FLAT 20% OFF and 3-Months ADDED Validity on All Courses Absolutely FREE! Enroll Now Use Code: INDIA20
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     19 September 2010

IrBM - Call for Public Opinion

@ Readers


1.
Those of you who are interested to send your opinion FOR / AGAINST IrBM may do so URGENTLY as per below two issues emerging out of the IrBm (Amendment) Bill, 2010.

 

Issue 1: "To provide for a right to wife to oppose the petition for divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage on the ground of hardship.


Issue 2:  "T
o ensure provision of adequate maintenance to children born out of the marriage before granting a decree of divorce "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://164.100.47.5/webcom/MainPage.aspx
Date of Publication : 18th September, 2010
Last date for Submitting Memorandum : 2nd October, 2010
DEPARTMENT RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
INVITES SUGGESTIONS
ON
THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010


The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, introduced in Rajya Sabha on the 4th August, 2010 and pending therein, has been referred to the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, headed by Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan, Member, Rajya Sabha for examination and report.


2. The Bill, inter-alia, seeks to provide irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a new ground for grant of a decree of divorce by making amendments in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.


3. With this objective in view, the Bill proposes to make the following amendments:-


(a) to insert section 13C in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 28A in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to provide for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.


(b) to insert section 13D in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 28B in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to provide for a right to wife to oppose the petition for divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage on the ground of hardship.


(c) to insert section 13E in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 28C in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to ensure provision of adequate maintenance to children born out of the marriage before granting a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage; and


(d) to amend sub-section (2) of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and sub-section (2) of section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 so as to do away with the waiting period of six months for moving a joint motion after filing a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent.


4. The Committee has decided to invite memoranda containing views/suggestions from the individuals/organizations interested in the subject matter of the Bill and also to hear select oral evidence on the subject matter of the Bill.


5. Those desirous of submitting memoranda to the Committee may send two copies thereof, neatly typed in double space (either in English or Hindi) to Shri K.P. Singh, Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, 201, Second Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi-110001 (Tel: 23034201, Fax: 23016784,


E-mail:
kpsingh(@)sansad.nic.in and rs-cpers@sansad.nic.in) within fifteen days of publication of this advertisement. Those who are willing to appear before the Committee for oral evidence besides submitting the memorandum may indicate so.


However, the Committee's decision in this regard shall be final.


6. The memoranda submitted to the Committee, would form part of the records of the Committee and be treated as confidential. Any violation in this regard would constitute a breach of privilege of the Committee.


7. The Bill has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II,Section 2, dated the 4th August, 2010. Copies of the Bill can be had on written request to the above-mentioned Officer or can be downloaded from the official website of the Rajya Sabha (https://rajyasabha.nic.in), under the cap



Learning

 13 Replies

rajesh (officer)     19 September 2010

“to insert section 13D in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and section 28B in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to provide for a right to wife to oppose the petition for divorce on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage on the ground of hardship.”

 

With reference to the above proposed provision, please note that keeping on adding the privileges to wife in all Acts amounts to gender bias and deterioration of the condition of husband, who will become a slave at the mercy of wife. Time will come when men will stop thinking of marrying officially, rather they would like to go for paid s*x for their physical need and renting a surrogate womb for their need of offspring.

 

Please remove all such privileges to women, also in all existing Acts and laws like DV Act, HAMA, HMA, Cr PC, IPC etc, to avoid those days from coming. Today’s women are not weaker s*x. Or wherever they are really weak, they can be given special protection, rather than extending such protection in general to all and even to those who are capable. Experience so far has revealed that mostly the capables only take wrong advantage of such benefits, and like in most govt. schemes, the real underprivileged and illiterate women fall prey to heinous activities like disrobing in public and so and so forth. For the fault of those demons, please don't punish the common man, who, if all goes well, sincerely strives for the livelihood of family and wife. In most cases, the wives are enjoying life with the money hard earned by their husbands, and usually saved from the toiling for earning livelihood. Law makers may please take cogizance of these facts before imposing any new adverse provisions against men.

 

 

-- Citizen of Republic of India.

1 Like

Sakshi Sakshi (Self employed)     19 September 2010

I oppose this Amendment Bill entirely and in its entirety. This amendment is absolutely unnecessary and on the contrary it is actually like a impending pandemic or a curse to Indian Society.

 

The amendment saught is obsolete as it is based on a redundent report no 71, made almost 30 years back and which was shown the dust bean.

 

The latest report no. 217 also did explicitly say that 'it should never ever allow anyone to take advantage of his/her own wrongs' which is conveniently set aside but which is a gist of the report. ALSO the report studied only such cases which were falling the category of 'rare' and hence failed to represent masses.

