws, this will lead to further increase in suicides by men. Is the Government of India trying to facilitate the suicides of men?
There is one more law in the pipeline – Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage Act), 2012 – which talks about making wife the co-owner of husband’s properties right at the time of marriage; then, why this law? Why is the Government hell bent on making redundant anti-male laws and convert marriage into an extortion industry thriving on men?
In a democratic law making process, objections raised by a particular group or individual cannot be ignored without any proper justification. The panel has failed to give any just and proper reason as to why the objections raised should not be considered.
As per Dowry Prohibition Act, any demand of cash/kind in relation to marriage is “Dowry”. Is not this law legalizing dowry to be paid to wife from husband under the cute name of “Financial Security of Wife”?
Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and cannot be disrespected under any circumstances. Current bill thoroughly violates it, as far as men are concerned.
Feminists are claiming that nearly 80% of women do not have a place to live post-divorce. This is completely false because no such study has ever been conducted. India does not have any standard data collected as to how many divorces are happening, of those how many own a house and how many do not, how many are nuclear, joint and HUF families. Without any such data in place, any claims made are just airy claims without any data. Formulating a law on airy data is dangerous.
Confidare’s demands:

Marriages and Divorces should not be made a property-transfer-bureau.
If property division is to be done then wife’s share in her ancestral property must also be considered and then division must be done.
Duration of marriage must be a crucial factor of consideration. The difference between a 2 month marriage and a 20 year marriage must be clearly understood.
Property division must take into account contributions made by both the spouses and also the fact that the property was acquired from wealth earned post marriage and not from previous savings.
Any and all outstanding financial liabilities on the property like loan for property, loan against property, mortgage etc. must also be equally divided and wife must be made to be equally paid for it. If she is not working then she should get her share from her ancestral property.
Both the partners should have equal and unbridled right to oppose divorce and there should be no gender-bias in this.
There should not be any power wrested with the courts to decide upon property transfer or stalling of proceedings as the Indian judiciary is highly incompetent and has not shown positive trends favoring men when it comes to disposing cases. The Indian judiciary is highly anti-male and does not consider twice before ordering a man to either “sell his kidney” or “beg, borrow or steal” just to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. What is the guarantee that the same judiciary will make judicious decisions when it comes to this law?
Institute a National Commission for Men, that can systematically collect issues, concerns and problems of men, study them and recommend to the Govt. about measures to be taken to address those problems.
If the Govt. of India does not take these considerations seriously then we have only one message for the hardworking Indian men, who think putting self before others, is a social norm –

Your hard earned property does not belong to you.

P.S. Long run effect as the more and more cases will come out :

“Also this bill will have a disastrous effect on the marriageability of non-working or low income men/women - as all women/men would like to marry high income men/women now. Will the govt. take responsibility to get these low-income or no-income men/women marrage? How is this bill useful when it helps high income men/women while at the same time makes the low-income men/women un-marriageable? This bill infact is contrary to women’s and men’s welfare”

So,what to do ?

1. This is nothing but legal terrorism and to stop that the First think to make more and more awareness. So, highlight the danger to all LAW makers MP, Society and Friends. Always demand as per constitution every one is equal in front of law , so the word men/women must be replaced by person and husband/wife must be replaced by spouse.
2. Those are in LAW filed must start collected the LAW of other country of the world and be ready to fight in Supreme court. No country have such biased law in place.
3. Before marriage must engage a Lawyers.
4. Book a low cost Home in some Village area , so that in old age you can have a place to live.
5. The moment you feel any smell of any problem without any second thought dispose-off all your movable or immovable assets .
6. Minimum Saving after marriage , enjoy the life instead of work like donkey and one day die in Heart attack and left huge assets.
7.Come out from all the emotion , today marriage is no longer a emotional bond, all this male haters LAW makers make the marriage a emotionless simple Business deal and a easy money earning business for wrong people.

