Seeking mutual concert divorce


Hi , 

I am staying currently in USA.My wife is in India .It's been more than a year we are staying apart .Finally we both have come to a decision of  mutual concert divorce .We are pretty sure and we both want it to be completed as quick as possible but unfortuantely i am not in India .i cannot travel to India frequently .I would get a max of two weeks leave from my office at a stretch continuosly  .Say after few months say 6 months i can take again another  two weeks .

Can anyone help me with all the different possibilities and the best possibility  to apply divorce and complete ASAP.Do i need to have an physical appearence in court or i can authorize some one on my behalf. I am totally ignorant of any judicial process or ways  and there is no one in my side who is aware of it .

 
Reply   
 
Senior Partner

@ Author,

 

Option 1 Via PoA route given to lineal descendant you can seek divorce via MCD route. Search my old post on PoA divorce route.


Option 2 Check with Jurisdiction District Court if they have video conference facility. If yes, then getting an Application allowed deposing via video conference route. Search my old post on video conference divorce route.


Option 3 Requesting concerned Court about leave seek dates of two motion hearing accordingly and make your way (leave - travel) to jurisdiction Court accordingly  

 

Direct your wife to assist in search of a local advocate found via reference and after due diligence hire h/er services to represent parties case under MCD route using one of the above suggested option.

 

The hired advocate should have good rapport with concerned Court to seek dates of hearing if option 3 is planned.


[Last reply]

 
Reply   
 


Financial Examiner

I’m sorry Tajobsindia but I have to tell the author to not follow one of ur advice. Very dangerous advice. The rest of the advice is brilliant and far beyond my education.

 

Brother Anonymus, do not direct ur wife to assist in the search for a local advocate. U r abroad, u need to find an independent lawyer who will act as ur eyes. By independent I mean that the lawyer should have nothing to do with ur wife. If u give her the opportunity, she will find a lawyer who will look after her interest and do any foul play at her will. Even if ur wife has already hired a lawyer to take care of the proceedings, u should hire another one via ur family back home so HE(sic) can oversee the proceedings. DO NOT TRUST THE LAWYER REFERRED TO U BY UR WIFE AND INLAWS. I’m no expert but trust me on this. This is everyday common sense. 

 
Reply   
 
Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA

Trust remains the cornerstone of marriage, even when ending it. Otherwise the agreements of MCD are not worth the paper it is written on.

 

I agree with TAjobsIndia fully.

 

Regards,
 
Reply   
 
Financial Examiner

Dear Shonee ji, with respect, I knew experts here also give wrong advice, a lot of it, but u have crossed all limits. Your advice will guide the author into dangerous territories. You want a man, who is absent from India, to work out an MCD agreement through a lawyer referred by his wife? R u insane?

 

You said, "trust remains the cornerstone of marriage, even when ending it." O wow. Sir, did u trust ur wife when u got married? What happened to that trust when she was into foul-plays and filed criminal cases on u? Yet u still have the temerity to say, "trust remains the cornerstone of marriage, even after ending it". Do u write with logic or do u write because it sounds nice? You got fooled by trusting ur wife, and now, r u looking for some company of fools? Do u want the author of this thread to also experience what the hazards of trust are?

 

And u said that in the absence of trust "the agreements of MCD are not worth the paper it is written on." Brother, this thing that u call MCD, mostly happens when trust is lost between the spouses. Pls write with logic.

 

The man who started this thread is from USA: I'm sure there will be some money exchanged in this MCD. And u want him to trust the wife and the lawyer referred by her? 