 

The amendment saught is dangerous and attempt to change the definition of Hindu religion, tradition of Hindu Religion, becos of some unminful politician who aren't simply bothered of the far reaching implications of such law which is actually going to stirr the society (This is not amendment bill but a law which is going to change the society upside down)

The Hindu religion and the Hindu society has already made provisions in the law for those who think that 'the marriage is merely a contract' by section13B where they are free to make first motion equipped with appropriate clauses related to.....Section13B(2) - (in ref. to default by any party or failure to be present by any party) Parties are at liberty to to give such undertaking during the first motion itseft and safegaurd themselves. Anyways, both parties safegaurd themselve e.g. give-up/forego their rights about maint, any future litigations/pending suits against each other etc etc in the joint petition.

While filing the first motion itself both parties are well aware that either party can either withdraw the petition or even remain absent,

And the law hasn't stopped them to put the safegaurds in place through the joint undertaking/first motion.

So its a litigant's duty to ensure that they safegaurd themselves of such scenarios (if not...else conditions) in the first joint motion itself, atleast to cover 'the absentism' of any party e.g. 'I am fully aware of the provision of 13B and my rights and I hereby undertake that if I not am present in-person or through any POA for scheduled hearing within 6-12 months, it should be construed as my NO Objection to granting divorce' ......................in layman's words. Contact us for such fullproof clauses and its legal drafting.....

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     20 September 2010

Some revised take after the previous discussion on board already here as in 2 defunct links off-late re-discovered;



https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/irretrievable-breakdown-of-marriage-20208.asp

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-Re-The-Marriage-Laws-Amendment-Bill-2010-22353.asp?1=1&offset=1



@ Sakshi.Mind



Any non violent protest from your end to following application of generic mind of this author to burning generic issue under Family Law ? [
J]



The proposed Bill totally ignores the Law Commission’s 71st report and gives no reasonable justification of choosing the period of separation as 3 years instead of 5 years as suggested by Law Commission’s 71st report. It is extremely unfortunate that it seems that such a Bill and a clause has been hurriedly introduced, without any public debate, just to satisfy the case of the daughter of Minister.  Just a few days back there were allegations as reported in the Media that one of the Minister was trying to bring her own daughter into a government job and subsequently the entire incident got exposed in the Media. No doubt, the outgoing CVC chief has said that 30% Indians totally corrupt, while 50% borderline.

 


Suggestion # 1:



Section 13 C(2) should be reworded as under:

The court hearing a petition referred to in sub-section (1) shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless it is satisfied that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of not less than five years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

 


Again, this Bill unfortunately excludes the possibility that a woman can also be a cause of any sort of marital discord and financial hardship can also be faced by the husband. It just takes into consideration that irrespective of the fact on who is petitioning for the divorce, it the husband who is assumed to be one guilty of breaking the marriage and relief can be claimed unconditionally only by the wife.

 


This Bill would be widely misused as the husband will be forced to ‘buy’ a divorce, while the wife can choose to walk out, at her whims and fancies.  Moreover this Bill totally excludes the possibility that the husband can also face financial hardship. The current concept of gender neutrality like that of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which takes into consideration that both, the husband and the wife can face financial hardship has been totally ignored in this Bill, specially in this section.

 


The present Section 13D of the Bill, reduces the husband to a mere witness to the proceedings, even when he is facing financial hardship. Husbands will be thus forced to pay their way out to wife’s and this will lead to condition as similar to the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in misuse of 498a as “Legal Terrorism”.

 


However in cases where the wife is petitioner for divorce and where she may also be guilty of adultery, or crime against the husband and his family or misuses the other gender biased legislations like 498a and DV, she can easily choose to just walk away from the divorce without having to satisfy any conditions whatsoever. In other words the husband will have absolutely no defense and will be stuck with court cases like 498a and DV, running for years on, while the wife can happily get the divorce as she likes.  Moreover there would be cases where the husband is all in will to save his marriage, but under the present format of the Bill, the husband will not have any legal remedy to save his marriage.  The Government is thus forcing a Divorce on an unwilling husband just because the wife want’s it (or rather one Minister’s daughter wants it) and thus the husbands will have absolutely no legal remedy, relief or right, even to oppose the same, even for the sake of his children. This is simply shocking!

 


Moreover this Bill is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL and it takes away all the rights of the husband, even to defend himself or even to save his own marriage. A wife would stay away from the husband and would automatically get a divorce by default after 3 years, without any fault of the husband who would also have no right or say altogether on the same. Article 15 of the Constitution of India, prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion and s*x, which is exactly this Bill is currently heading for. Article 15 (3) of the Constitution allows laws to be drafted for Women, but that does not mean it has to be done by openly violating Article 15 of the Constitution and that also taking away all the rights of the husbands, even the right to defend himself and save his own marriage, which is blatantly unconstitutional.

 


It is even more shocking that when on one hand the Government talks of Gender Neutrality in all Laws, the same Government on the other hand the is now trying to frame laws which are horribly gender biased.

 


Moreover the Law Commission’s 71st Report was drafted way back in 1978, when biased laws like 498a and DV Act were not in existence which were enforced only in 1983 and 2006. Hence Law Commission had not considered quashing of such cases against husband and his families as a precondition at that time, while granting divorce under Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage.

