Hma amendment biill 2013 oassed by rajya sabha

does the passage of bill go the other way round,

some people suggest that it has been already passed in loksabha, only rajyasabha was pending until yesterday, which it got passed.

now only president approval is pending...is this correct, or does it still needs to be passed in loksabha??

I think that the language  "at the time of passing of the decree" makes it unambiguously prospective. If the decree of divorce is already passed and appeals exhausted, then it is no longer applicable. If a decree of divorce is not already passed, then there is ambiguity whether it can be applied to ongoing proceedings, decree on appeal, etc 

Also, I do not think that it will be passed in LokSabha. All the UP and Bihar MPs will have a heart attack giving 50% of their properties to their wives or daughter-in-laws (which is the more likely scenario as the new bibis are not like Rabri Devis!. 

Need clarification on below questions pls a. What about ongoing divorce proceedings. Would it be applicable. b. What about divorce granted but appeal pending? b. What about proceedings in which divorce is granted and finalized after appeal but maintenance issues remain?

I think the plain language of the amendment as posted here suggests that whatever relief is granted must be granted at the time of the decree of divorce.  If that language had not been there, then it would have been left to interpretations.  So, if the decree is passed then thats it. If appealed, it is still too late because the time of passing the decree has passed by the time the appeal is filed.  Also, it is unthinkable otherwise because the trial took place with one law in mind and an amended law cannot be applied in appeal. The argument that DV was applied retroactive is not applicable here because DV was a new Act not an amendment. 

In any case, like any other law or amendment, it will stabilize after a few Supreme Court decisions come out...  But the presence of simple language is important to anticipating any arguments. The plain language cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court.  Some words appear to be noise but have a lot of significance. The "at the time of passing of the decree" is a very important clause. 

I am NOT an advocate but I think this is more a case of language interpretation.  Also, we are yet to know the final language. It can get changed along the way if ever it become law... Shh... Quiet! Lets not wake the ladies up... There are loopholes in it!!!

"...such compensation which shall include a share in his share of the immovable property (other than inherited or inheritable immovable property) and such amount by way of share in movable property, if any, towards the settlement of her claim, as the court may deem just and equitable, and while determining such compensation the court shall take into account the value of inherited or inheritable property of the husband."

Also, there is no indication as to how much share is "just and equitable."  It certainly does not say 50%. So, well, good advocates (a oxymoron) will become even more pricey. 

It is applicable only to IRBM. Not to any other sections of the divorce.

13F (1) Without prejudice to any custom or usage or any other law for the time being in force, the court may, at the time of passing of the decree under section 13C on a petition made by wife, order that the husband shall give for her and children as defined in section 13E, such compensation which shall include a share in his share of the immovable property (other than inherited or inheritable immovable property) and such amount by way of share in movable property, if any, towards the settlement of her claim, as the court may deem just and equitable, and while determining such compensation the court shall take into account the value of inherited or inheritable property of the husband. (2) Any order of settlement made by the court under sub-section (1) shall be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the husband. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Does this means inherited and inheritable is not included ?????? Also, does this means that this includes husband's property only ???? And what about parental property ??? Anyone having idea on these 3 questions ??

I have two questions

Has this already been passed in Lok Sabha or its still pending ?

Will this be applicable for ongoing cases also or only new cases ?

I hold a contrarian view on widespread possible misuse of IRBM. I feel both husband and wife will mostly use 13C only when marriage is really dead. Husbands will avoid it for obvious reasons. Wives divorcing husband on grounds of IRBM will find it next to impossible to find another BAKRA for remarriage after this bill becomes law. I think no one here will marry a divorced women who has extracted her ex husbands hard earned money under 13c. Because prospects of "it could be his turn tomorrow" would be too frightening to venture into marriage with such women. Regards Ashok

Ashok, you will be surprised what tricks a divorced woman can pull to get another BAKRA. We men just have to be careful. Start by saying that you have no money and that all your properties are actually your brother's, etc.   

Sameer my personal opinion is that one should keep a mile distance from divorced woman(even if he himself is divorcee or widower). Reason is that in majority of cases a woman gets/takes divorce after having explored all the gender biased laws(498a/DV and now13C). Hence in India in my opinion divorced woman(with due apology to all innocent divorced women) is likely to be the most dangerous creature to bed or wed with. Regards Ashok

One day, my lawyer showed me a lady, who is already divorced 2 times and fighting another divorce case in court now.

Ashok, having gone through one divorce, I only take a woman to "bed" who has no need to "wed." I had more "bad" than "bed" in my first "wed."

i agree with ashok..........after getting divorce under 13c, no one is gonna take risk of marrying with her again.

1. No need to panic. Because  3 years separation is needed.

2.In case of  irretrivable marriage, it is applicable.

3. If there is kid then the question"if wife is earning" is not necessary.

4. No scope of misuse.