divorce Vs children

'Is it not creuelty to them?'

Yes. definitely it is.

It is a sign of insensitivity.

Why narrow down to only children? Many others directly/indirectly suffer mentally, physically/ emotionally/ financially/ socially due to dispute between spouse to the level of divorce proceedings.

Law envisages that 'An aggrieved and innocent party (so called)' may claim the 'relief' on specified grounds.

But in practice and more or less!! ................... 

... The party claiming to be 'aggrieved' treats STATUTE as an 'excuse' to be able to walk out from the marriage (and thus, in fact, reverse engineer it, with an eye on 'relief' , and party travels backwards accordingly towards 'grounds made available in STATUTE'  and 'cruelty' is a very generic fitment!!) rather than 'relief' as a last remedy based on true facts!!

Who's called aggrieved? ----- The person who climbs the dorrstep of judiciary (although need not be innocent!!) 

At least,  One out of both  (and also both of them subsequently) is always a culprit in matrimonial dispute. There is no doubt about it.

@ Author

The fundamental que. when parents fighting over guardianship / custody of children are well

laid in Indian as well as English Jurisprudence as;

The State Interest: Parens Patriæ is the doctrine under which the state alleges an interest in the care and custody of children (and others not competent to represent their own interests). This doctrine, literally asserting that the king is the parent of the state, was formulated in England in the thirteenth century to assert the state’s role as guardian of those who were mentally incompetent. The notion that the king (or the
government) is the parent of the entire state is quaint; the assertion that the state has a compelling interest in the care, nurturing, and

……….The classical interpretation, for example, might appear to receive support from the fact the rights of parents over their children are limited, potentially override able, fiduciary rights. For suppose that, ab initio, these rights reside in the state under the doctrine of parens patriæ and are entrusted by the state to the natural or adoptive parents. This seems to explain nicely the fiduciary aspect of the rights, why the rights are limited and why the state retains the right to judge when the parents have violated the trust. The state, on this account, is the trustor. As such, the state can set the terms and limits of the trust relationship, specify the ends for which it is constructed, and retain the right to determine when it has been violated.

………..Does not the state have, under the doctrine of parens patriæ, a responsibility to exercise parental rights for the benefit of the children? Can the state, unlike the parent, do no wrong in the exercise of its parens patriæ authority? Are there no limits on this authority? I believe that the state is at least as bound by considerations of the interest of the child as are the parents. The state’s right over children is both limited and non-absolute, as is the parents’.

(Re.: “PARENTAL RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS” THE JOURNAL OF LAW AND FAMILY STUDIES VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2 (1999), pp. 123–150 UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF LAW)

Indian Family Law works on fault theory hence settled Law is there to help such unfortunate

children when stupid parents case emerges which STATE should exercise.