LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Nitish Banka (lawyer)     08 June 2017

Divorce in india

Divorce in India.

There are two kinds of divorce in India one is contested divorce and the other one is the mutual consent divorce.

In the contested divorce the divorce proceedings are ugly and time consuming, apart from other proceedings your wife can lodge 498a, which is a terror on Indian men, its a criminal offence and is widely misused here are some guidelines if you are a victim of this. Here is another help a step by step method to solve 498a. There are many judgments in the favor of Indian men to get out of 498a. Quashing of 498a is another option. These days mediation is also helpful to fight this legal terrorism.

divorce in india

Other proceedings is maintenance u/s 125 crpc, read here to know about it and there are many ways to reduce this maintenance, even the order of interim maintainence can be challenged. Other proceedings includes the domestic violence proceedings which is also a misused provision when divorce is a contested on.

sometimes its better to give divorce to get out of legal complications.

The mutual consent divorce is the fastest way to get divorce, there are two motions which needs to pass after 6 months of first motion second motion must be filed within 18 months, 1 year separation is mandatory to get this form of divorce. Only SC can waive of 6 months period between 1st and second motion.

The divorce in India is bit complicated with women centric laws, its tough fight for men to contest a divorce in India.


 3 Replies

Dr. MPS RAMANI Ph.D.[Tech.] (Scientist/Engineer)     08 June 2017

For the welfare of the society, divorces should not be easy.  When divorces becomes easy, the new generation will be made of orphans and b*st*rds. And in the next generation divorces will become even faster.

Raveena Kataria (Advocate )     08 June 2017

That is a very strong opinion you hold, Dr. Ramani. Especially an ancient one.


When divorces becomes easy, the new generation will be made of orphans and b*st*rds.


To say this lacks serious foundation and seems short-sighted. 'Orphan' is not a term to be thrown around with such careless neglect of moral sense, divorce doesn't cause for the parents of the child to die, does it? Moreover, you wouldn't call someone a b*st*rd whose father had died. How does divorce change that?

It is indeed for the welfare of the society that divorce laws have witnessed such amendment in the recent past. 'Irretrievable breakdown of marriage' and 'divorce by mutual consent', though they make the grounds for divorce seem more flexible, are highly useful in the instances where the court finds that there's no hope for reconciliation between the couple, where the marriage appears to be dead emotionally and practically, and indeed where subjecting the child of such parents to the anguish and discomfort of their disfunctional marriage life is only likely to hamper the child's personal growth and future prospects.

It's for a reason that under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, there are several safeguards provided in cases where a petition for divorce, if it is obtained from the other party by fraud or undue influence, will vilify the section requirements and the court shall refuse to grant the relief. Not to mention that under 13(b), after filing of the petition, a period of 6-18 months is given in case either of the party wishes to withdraw their consent for divorce.

Increase in number of divorces doesn't reflect discord or increase in unrest in society. Many developed nations with lenient divorce laws are first-hand instances of that.

Democratic Indian (n/a)     08 June 2017

Originally posted by : Raveena Kataria
Increase in number of divorces doesn't reflect discord or increase in unrest in society. Many developed nations with lenient divorce laws are first-hand instances of that.

Raveena Ji fully agree with this view. Rather practical and sensible divorce laws is sign of individual liberty being respected in society. Even the most moralistic (modern “natural law”) and non-moralistic (“positivistic”) legal theorists today share a common moral goal: liberty/ autonomy. To prioritize individual liberty/ autonomy is to posit a common good and demand that society be structured for its promotion. This can be seen, for example, in the contemporary marriage laws in many common law countries, which allow either spouse to demand a unilateral “no-fault” divorce, prioritizing the liberty/ autonomy of the departing spouse over the other spouse’s desire for community and stability. Liberty/ autonomy in the sense of self-actualization and self-definition is taken as a metaphysical highest good (or right), ordering other, lesser goods (or rights). As the U.S. Supreme Court mused in its decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  We can and should, on this view, define and choose the nature and meaning of our own existence. And thus the Constitution, ought to be interpreted principally as an enactment for protection of individual liberty/ autonomy, must uphold this choice making quality of liberty/ autonomy, by forbidding laws that might intrude thereon. Academics, too, insist on the link between liberty/ autonomy and human dignity; Neumann, for example, insists on the necessity of privacy rights for human dignity, though he denies that this is a moral claim. Ref. Michael Neumann, The Rule of Law : Politicizing Ethics 56–57 (2002).

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register