 

Even though common sense is not a nail that can be hammered into someone's head, I'm still gonna try. Here we go:

 

In the first link, look for these phrases: “I have given her half of the permanent alimony” and “ during the 2nd motion, my wife said that she is not sure about divorce:”

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Wife-not-agreeing-after-filing-mcd-87763.asp#.VFpz8PnF9Lc

 

https://www.kaanoon.com/2754/my-wife-applied-for-mutual-divorce-now-she-playing

 

http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Wife-filed-498a-after-13b-mutual-divorce-petition-257081.asp#.VFpyd_nF9Lc

 

U were a member at 498a.org at one point. I think u still have access to view threads. In the first link, notice how the man paid money and the wife backed out and asked for more money. I guess 'trust' worked out well for him:

http://www.498a.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=12392

 

http://www.498a.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11244

 

Brother Anonymus, sometimes common sense should prevail. Do not, under any circumstances, let ur wife run the show of MCD. If any money is to be given, do not pay her upfront. Only a trustworthy lawyer, hired through ur own family, should look after ur interest.

 
Reply   
 
Senior Partner

On the go aka Observation:

 

‘Compelled to learn Law’ means one is compelled to learn law as it is used as screen name and as it gets interpreted – right!. 

 

Suppose if the Author – Queriest of this very post hires his own Advocate based on your 'alleged to be said sane wisdom' and he does not share a common Advocate as hinted by Intern Shonee, can you say with ‘sanity’ that his independent hired Advocate will not ‘collude’ with his wife and/or his wife’s independent Advocate?
Reasoning: Many queriest here in this very family law forum have complaint about ‘collusion of Advocates', hence, I suggest like you dig - up so many links and presented on a shaky platter to Intern Shonee to read, well, it is about time you dig those ‘advocate collusion’ links too from various family law postings and present to this very post as ‘equity principles’ and let forum readers including the Author of this post decide who is ‘insane’ aka ‘biased’ in expressing once opinion.

 

Here is a quote which I'm 'compelled' to quote:-
"Advocates are spider webs through which the big flies words passes through and the little ones words get caught."


Ta ra rum pum pum………

 

[May be just a last reply]

 
Reply   
 
Financial Examiner

Dear Tajobsindia, u said, “many queriest here in this very family law forum have complaint about collusion of Advocates.” So what r u trying to say? If a meal at home accidentally causes food-poisoning, should we go and eat our next meal at our enemy’s place? Are u saying that the chances of finding an honest lawyer will improve if one asks his wife to refer to him a divorce lawyer? Learned Advocate, if the need ever arises, do not change ur profession to a risk-analyst. U’ll bankrupt the company in the first year of ur employment.

 

Regards

 

PS: keep the free advice coming; I have enough sanity to differentiate the harmful recommendations from the useful ones.  

 

And Sir, learn to pick ur fights. I haven’t met many who can argue better than I can. U r gonna lose this argument. I can guarantee u that. Don’t let it be ur last reply.

 
Reply   
 
Financial Examiner

Dear Tajobsindia, u also said, “it is about time you dig those ‘advocate collusion’ links too from various family law postings and present to this very post as ‘equity principles’ and let forum readers including the Author of this post decide who is ‘insane’ aka ‘biased’ in expressing once opinion.” After many years of ur service in courts, I hope u came to know that a lawyer should not seek the needed evidence from his opponent. So do not ask me to dig up posts to support ur side of the argument. See if u can handle ur defense on ur own. 

 
Reply   
 
Senior Partner

 

Originally posted by : CompelledToLearnLaw

 

XXXX 

And Sir, learn to pick ur fights. I haven’t met many who can argue better than I can. U r gonna lose this argument. I can guarantee u that. Don’t let it be ur last reply.

 

 

 

Originally posted by : CompelledToLearnLaw

 

XXX
” After many years of ur service in courts, I hope u came to know that a lawyer should not seek the needed evidence from his opponent. So do not ask me to dig up posts to support ur side of the argument. See if u can handle ur defense on ur own. 

 

 

Exactly, that is why I opened my observation with and I re-quote it again, ‘Compelled to learn Law’ means one is compelled to learn law as it is used as screen name and as it gets interpreted – right!.

