Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage-New ground for divorce u

Prenup may not be enforcable.

One think is sure....By including IrBM clause by amendment .....it is going to make matter worst for husbands!!!

Husbands would not have any bargaining power whatsoever in regards 498a and DV cases

Husbands would not be able to offer for 'mutual consent divorce' rather a contested divorce for exchange of chhutkara from 498a and DV.

Even MCD would become obsolete!!! if IrBM clause is added to HMA.

Once it becomes a public sentiment that marriages can be easily broken...then automatically it changes the approach, line of thinking and attitude of brides/grooms towards marriage as well as them parents.

It may stop dowry system altogether....or it may start an incremental dowry system......as a periodic bonus!!! .............who would give lumpsum/onetime dowry to groom? if it's not liable to be eternal, from the outset!! and amenable to breakup easily.

The problem is with those who are already married!!!!  (The exam is already started and suddenly pattern of exam is changed!! then whole exam preparation gets disturbed...)

Ha ha ha

Now a days a very few (husbands) in contested divorce cases, do agree to give lumpsum alimony and rather husbands choose monthly option instead of giving a lumpsum alimony!!!

Because due to change of social structure, wives do get remarried within a short span and the need to give monthly maintenance anylonger stops automatically.

While  I agree that husband may loose bargaining power. 

But I end up questioning whether  two wrongs make it right... woman terrorise men though 498a .. which is definitely wrong... so should men try to correct that by doing another wrong.. lmaking the other party  suffer by not giving divorce.

I think correct approach will be raiase voice against 498a and get is corrected.

I disagree with Avinash....

If wife feels that she is being dumped and 'some maintenance' being thrown at her for 'chhutkara'.......I don't think she would keep quiet...she is bound to file many cases against her husband who seeming determined of getting rid of her.

husbands were dumping wives predominantly...and that's why wife biased laws are prevalent...

There is a clear difference in the way divorce process is perceive (more or less appropriately) as follows...the very process of divorce is itself is not gender neutral.

If a wife files for divorce....perception is that she wants to get rid of atrocities by husband...and she gets the natural sympathy

If a husband files for divorce.....the society suspects te husband that he may be dumping his wife for many reasons and as a escape route.....and wife cries of victim here also....and she gets the natural sympathy also.

Marriage is traditionally patriarchical....it's male dominated for males....

Even if wife wants to walk out...by IrBM she doesn't have to play long battle...but while walking scot free, nothing can stop her from 'creating harrasement plot' for husband while walking out...and poor husband keeps doing 'tarikh pe tarikh' in criminal courts for charges which are not compundable till his hairs grow silver!!!

It will start an era of live-in relationship for those who are unmarried till then......but those who are married would live at the mercy of her wife.

Ofcourse we are ignoring the procedural delays in each process and eight to appeal, review , revisions in upper courts. but a very small percentage of case go to upper courts.

The irretrievable break down of marriage as one of the ground was recommended by the Hon. Apex court and was affirmed by the Hon. PM and was sent to the cabinet but the women's organisations opposed to such a bill passed and resolved as a ground. The marriage which cannot work, should be cut off. No point in dragging the limping relationship for a life time.

Valentine ji's quote: 'The marriage which cannot work, should be cut off.'

I disagree to it, with due respect to Valentine ji.

This is in fact a unilateral and self serving conclusion/testimony of every petitioner, suitable to petitioner, which is implied. when a spose unilaterally claim that then only that spouse climbs the doorsteps of the court.

IrBM is always implied in every divorce case...because every petitioner asking for divorce claims to have come to that conclusion for reasons such as fault theory/frustration theory which is to be proved.

Ideal scenarios:: A spose tries all means to save marriage but comes to a stage that atrocilites become unbearable then spouse comes to conclusion to take divorce as a 'relief/remedy'.  But it needs to ascertain its veracity.

but It should not allowed to seek as an excuse to walkout. IrBM creates this loophole which is unpluggable by offering the carrot of maintenance also. life and time gone can not be compensated by maintenance.

IrBM makes unilateral conclusion of complaining spouse .....as a 'ground' itself.   this is outragous!!!

But this unilateral claim could be (most probably) malicious and scandalous as a ploy to 'walkout' of obligations!!! Hence it may be committing an injustice on to other sincere spouse..

Evolution of divorce and maintenance as compensation and fmale biased laws came into existance because...more often than not...males used to discard/get rid of their wives the moment they started feeling that 'attaction in their wife is lost owing to age etc etc etc'

Where these women were supposed to go????