Warning to all Male Haters :

To grab the Husbands money/property you have made several law start from DP3, 498A, DV act, CRPC125, Section 24 and now this new HMA act, with the Principal all wives born in Raja Harish Chandra Family , never lie and all Husbands born in Criminal Family.

All the law the basic motive is how to grab the money and property from Husbands family with the logic women had suffered so long, so now it is turn to men to suffer.

But forget two wrong can’t make a right think. If women is suffering that is not due to husbands family , it is due to the girls at their own home had not given equal right and responsibility give to a boy, instead of correcting the same started putting all burden/blame to husbands family .

Do not forget more then 90% women who have a home in this country , they got from their husbands family , not from their own family, correct that first or the day the is not too far when we will be witness when a man will die, the bank will come and take over all his assets , which we witness in western country .

The day Indian Husbands will learn to live a life as Debit man than credit man and stop making any saving in property or in other assets , then only you all will realize the real contribution of Indian husbands for this society.

Do not take Indian husbands family in ride and stop promotion of Legal Extortion of their hard earned money/property, make the LAW gender neutral the word husband/wife must be replaced by the word spouse and the share should be equal both liability and claim in assets.

 http://legalfighter.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/press-release-strongly-condemning-the-upcoming-marriage-laws-amendment-bill/ http://swarup1973.instablogs.com/entry/indian-marriage-warning-wake-up-call-for-men/
http://indianhusbands.blogspot.in/2012/03/hindu-marriage-act-is-not-amendment.html

======

The government's move to make divorce a quicker process has been largely welcomed as a long overdue step though some women activists and lawyers have voiced doubts over doing away with the six month cooling off period.

The common strain among the women was that law should move along with changing times and there should not be any mechanical import of western ideas.

"I welcome it. Divorce should be made easier and the laws should keep pace with the changing times," Rekha Palli, a Supreme Court lawyer, told IANS.

Welcoming the move to make divorce easier, lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi slammed the move to make "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground of divorce. This would amount to giving the husband an excuse to walk out of the marriage for a much younger spouse, she said.

The union cabinet on Friday approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 by which "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" was included as a ground for dissolving the marriage.

Besides this, the cabinet also approved giving the divorced wife a share in husband's property that he had acquired after marriage, and the adopted child getting same rights to property as are available to biological offspring of the couple.

It also left the existing cooling off period of six months to the discretion of the court.
"I think it is a welcome move. We have been demanding it for long," Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research told IANS. "Share in the marital property is a very welcome move because as it stands today when a wife walks out of difficult marriage she has nothing to start afresh.

"But her share in marital property should have been specified and not left to the courts as it would mean more and more endless litigation," Ranjana Kumari said.

The cabinet under the approved amended bill has provided that the wife would have a right to wave a red flag in the event of the husband pressing for divorce on the grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage", but the same was not available to the husband in case the wife decides to seek dissolution of marriage on grounds of irrevocable breakdown of marriage.

Welcoming the incorporation of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground for divorce, Ranjana Kumari says that doing away with the six months cooling off period is not good.

"A hold on period at times helps in cooling frayed tempers and the marriage is saved," she says, adding that "after all in our society marriage is sacred thing".

Giving the right to property to the adopted child at par with that of a biological offspring is also a welcome step as under the present dispensation this equality of right is not there, she added.

Apex court lawyer Aparna Bhat says the cabinet decision has not made anything easier. "All that has been done is that irreconcilable difference has been added as another ground for divorce.

"How has the entire process becomes easier," asks Bhat, posing what would happen if a wife opposes the husband's plea for divorce.

"Perhaps this (irreconcilable difference) may make divorce process easier for the women as husband cannot oppose it," she says.

"What has happened was long overdue. I don't know why India took so long to do what other civilized countries had done long ago," lawyer Rebecca John told IANS.
The proposed amendments would make divorce law more humane and sensitive to the contesting couple and adding irreconcilable difference as a ground for divorce is good, says Rebecca.