 

Here is your legal compulsion for Free from me; did I not make a statement in second para after above observation? In case you omitted taking 'risk' in reading my second para statement then I re-quote my very second para, "Suppose if the Author – Queriest of this very post hires his own Advocate and does not share a common Advocate can you say with ‘sanity’ that his independent hired Advocate will not ‘collide’ with his wife and/or his wife’s Advocate?"

 

What does above statement means which you didnot took 'risk' 'examing' it being 'Financial Examiner'? It means if @ Anonymous hires his own Advocate and neither he has a common advocate nor one provided (recommended) by his wife (which you are calling as 'insanity'), yet, Advocates as in there is a 's' here which means plural and means two Advocates by parties and are shown to 'collude' (dig links) which then means even if @ Anonymous hires his own independent Advocate his Advocate may or may not ‘collude’ with his wife's Advocate so indirectly it hardly matters based on facts in this brief if at their 'last mile' journey for MCD, spouses have a common Advocate or referred Advocate  Vs. independent Advocate respectively as Advocate's' in generic are found to 'collude' with each other and 'risk assessment’ remains the same at the very end Vs. 'Trust' suggestion where first a leap of faith is taken and then 'Trust' follows and just because you are digging few web links of 'bad Trust' cases that does not mean cases of MCD where with 'Trust' spouses are appearing should be treated as same which indirectly also shows lack of self esteem one has in his own 'risk assessment' and shows on that s/he does not know of ‘legal remedies’ that one takes even when (Trust) MCD fails. 

 

See I donot give anyone scope to dig up posts to support my arguments, as you failed to rise to accept such public challenges. I have been very well handling my own defenses till date and by reminding you to re-read my second para I exactly did that, whereas you are repeating again to me what you already told to Intern Shonee. Try to 'Examine' whole presentation (reply) and interpret ‘argument’ otherwise you may loose your 'Examiner Certification' one day which ‘not many' might have told you till date as research has revealed that human brain dissociates the explicit memory of a negative event from the emotional response in fearful situations .....  

 

BTW, Law is not ‘humor’ which you did not ‘assess’ and/or ‘examine’ before you wrote to me via your 2 PMs on Gandhi Jayanti.

 

[You may continue 'examining' my public replies]

 
Reply   
 
Financial Examiner

Dear Tajobsindia, where is ur supporting evidence? I read ur post and it’s a politician’s babble. Where is an example that a lawyer referred by a wife is a trustworthy lawyer? Or why a man, who is not in a mental asylum, should ask his wife to refer a lawyer when he needs to divorce her? 

 

Not that ur reply made any sense to me, but I must reply to it to keep my word:

 

First of all: about ur favourite quote: ‘last reply.’(EDIT: Sir, u deleted the phrase ‘last reply’ from ur post above after I posted this message) Last reply? Yeah? Even before the prosecution produces all of it’s evidence? U rest? If this is the same kind of behaviour u exhibit in the courtroom, ur client will hang on the next available noose. 

 

Secondly: u have yet to produce a one shred of evidence to support ur argument. U asked me to help u gather the evidence and ur request was denied without consideration.

 

Thirdly: do not worry about me losing my 'Examiner Certification,' as u call it. While ur mentor, Gandhi, was preaching non-violence in India, the youth of my state was rendering enemies dead in the UK and inside my state. Ancestors born out of that same bloodline secured enough land and it’s rent to insure my accidental unemployment.

 

Fourthly: U said ‘law is not humor’.  Sir, law becomes humour when u often talk of ‘last reply.’ I always say to myself, “last reply? He doesn’t seem that old; I hope he lives and posts another reply.” 

 

Dear Tajobsindia, I was looking for a worthy fight so I could deliver a knock-out punch. To my dismay, u did not bring any fight with u. Next time: make sense. The argument u presented here is no different than ur last reply: so what do u want me to reply to?

 

To give the defense an ample amount of opportunity to present some evidence, in the interest of justice, I assure u, this is not my last reply. 

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu