LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
The Indian Constitution Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Unbiased Advice (Advocate)     05 August 2010

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010

Please the The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 PDF File attached to this message for complete details!



Learning

 153 Replies

Y V Vishweshwar Rao (Advocate )     05 August 2010

Thanks  Sir

Siddharth Kulkarni (Software professional)     05 August 2010

Thanks for sharing this. I have a query. As per my understanding, correct me if iam wrong, this ammendment was introduced to obtain a no-fault divorce without accusing each other. One applies for divorce on the grounds of IBD after satisfying subsection 2 of 13C. How will the court be satisfied of sub-section 3 of 13 c for it get convinced that the marriage is really broken down? Do the spouses need to again adhere to mudslinging for the court to be satisfied?

Another question. After 3 years of separation, last feb 2009, i applied for divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty.  We have a child out of the marrriage. The case is still going on. No 498a, CRPC 125, DV or any other cases but the divorce. How can i covert this to IBD ground to avoid mudslinging? Does 498a, DV masala needs to be there for the court to get convinced about IBD?

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     05 August 2010

Thanks

1 Like

(Guest)

Some early takes on IBM, 2010 The Bill’ from Urban spouse:


My Take A: The IBM, 2010 is to facilitate a Hindu wife speedy divorce on IBM grounds if there is a 3 years separation and is not going to facilitate a Hindu husband at all in current form.


My Take B:
 Flop side view is; is there any fine prints anywhere in the proposed IBM, 2010 that prevents a working Hindu wife from holding up the divorce on pretext of being subject to "financial hardship in IBM, 2010"? I say fine prints only in financial documentation (maint. / alimony / child custody). Now what if, if she is a decent earner, then this IBM, 2010 is just plain crazy relief given only to a urban Hindu wife as complimentary relief (supplementary being DV / S. 125 CrPC / 498a IPC / S. 24 HMA means you file these and let the Urban Hindu husband get engaged in Courts and Courts for next 3 years and then file IBM, 2010 as it says separation of 3 years and quickie you get a Divorce what a grand logic Mr. Moily you have presented before Rajya Sabha?). Who will go on for IBM, 2010? - Only the urban wife’s because rural wife’s are still living under age old customs and traditions and I challenge readers to deny this Fact which is there own, had it not been so then what was the need to project such Amendment ! Is there a representation of rural wifes’ in such Bills -.NO - RTI reply revealed that no representation from any status / class taken to present the IBM, 2010 Bill – did I hear shocking ha ha


My Take C: 
Flip side view is; if the husband seeks IBM, 2010 the wife can stop it demanding money. Yes she has “rights” to put such demands. There goes the “duties” for a toss. If the wife files she will get even if the husband opposes it and the husband cannot demand any money from the wife under IBM, 2010 irrespective of his status at the time of instituting a IBM, 2010 suit. When did the Law Commission start recommend this sort of a "gender bias" that also in Hindu Marriage Act? I mean I was confident that this is one Act which is still “gender neutral”, but I am deeply shattered to hear presentation of such Bills on such gender biasness.


My Take D:
Now, interpreting Law Commission of India report quoted by Mr., Moily (passionately) for presenting before Rajya Sabha proposed enactment of IBM, 2010, I say he is overshoot his praise for a Urban Hindu wife by misguiding entire Parliament a toss to anti thesis to settled cannons of matrimonial Law across “international jurisprudence” on same subject and the reference used by him of Law Commission of India points to a 1973 law, clause 5 (also see Law Commission of India Report page no.39 and 41 readers must do a intent and object meaning study to understand what I am saying here before murdering my democratic free speech rights).


Now I point readers directly to see the actual wordings of The English Act 1973, Clause 5 as quoted by Law Commission further curtsey Mr. Moily (let us read them here in below weblink which is also reproduced verbose) 

https://www.opsi.gov.uk/revisedstatutes/acts/ukpga/1973/cukpga_19730018_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g5

5. Refusal of decree in five year separation cases on grounds of grave hardship to respondent”


(1)
The respondent to a petition for divorce in which the petitioner alleges five years' separation 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 and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage.


(2)
Where the grant of a decree is opposed by virtue of this section, then-


(a)
if the court finds that the petitioner is entitled to rely in support of his petition on the fact of five years' separation and makes no such finding as to any other fact mentioned in section 1(2) above, and


(b)
if apart from this section the court would grant a decree on the petition, the court shall consider all the circumstances, including the conduct of the parties to the marriage and the interests of those parties and of any children or other persons concerned, and if of opinion that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial or other hardship to the respondent and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage it shall dismiss the petition.


(3)
For the purposes of this section hardship shall include the loss of the chance of acquiring any benefit which the respondent might acquire if the marriage were not dissolved.