Meenakshi Lekhi, who is fighting the case of women officers seeking permanent commissions in the army, wonders how could the rights of a legally adopted child be different from a biological offspring of a couple.

She describes as "complicated" the provision giving the wife a right to property that she and her husband had acquired during their married life. She also asks "would a wife who is just one year in marriage be entitled to property inherited or earned by her husband?
"How could a wife walking away with whatever share of husband's property be reconciled with the maintenance that she is entitled under the existing law," asks Lekhi.
"The proposal to leave to the courts the waiting period before divorce is actually granted is in tune with an earlier provision which was wrongly interpreted by the Supreme Court giving it a fixed term which over a period of time became the law of the land," she says.
Lekhi says that "what is evident from the proposed changes in the law is that its authors have no grounding in law, nor are they the practitioners of law".

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/237033/changes-marriage-law-welcome-say.html

Irretrievable breakdown marriage as new proposed ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and Feminist Abuse of IPC 498a, Domestic Violence, Child custody laws and Marital laws a LIVE interactive panel discussion on p7 news Channel on Kanoon Special

Irretrievable breakdown marriage as new proposed ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and Feminist Abuse of IPC 498a, Domestic Violence, Child custody laws and Marital laws to Extort and blackmail husband and his family, a LIVE interactive panel discussion on p7 news Channel on Kanoon Special programme on 29 May 2011

 

PART 1/4

 

 

 

PART 2/4

 

 

 

PART 3/4

 

 

 

PART 4/4

 

Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case - THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010

Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case (THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 – Panel discussions on DD News Aamne-samne-20feb11

Full Text of the Proposed Bill is at

http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Marriage%20Laws/Marriage%20Laws%20Bill%202010.pdf

PS :- Video Quality is not upto mark due to signal disturbance

PART 1/2

 

 

 

 

 

PART 2/2

 

 

 

 

 

SINGLE LINK

 

 

New divorce law needs watertight safeguards: Delhi HC

New divorce law needs watertight safeguards: Delhi HC

New Delhi, Aug 9 (PTI)

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be brought within the folds of law as a ground for divorce with safeguards and message that it (divorce) is not a ''cakewalk'', the Delhi High Court has said.

The High Court said the legislatures in their wisdom can amend the Hindu Marriage Act to bring in its fold the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce as recommended by the Law Commission.
However, it is expected that watertight safeguards are introduced so as not to send the message that divorce has now became a cakewalk, the court said.
"The ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be resorted as a straight jacket formula leading to the institution of marriage becoming so fragile that the wrong- doer abuses it for his selfish ends leaving the other party in the lurch," Justice Kailash Gambhir said in a recent judgement.
Suggesting that there should be a minimum period before such ground can be invoked, the judge said "divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage might be contrary to common perception and the idea of marriage being a holy union for seven births...".
The court said that while invoking the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage for divorce by the husband, "the grant of divorce should be subject to the provision of adequate financial provision for wife".
It said there should be adequate provision for maintenance, education and upbringing of children whose custody  should be decided at the very stage of divorce.
The court's order came while dismissing a petition filed by Subhash Chandra Sharma challenging the lower court's March 2003 order dismissing his plea for divorce from his wife on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
The court rejected Sharma's argument that he had tried several times to resolve the differences with his wife but failed and at this stage the court can grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
"The High Court in the exercise of its inherent powers cannot grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as it is not yet a ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act," said the court.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/87368/divorce-law-needs-watertight-safeguards.html

Divorce made easy for incompatible couples

Divorce made easy for incompatible couples

The Union cabinet has cleared the way for couples to obtain a swift divorce in situations of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 seeks to amend two acts governing marriage – the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954.

Sometimes, couples decide to divorce on mutual consent but later one party does not come to court or wilfully avoids the court to keep the divorce proceedings inconclusive. The amended law will save the other party such unnecessary delays and harassment.

The Bill was approved on Thursday by the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Bill has been prepared on the recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court that “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”should be incorporated as “another ground for grant of divorce”.