Now with equality in opportunites and both gender conscious about material aspects....women are also started behaving in the same self serving/opportunistic manner.

Just because PM and cabinet took decision based on a doctored report in 1978 which was rejected completely by govt that time itself, and shrewdly ignoring/bypassing other elements from that report. ..and studying such cases which do not represent even remotely the masses (Navin Kohli vs Neelu Kohli ) and scalandalously generralising based on such exceptional cases..does not give any credibility ...people are not fools.

Another suggestion (although least likely to get accepted):: If people want IrBM as a additional ground, then pass this ground and make it applicable only for  those who weren't married till this ground was added (exclude words 'whether the marriage was solemnised or not at the time this amendment is incorporated' ) I am sure...even feminist wouldn't oppose to this way of implementation!!!!!

When The law of bigamy was passed ...it wasn't made applicable to those hindus who were already having more than one wedded wives!!!!.

Even some of the lawyers in 1954 were officially having more than one wife!!!!

One 'sincere' and one 'unwilling' can never make marriage work...

More often than not .... whome we try to denote through 'sincere' in above statement  are terrorist,  revengful,  uncompormising, spouse, who has nothing else to do but takie revenge from the other spouse. They would neither live together nor seperate.

It may be true that petitioner may alway claim IrbD ... but it is for court to decide whether there is breakdown beyond repair. Metrics like 3 years continious sepeartionis one of the such useful and obvious measure..

Amen to IrBD

Three years separation period is a sheer nonsense!!!

Avinash's  statement:

One 'sincere'(...towards other spouse, dedicated and hence selfless) and one 'unwilling'(for divorce and break-up for no fault of it's own) can never make marriage work......

Isn't it self contradicting?

Then..... who else remains there to make the marriage work?.....

(only 'run-away/uncommitted' category spouses vying for IrBM !!!!)

I am firm believer that It takes two sincere partners to make marriage a success. Please note no quotes  has been used here here

It my previous post.. sincere and unwilling were quoted.. because they were being explained in latter paragraphs.

And, by the way,  how did you find that statement contradictory?  I am still trying to understand cotradiction.. if there is one party unwillig in a relation.. that relation can not work... and probably there is no relation left.

Any logical reason to say number of years of seperation as seer non sense? ..

OK...OK

Did You mean to say that ......

One 'sincere' and (but) the (other) one 'unwilling' (to continue the marriage) can never make the marriage work.

If this is what........... you were trying to say then .......it may not be self contradicting........

I undersood it as.... 

One 'sincere'(...towards other spouse, dedicated and hence selfless) and (the same) one 'unwilling'(also for divorce and break-up for no fault of it's own) can never make marriage work....this was self contradicting.

Three year separation....

At least in HMA.....it is a bond/contract for the life (contracts are time bound and have exit clauses...hence as per Hindu religion and HMA marriage is sacrament......).

A Court Case for a lengthy duration.....it doesn't mean that 'relief' be granted without merits!!!

and ........................the other spouse, who is innocent, sincere (for patch-up) and unwilling (for break-up) be convicted and punished without a trial on proofs and ignoring merits of the case!!!........

You can't make three years separation as a valid proof....and also cover it up to exclude it from "taking advantage of one's own wrongs' .......People are not fools!!!!

Should we give-up Kashmir to Pakistan................. just because fighting is going on for fifty years!!!

Fifty years of fighting ...isn't that a good proof!!!.........so what  !!!! (sarcastically)..... if Pakistan  kept India bleeding for fifty years......... but India didn't blink to these scandalous tactics......Let's make an amendment in UN charter also!!!! of similar "Irr. Breakdown in Unity of a Soverign Land"..... to make a easy walk-out route for separatist!!

I see point of view.

The reason we differ in our opinion .. is you view divorce as an even where one party looses and another wins.

I see it as a contract... where breaking  of contract does not leave a winner or a looser. it simply meants  that there is no relevance of contract. 

Marriage can not be and should not be one way street....  you have got only one life... there is no point t in wasting prime of life in animosity, revenge and making other life uncomfortable....  if apple is bitter.. one should not be forced to finish it.

Please read the first line of my above post as

'I see your point of view.'

Dear  

The marriage where love, faithfulness, affection, trust, respect for each other do not exist what's the use of such a marriage. It adds to further agony to the disinterested party. Sometimes marriages take place under some wrong notions, ideologies and information which when revealed  later on make the marriage nothing more than a drag. Marriage should hold higher priority and respect above all other bindings but when it fails, it should come to an end. Woh afsana jise anjam tak lana na ho mumkin use ek khubsoorat mod dekar chhodana achha...