Divorce After Husbands Death?

Hmm.. law is more about common sense sometimes... 

courts simply complicate things in the name of  procedures..  :)

Dear Mr. Sathyan,

I was mentally answering your query.  But when I read the second sentence I was completely shaken and taken by surprise.    But reading the complete story revealed something else.

I guess you were too anxious to post the story and that too in a hurry.  That is why you state that

"Ths question (Can a divorce be granted a woman whose husband is dead) was answered affirmative by the Bombay High Court bench of justices BH.Marapalle and U.D.Savi recently on Monday the 11.10.2010.  [In fact the quetion was answered in the negative by the Bombay High Court]

If one reads the complete story, it is the other way round.  That is once a spouse dies, the question grant divorce does not arise!

[In the instant case while the Pune Family Court held that death of the husband will not alter the situation and hence granted the divorce; the High Court reversed the said decision.]

What the Court does?

Is it for her good or bad?

Dear Mr. Aravinthan,

What do you want to say - whether the Court should give a decision based on its intrepretation of  the law on the subject, or after knowing whether it is good or bad for a litigant?

Amazigng!!

CPC 1908, Order XX rule 1. Judgment when pronounced

The Court, after the case has bee heard, shall pronounce judgment in an open Court, either at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:
.......

.......

If one party is dead, the civil case 'sine die's

pleader's vakalatnama is implied that ... 'in absence of the party' 'means that party is alive but merely not able to be present in-person.

Pls correct me if I am wrong!

Divorce is remedy which relieves the aggrieved party from obligations legally towards to guilty spouse.

Death of the other spouse/guilty party automatically relieves the wronged party from those obligations. Where is the question of relief then?

I think annulment of marriage may be awarded as relief of rollback of status in a way, but not as divorced since b'cos Section13 of HMA and its wording there-in implies that other party being alive.

Suchitra ji.

Your comments kindly invited as you do the research/higher studies also

Dear Mr. Jamai of Law,

I appreciate that you want to say something in regard to the decision of the High Court.  Could you please explain what exactly the point that you want to make here, at least for the sake of my benefit.

Dear Mr. Jamai,

My above post is with reference to your first post, and not the latest one (since both of our posts crossed then).

dear adv.Ramchandran

Thanks for correcting .  The Bombay Highcourt answered the question in negative as you said when they said they reversed the Pune Family Court's order. 

When a thought over the issue in cool and calm i felt that the Pune Family court's decison is not also wrong.The estranged wife filed divorce petion which was convrted by her to mutual consent application when her husband lived. She withdrew it only after his death during the course of pendency of the petiton before the family court.

On one account i will say that the court honoured the dead man's last wish.  But behind the withdrwal i suspect of game of acquiring property as per sucession laws and family laws.

The appeal before the Highj court is also motivated by her lust to acuire the properties of her husaband by recourst to succession laws.  There is nothig wrong in claiming for right of properties of her husbnd. But it is an exmple how the inidividuals play the game of law to suit their convenience.

Whereas the High court felt that the case for divorse ends when one of the party dies during the pendency of the case, the Family court i think went behind the motive of withdrawal.

The only question now to be answered and thought provoking is in civil cases whether the court's ave jurissdiction to go behind the purpose of suit the hidden motives.

A.R.Sathyan

Dear Sir,

Firstly, Do correct me whereever I have gone wrong in understanding of codified statutes and procedures. I wud be glad to know whereever I went wrong in my views about it. I did write that in haste.

In both posts above, of mine, I was saying the HC was absolutely correct to rectify the mistake b'cos trial court did it erroneously.

In my first post above, Did I understand the order XX wrongly? Probably I did. Please let me know for my education as I did it in haste.

But all I was trying to say that  .... The relief claimed was of such a kind that 'right to sue' was very much dependent on 'whether the Respondent is alive or not?'

There is Order XXII also where it talks about whether 'right to sue survives or not' for the plaintiff against the defendent.

Yes Sathyan,

I do agree with you..!  May as per the law, the decision made by HC is correct.  But the motive behind the wife is malafide, becoz earlier they both agreed for MCD (in which she will not get succession rights).  As situation changed(husband died) , she appealed in HC and reversed the order and got widow status to get succession rights.

HELLOW,

IF THE DIVORCE CASE, PRESENTED BEFORE THE DEATH AND WITNESSES ARE COMPLETED THEN THE COURT MAY DECLARE THE RESULT BUT AFTER DEATH NO NEW CASE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT.

THE POSITION OF HER,AFTER DEATH OF A HUSBAND, IS WIDOW,

SHE IS FREE NOW. SHE IS SHARE HOLDER OF HER HUSBAND'S PROPERTY.

ONE CASE IS THERE BUT CAN NOT ABLE TO PUT REFERENCE.