Welcoming this move, Jyotsna Chatterji, director of the Joint Women’s Programme said: “This will make it possible for couples who have decided on divorce by mutual consent to be granted a swift divorce. It will help prevent the retractions, lies, etc. which happens in case of long delays.”Chatterji who has earlier worked on the amendment to the Indian Divorce Act, added:

“There is the probability that the woman becomes the sufferer as Indian society doesn’t take too kindly to single women and that too divorced.”

But at the same time, she said a swift divorce at times would help women from agreeing to continue in a bad marriage. This new clause – the “irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”- will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce, which include adultery, cruelty, desertion, conversion to another religion, unsoundness of mind, virulent and incurable form of leprosy, venereal disease in a communicable form, renouncement of the world and not heard as being alive for a period of seven years.

Apart from this, Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act also provide for divorce by mutual consent as a ground for presenting a petition for divorce. Such a petition, if not withdrawn before six months after its presentation or not later than 18 months, then the court may, on being satisfied, grant decree of divorce by mutual consent.

In cases of mutual consent, it has often been found that one of the parties suddenly abstains himself or herself from court and keeps the divorce proceedings inconclusive, causing considerable hardship to the party. This will help such parties from the long drawn harassment in courts.

Ranjana Kumari of Woman Power Connect said: “Such a move would ordinarily be welcome. But in a patriarchal society where the decision to break a marriage largely rests with the man, he can also prove easily the irretrievable breakdown of marriage to suit himself. Moreover, most marriages in India are arranged marriages where the woman has no say. So before deciding to make this major change in the law, considerable thought needs to go into it and we must act with caution.”

Madhu Kishwar of ‘Manushi’ – a women’s rights group – welcoming the move, added a note of caution. “What if one partner feels there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage but the other does not?”

http://www.theindiadaily.com/divorce-made-easy-for-incompatible-couples/

 

I LIKED THIS FIRST HAND REACTION FROM A MY FRIEND

Moily started with Molding a Ganesha (sec 13 C HMA) and ended up with a Monkey (Sec 13 D).

Supreme Court honestly wanted to end long battles of Matrimonial dispute pending before Courts and requested a law to end marriages on the ground of Irretrivable Break down. . Both spouses can get out of marriage and still fight for Custody or Alimony. Law commission approved it.

The govt was not bothered and kept silent ! . SC went ahead ordered divorce in many cases. When Harish Salve demanded Divorce for Ms. Shinde the SC woke up and said Pass the LAW. Now it has become Clash of TITANs!!
Now Moily is forced to appease woman activists included 13D giving right to Wife to oppose IBM. Women empowerment is always about paying money to Wives from the Husbands Chest ( Why not Govt Pay Divorced women Pension? if they are seriously concerned)

Actually 13 D is reduntant as Sec 25 HMA takes care of Alimony and Custody at the time of passing any order under the ACT!
The funniest part is the definition for IBM ! ie" not living under same roof for 3 years" No estrangement or reasoning is needed!

A husband living abroad even without any estrangement can file IBM just by throwing money on his wife and get rid of her. We can only pity Hindu Wives!!

With this law neither the Courts nor the Wives are benefitted. On the contraray this law create more confusion and out Judges will have field day adjouring matters as usual.

Marriages don't break just because of lapse of 3 years time!!

IBM happens due many other serious reasons like incompetability, avarciousness, ego among others.

I am sure Ms Shinde won't get divorce! Harish Salve is failing Mr. Shinde!

Amendments will not do, stand-alone law needed to curb ‘honour' crimes, irretrievable breakdown of marriage against women : AIDWA

Amendments will not do, stand-alone law needed to curb ‘honour' crimes, irretrievable breakdown of marriage against women : AIDWA

The All-India Democratic Women's Association (AIDWA) has presented to Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily a comprehensive draft law that seeks to make private parties culpable for violation of fundamental rights in crimes and killings committed in the name of “honour.”

