Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sign petition: irretrievable breakdown a grounds for divorce

Page no : 2

Jamai Of Law (propra)     20 April 2012

 

This amendment is an illusion side effects are more than the audience which really wants it .......... Had it been nicely drafted for those really wanted it ...then it was OK ...

 

 

Had this law been targeting only those.... who are vying for it (i.e. both spouse willing to get rid of the sickening ordeal in court) then it was a good law......... otherwise it is curse!!

 

 

 

But one can not slap/enforce any prejudicing/biased law.... which is certainly to be at the detriment of one ............ and a suitable selfserving excuse for run-away-spouse!!!! 

 

 

 

This law is discriminatory and based on bias , conjectures and suspisions and prejudice against the party who was honest in his/her efforts.

 

 

 

Else liberalise the labour laws and all other MACT and insurance laws also !!!! .... why to protect any social institutions????  (if there is no certainty of social structure ....then why to have provisions for dependents etc etc .... all are given choice to walkout at their free willl)

 

 


 

Better make the Divorce as a registration process like a marriage (why bl**dy have useless judicial intervention if anyways it is not going to protect the social structure any more)

 

 

Currently it is behaving as of it has opened an employment beauro for lawyers and keep all suits lingering for years.


 

 

The amendment bill is absurd.

 

 

Else make all different amendments/provisions for ....................

 

  • Those having no kids/issues...............
  •  
  • Those married for less than 3 yrs , 6, 9 yrs etc etc
  •  
  • Those having no shared properties during the marriage .............. those who forego on monetary entitlements ........................
  •  

 

We CAN NOT make a general amendment which impacts the whole spectrum of issues.

 

 

It may be  a seigh of relief for a few (and a few only and hell for many many others)...........but it is unmindful and (and those who think it is a good law are also unmindful!!!) ....................................... it opens a pandora of many other ill effects from many perspectives.

 

 

 

There is no guarantee that after this amendment suit won't continue for years!!!!

 

 

There are many ways by which suits and whole proceedings are kept continued ................ and in appeals as well.

 

 

NOW A DAYS WOMEN don't need lawyers as well....................... THE INFORMATION AGE give them all the necessary info to them and they can fight it all along up to Supreme Court.....

 

 

Hence at the end the those who want to have a closure to this are again left remedyless...........................

 

 

I guarantee that even after this amendment manages to sneak through by deceit and ill-propaganda (godforbidden) .........it won't solve the issue.


 

If judge decides 'NOT to take a decision!!! ........... OR  if party decides to fight it in appeal and for every other means to get it prolonged .......... untill appeal etc is decided one is restrained from even remarrying ............. mind well of these facts!!!!

 

 

 

One caveat and injuctive order, during appeal (revision etc), would refrain person seeking to break the knot from restarting his so called 'new life' etc and (I really wonder whether there would be any  restrart in reality!!!!!..... The Question is ............ who would get into such a deal (again after having through such an experience) where either party has a right to walk out for no reason in the first place....!!!! )

 

 

 

So this amendment is an illusion and actually a 'beating around the bush'................... in addition it is making situation more mercier, clumsier ....................... and it would literally stir the whole social structure (side effects are more than targeting only those who are vying for it)

 

 

 

 

 

 


(Guest)

Dear JOL .... I liked your name mate :-) .......Cheers !!

1 Like

threeleafe (awaited)     20 April 2012

I can not support this gender biased law.   Simply  because wives will have freedom to dump husband at will and with impunity and some of the husbands who can not be tortured may get easy divorce - while leaving or subjecting remaining  husband masses for additional torture.

 

A law should be fair or should not be there.

1 Like

Sreenath (Engineer)     22 April 2012

I agree with threeleafe.
A law should be fair or should not be there !!
 

rajiv_lodha (zz)     22 April 2012

And I believe that Judges will definitely tllt 2wards fair s*x in deciding property with so much of discretionary powers.

See in 498a +406, the lower courts seldom give AB/NB to the hubby despite of the fact that most of these judges know that these are false cases!

They never use their powers to prtect husbands..............u may say families as a broad term.

Most of the marriages undergo ir-reversible breakdown when innocent husbands+aged parents are lodged in PS/jails for a few days d/t false 498a complaints. Lot of families can be saved if AB is provided so that accused presents his defence without being arrested.

No body can expect BALANCED APPROACH from judiciary if such disrectionary power to divide property is given to judges in this IRBM ammendment!

BHARATI MITRA (ES)     23 April 2012

Aditya - I agree with Jamaika of Law, the law should be made in such a way that it should have clarity for case to case ... such as

Else make all different amendments/provisions for ....................

  • Those having no kids/issues...............
  •  
  • Those married for less than 3 yrs , 6, 9 yrs etc etc
  •  
  • Those having no shared properties during the marriage .............. those who forego on monetary entitlements ........................

And yes agree with threeleafe, 'Fair Law or no Law'

naren (Consulltant)     03 May 2012

@Jamaioflaw,

good news for you as the bill getting passed is very unlikely now as the opposition along with various UPA allies have opposed the bill. However unlike you they don't think that amendments are anti-men but because they think that it anti-women. So I guess whenever bill will be passed it will be more anti-men only. In current amendments atleast if wife is unable to prove financial hardship, husband could have expected divorce easily but these men also lost the opportunity.

Many in this forum consider amendments to be gender biased and so is opposition (parliament) but ironically gender is different.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register