 


Currently more than 3 crore cases are pending before various courts. The National Mission for Delivery of Justice and Legal Reforms in its blueprint for Judicial Reforms have suggested the top two cases which are presently choking the dockets of magisterial and specialized courts, are:

 


1. Matrimonial cases.

2. Cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 


Quashing all cases between the husband and wife while granting divorces under Irretrievable Breakdown Marriage, would immediately reduce the crores of pending cases in courts.

 


Suggestions # 2:

Section 13D (1) should be reworded as under

13D. (1) Where the husband or the wife is the respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13C, he or she may oppose the grant of a decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial or other hardship to him or her and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage.

All cases pending, between the parties choking the dockets of magisterial and specialized courts, as also identified as the top two types of cases, in the Blueprint for Judicial Reforms, would also be quashed before granting divorce under Section 13C

 


Child custody and visitation rights should also be decided while granting divorce under Section 13 C

Child custody and visitation rights should also be decided before granting divorce, while deciding maintenance of the child under this Bill.

 


Suggestion # 3:

Section 13 E should be reworded as under:

13E. The court shall not pass a decree of divorce under section 13C unless the court is satisfied that adequate provision for the visitation and custody and maintenance of children born out of the marriage has been made consistently with the financial capacity of the parties to the marriage.

 


In view of the above, Gender Human Rights Society (Regd.) submits that the Union Government may take the following steps immediately

 


1) That special provision should be made in the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, to meet the case of your petitioner (s) to ensure that both spouses may oppose the grant of a decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to them and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage, with the amount of financial hardship, being decided by the Court, based on the merits of the case.

 


2) That special clauses should be inserted in the Bill so that all litigation between the parties are quashed before divorce is granted under this Bill, including but not limited to child custody and visitations between the husband and the wife.


Keep smiling...........

Manohar (Engineer)     09 June 2014

More and more husband  Hindu family members will commit sucide. Many of them in future surrender their citizenship in stead of living as accused and wandering corrupt police station, lier office, corrupt judicial system building.


(Guest)

NDA inherits pending bills from UPA-2
Hindustan Times, May 30, 2014

The new government has inherited a pile of pending legislations and will have to take a call on nearly 60 bills from the previous Lok Sabha, the most disruptive in the country’s history.

Advertisement Of the 128 pending bills, 60 proposed legislations pending in Rajya Sabha are the ones that would be carried forward, on which the NDA government will have to take a call. Rest 68 bills pending in Lok Sabha or the lower house have lapsed — or lost validity — with the house being dissolved.

Key bills that have expired include includes The Women’s Reservation Bill, The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 and The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010.

Such “lapsed” bills also include The Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2010, The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Bill, 2011, The Public Procurement Bill, 2012 and The Micro Finance Institutions (Development and Regulation) Bill, 2012.

Of the 60 Bills that the NDA may choose to work on includes 11 originating in health ministry, the highest. These include Bills such as The Mental Health Care Bill, 2013, The Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2013, The Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill, 2013, The Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention And Control) Bill, 2014.

Among crucial bills that the NDA government must work on includes the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013 and The Readjustment of Representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies (3rd) Bill, 2013.

This news can also be viewed at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/

DV Act Buster (CEO)     11 June 2014

The IRBM Bill as drafted by the previous Congress government has Lapsed in the Lok Sabha. https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-marriage-laws-amendment-bill-2010-1227/

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     11 June 2014

Shameless husbands who commit suicide ..selfish are those useless sons who commit suicide...bl**dy hell why has this man to commit suicide ..Don't they have their parents.. can they not live for their parents happiness... Suicide can still make sense once their parents are dead... these useless craps have no business to end their lives making their parents life a more living HELL.If these useless morons can gauge the plight in their parents eyes.. they will not commit suicides.. freaking useless idiots.

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     11 June 2014

Live for your parents guys..Live for them ... if you commit suicide .. your old parents though want to follow suit cannot do the same ... as they are ever reliant on you for even ordering the suicide pill or to throw a rope on the ceiling fan.

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     12 June 2014

:) my sweet heart... i would have nothing to do with LCI had I not faced these frivoluus cases.Suicide is not either a solution or option.There are galore of solutions not options... first and foremost fight out your case and live for the ones who need you.Suicide is not a solution but a easy selfish option.atma bhatakte hi rahega....

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     12 June 2014

bl**dy hell ... be a man... a man.. see a cancer patient with a stage 4 disease still wanting to live for that one extra day... are you more afflicted than them...be a man 

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     12 June 2014

and you dont have to wish me dear..The almighty has already wished this  for me..

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     12 June 2014

now coming straight to the point... you timid ... dont ever advertise suicide or talk of it.... you could not be a husband... try to become a worthwhile son...

Gautam Kapoor (IT professional Studying Law)     12 June 2014

jaan dena hi hain to jaa border pe aur apne saath hazaar desh ke dushman ko apne saath le ja... atleast tere parents tere pe garv karenge .... samjha...


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query