All kinds of harassment, and curbing of choice, association, and movement would come within the ambit of this law.

Apart from defining crimes in the name of “honour,” the draft makes eulogising or glorification of these offences and killings punishable. The onus of proof is on the accused. The law seeks to protect young couples who declare their intention to marry before a government officer, and also suggests measures to stop self-proclaimed panchayats and other community bodies from issuing diktats.

Led by Brinda Karat, MP, a delegation, which met the Minister on Tuesday, pointed out that the amendments proposed to the existing laws did not sufficiently address all crimes of violence perpetrated in the name of “honour,” and highlighted the need for a separate, stand-alone law. The proposed amendments made an entire community punishable for a crime committed by some, the delegation pointed out and suggested that the law penalise only those community members present at the spot where illegal action was taken.

Mr. Moily assured the AIDWA that he would take up the important issues it raised with the Group of Ministers formed to look at legislative changes to address “honour” killings, said general secretary Sudha Sundararaman.

A memorandum was handed over to the Minister, pointing out the extremely limited rights available to women who had separated or were divorced, and their misery and sufferings due to financial constraints.

The delegation emphasised that the Bill to make irretrievable breakdown of marriage a ground for divorce would act against the majority of women in the existing economic and social reality of unequal status.

Adequate financial safeguards must be mandated for women before this Bill was passed, said the delegation, which included AIDWA legal convener Kirti Singh, national assistant secretary Ashalata and member Asha Sharma .

It appealed for supportive legislation to provide financial security to women by bringing in a law on matrimonial property rights immediately.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article552009.ece

State sponsored legalising extortion of husband - Bill to add Irretrievable breakdown new ground for divorce amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954

Bill to add Irretrievable breakdown new ground for divorce amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954

Wed, Aug 4 08:02 PM

New Delhi, Aug 4 (PTI) Getting a divorce from marriage, which has broken down for all practical purposes, could become easier, as the government today introduced a bill in the Rajya Sabha to amend marriage laws. The amendments proposed in the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act will also make divorce through mutual consent easier, according to the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, introduced by Law Minister M Veerappa Moily.

The amendment bill also provides for an additional grounds for seeking divorce in case of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage". It seeks to do away with the provision of second joint appearance before the court after six to 18 months of filing of divorce petition, with mutual consent.

The present clause of joint appearance for seeking decree of divorce creates problem as often one of the parties fails to appear before the court on some pretext or the other. This leaves one of them "hapless and remediless", according to the objects and reasons of the bill.

The bill also seeks to insert a new clause under which either husband or wife can seek divorce if the couple have not lived together continuously for three years. However, in case the husband seeks divorce, the wife will be entitled to oppose it on the ground that the dissolution of marriage would result in financial hardship to her.

Similarly, a provision has been made to restrict grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in the absence of adequate provision for maintenance of children. The amendment bill has been prepared on the basis of recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court, Moily said.

The clause of irretrievable breakdown of marriage will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce. At present, various grounds for dissolution of marriage are laid down in law.

These include adultery, cruelty, desertion, conversion to another religion and unsoundness of mind.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20100804/1416/tnl-irretrievable-breakdown-new-ground-f_1.html

 

more news at

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bill-in-Rajya-Sabha-to-make-divorce-easier/articleshow/6257265.cms

NEW DELHI: A bill seeking to make divorce easier in case of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, moved by law minister M Veerappa Moily, aims at mitigating hardships by allowing divorce in cases of complete failure of marriages.
At present, the petition for a divorce on the ground of mutual consent could be presented by the spouses together before the court under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954.
While both parties have to move a motion jointly before the court between six and 18 months of the original petition, it has been observed in several cases that one of them does not turn up.
This leaves parties desirous of obtaining decree of divorce hapless and remediless. In order to mitigate such hardships and to allow divorce in cases of complete failure of such marriages, the bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act.
The condition of moving the motion before the court subsequent to the first petition would be done away with, it said.
However, in case the wife happens to be the respondent to the petition, she is entitled to oppose it on the ground that the dissolution of marriage would result in grave financial hardship to her.
Similarly, a provision has been made to restrict grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for maintenance of children has not been made.
The amendment bill has been prepared on the recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court.
The clause of irretrievable breakdown of marriage will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce.

 

Full text available @

http://164.100.24.219/BillsTexts/RSBillTexts/asintroduced/marrge%20law%20as%20intro.pdf

http://legalmanthandivorce.blogspot.com/2010/08/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-as.html

Family lawyers oppose fresh ground for divorce

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/family-lawyers-oppose-fresh-ground-for-divor/639689/

A section of family court lawyers from Pune have written to the Law Commission and Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily protesting against the recent inclusion of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as fresh ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Special Marriage Act, 1954.

“The rule will deprive women of their rights to matrimonial home and property. It will also rob them of their negotiating powers during matrimonial litigation,” the letter said. The decision was taken at a meeting of family court lawyers practising in various courts in the state. The meet was organised by Majlis, a Mumbai-based centre for rights discourse and interdisciplinary arts initiatives.

The letter has been signed by advocate Flavia Agnes, one of the founders of Majlis along with lawyers from Pune. Women in western countries where a similar law has been implemented are facing hardships despite contributing special non-monetary-returns by working as housewives and raising children, it said.

“There should not be a blanket rule for granting divorce under such grounds. The Law Commission is creating grey areas for corrupt practices,” said advocate Asim Sarode, a human rights activist. Majlis has planned month-long discussions on the subject in various cities in the state in July.

On the other hand, some like advocate Rekha Koratkar, president, Pune Family Court Bar Association had a different take. “It is not that a new ground for divorce has been created. The addition of the clause will speed up the divorce process in cases where there is no way out,” she said. Advocate Asunta Pardhe, who is also an activist, agreed. “ It will help several women whose divorce petitions are pending,” she said. The Union Cabinet had approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, two weeks ago.

Can’t use ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ to fault spouse

Can’t use ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ to fault spouse

Published: Wednesday, Jul 7, 2010, 0:39 IST
By Rakesh Bhatnagar | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

Even as the government is anxious to make “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” a ground for divorce, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that if a spouse, by his or her conduct, brings marriage to a point of breakdown, s/he can’t be allowed to seek divorce on this ground.

“That would simply mean giving someone benefit of his or her own misdeeds,” justices B Sudershan Reddy and Aftab Alam said while rejecting a husband’s appeal against a Madhya Pradesh high court order rejecting his claim for divorce.

SC found that Neelam Kumar couldn’t prove his case against wife Dayarani for divorce under section 13(1) (IA) of the Hindu Marriage Act and set aside the family court’s decree granting him divorce.

The issueless couple married on December 7, 1986, and lived together first at Ankleshwar and later in Vadodara. Kumar alleged that after 8-9 months of their marriage, Dayarani became aggressive and started treating him and his family in a cruel manner.

He tried to make adjustments in the hope that she would correct herself, but when it became impossible to carry on, he filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty. Kumar listed many other allegations against Dayarani, including making a suicide attempt, throwing tantrums and refusing to live with his family.

Dayarani refuted the charges and said she was in a job before marriage and had a clear understanding with Kumar that she would be allowed to continue. But he changed his mind and demanded she quit the job. Her refusal seemed to hurt his pride and he finally filed for divorce.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_can-t-use-irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-to-fault-spouse_1406346

Proposed ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a ground for divorce-‘Change in Act to go against women’

Proposed ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a ground for divorce-‘Change in Act to go against women’

The Centre’s decision to approve the amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act by introducing ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a ground for divorce has not gone down well with women’s groups. NGOs have called the Bill an attempt to introduce one-sided divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act.

Organisations such as Majlis, All India Democratic Women’s Association, Centre for Women’s Development Studies and Young Women’s Christian Association wrote to Congress MP Milind Deora saying, “A discussion on women’s rights to matrimonial property should go on alongside the discussion on irretrievable breakdown of marriage so that safeguards for women can be built into the provision.”

The NGOs fear men could misuse the amendment to abandon their wives. The letter said often husbands file for divorce on grounds of cruelty, adultery or desertion. Aware that proving these in court is difficult, men opt for a lump sum settlement with their wives. “Introducing the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage will take away this negotiating power from women,” the letter said.

Deora has forwarded the letter to Minister of Law and Justice M. Veerappa Moily saying these groups be given a hearing before the Bill is passed. “I have requested the Law ministry to meet members of Majlis and take into account all concerns regarding the issues,” Deora said. The Bill is likely to be placed in Parliament in the next session.

 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Change-in-Act-to-go-against-women/Article1-573514.aspx

 

also related update @

http://palashscape.blogspot.com/2010/07/fwd-irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Majlis Law <majlislaw@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Subject: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage - Developments
To: Majlis Law <majlislaw@gmail.com>

Dear Friends,

Good News - Our sustained campaign has managed to make a dent. We have an assurance from the Law Ministry that the Bill will not be tabled until women's organisation have had time to deliberate on the issue and can come back with constructive suggestions and recommendations.

New Date for Meeting - Our meeting in Mumbai is now postponed to 2nd August 2010 (Monday) as members of the Ministry of Law and Women and Child Welfare would also like to attend. We are happy that our voices will be heard by the government and we do hope you will make the new date.

We are still awaiting outstation travel approvals from NCW as well as confirmation on the final programme. Will send you details as soon as we hear from them.

Thank you for your support.

Regards,

Audrey D'mello

Please find below the link to the article on IBM in Hindustan Times. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Change-in-Act-to-go-against-women/Article1-573514.aspx

Majlis
4, A-2, Golden Valley,
Kalina Market Road,
Kalina, Santacruz (East)
Mumbai 400 098
Tel: 022 26661252 / 26662394
Email: majlislaw@gmail.com
Website: www.majlisbombay.org

--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/

Supreme Court summons Shinde’s daughter, estranged husband to explore the possibility of a reconciliation

Supreme Court summons Shinde’s daughter, estranged husband

New Delhi, July 8 (IANS) The Supreme Court Thursday asked union Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde’s daughter Smriti Shinde and her estranged husband to appear before it in person Aug 9 to explore the possibility of a reconciliation.

Smriti has challenged the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that prevents divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Smriti has also challenged the provision of the act that necessitates the couple to give their consent twice. In this case, Smriti’s husband, Sanjay Pahariya, gave his consent for mutual divorce in the first instance but later he allegedly backed out.

An apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly called the estranged couple to explore the possibility of a reconciliation.

Appearing for the petitioner Smriti, the senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi said there was a marital discord between his client and her husband for the last five years and they were living separately since then. He told the court that the husband has refused to sign the consent paper. The senior counsel said the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act were under challenge by his client.

The counsel for the estranged husband told the court that there were certain differences between the couple but they were never acrimonious. He said that chances of reconciliation were not “beyond the realm of possibility”.

Rohtagi told the court that they were married 17 years ago and were now living separately. He told the court that he had spoken to Smriti Wednesday and she told him there was no scope of reconciliation with her husband.

Excluding the possibility of any reconciliation, Rohtagi said the husband had signed the mutual consent divorce paper the first time but backed out the second time. Smriti’s husband lives in America with their two children.

http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/2/154432.htm

IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-ON DD NEWS CHANNEL, EPISODE OF SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010

Part 1/6 - DD NEWS Channel- IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010

 

 

 

Part 2/6 - DD NEWS Channel- IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010

 

 

 

 

Part 3/6- DD NEWS Channel- IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010

 

 

 

 

Part 4/6- DD NEWS Channel- IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010

 

 

 

Part 5/6- DD NEWS Channel- IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010

 

 

 

Part 6/6 - DD NEWS Channel- IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010