If so far so good then let me take readers to see actually The English Act 1973 by clicking below weblink as actually quoted by Law Commission intended to make some logic on recommendations of IBM the genesis still lis there so to speak
 
https://www.opsi.gov.uk/revisedstatutes/acts/ukpga/1973/cukpga_19730018_en_1


Respected readers if you have read this much then have more divine patience to hear at the end a supplementary crude saying from lath maar village India “chit bhi meri, patt bhi meri aur dhela bhi merai” literal translation of this in common husband's English is ; “I say YES, I also say NO and I also say MAY BE” so who THE divine self you are to interpret it as you may Please His Excellency Mr. Moily !!!!!!  After all, benefits of a marriage law amendments should also reach the masses – the rural India too, well is it not the same logic given here by various ld. Members of LCI forum in other recent posts under Family Law?, now who is biased and misinterpreting settled cannons of matrimonial Law which I say should always be “gender neutral”. This is my logic.
J


So Sir / Madam readers (see I am unbiased so far) now my question is:- “is a common urban husband sitting duck to sit tight and allow this biased Law to hit him in the days to come just to please Mrs. Shinde...Nopes….. I say….....!”


Hopefully now readers may have their own gyan (read logics) on this buring matter so to speak and let us hear them (unabashedly).

Thank you.

With regards,
D. Arun Kumar,
New Delhi
PS.: I have a 8 years old diagnosed matrimonial cancer and above is just warm-up takes on who actually needs free doses of chemotherapy of IBM, 2010 more than Mrs. Shinde JJJJJJJ

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     05 August 2010

SORRY ARUN JI,

MRS SHINDE HAS NO MATRIMONIAL PROBLEM, BUT HER DAUGHTER MS.SMRITI HAS THE SAME.


(Guest)

Sh. Arup ji,

Thank you, I stand corrected BTW Mrs. Smriti Shinde is equal to Mrs. Shinde is it not so politically correct so to say OR is it chivalrously correct to refer a Mrs. as Ms. oops well I see some problem with urban empowerment here Sir but okies your correction well taken for future quotings !

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     05 August 2010

 

SH ARUN JI,

LOOKING YOU MORE YOUNG YAAR.

sivani (engineer)     06 August 2010

What is everyone going on about it benefitting the urban woman? This is all rubbish. What if the husband is having an affair and wants to get rid of the wife to get married again. If the wife is a school teacher earning a meagre salary while the husband is earning lakhs and lakhs.  she will be shown not to be in grave finacial hardship if the marriage breaks while the husband goes scot free without responsibility and marries again and the wife suffers not only in the society but also has to forego the lifestyle she was used to living with the husband and that too for no fault of her own.  What a easy exit for men who by nature are promiscous.

Parth Chandra (none)     06 August 2010

@Sivani,

I fully agree with your thought that such a husband should not be allowed to go free....but here the wife has right to oppose at least on the ground of extrem financial hard-ship....Moreover...could you also please let us know your thoughts on below points

1) What if husband is job-less or earning less than wife...and wife is using this bill for divorce?....should court allow her to take divorce whereas husband even can't oppose that?

2) What if wife was living in adultery....and thats why husband left her (Though husband can't proov the adultery as its very difficult to prove).....now Wife has filed all the women favoured biased laws like 498a, crpc 125, DV etc. on husband and both are living saparately.....Court might have announced maintenance in several cases....now after 3 years of separation...can husband use this ground?.....in that case can wife oppose it on the basis on grave financial hard-ship?.....what is the solution for such husband?

Thoughts of other Ld. members are also invited

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     06 August 2010

ms shivani,

you wrote you are engineer, but your above posting shows that you are teacher.

it is difficult to understand from a net post, untill the opposite comes.

you should ask maintenance from your husband at court.

i think you already done.  

sivani (engineer)     06 August 2010

@pc  Please understand the likelyhood of the first case as that against the second and the numbers.   We are in a society where women still give back seat to their careers after getting married and there are always glass ceilings for them There are few exceptions like the pepsi ceo but mostly it's still the man who is the primary provider.  Check out the ratio of what i am saying and what you are.  A Woman's pay even in urban areas is mostly to add frills to the lifestyle of the couple.   There is more likelyhood of what i have said and more likely that a woman suffers from this law.  Stop talking of exceptions and talk about most of the cases.  Do you think it is easy to prove adultery when husband commits it. 

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     06 August 2010

pc,

 

2) What if wife was living in adultery....and thats why husband left her ..................  ..

 

you are absolutely right. thanks for the same.

Parth Chandra (none)     06 August 2010

@Sivani,

In the case which you claim most of the time happens....there are many ways a wife can deal with it and have been doing..
1) 498a
2) DV
3) Crpc 125 and other maintenance cases

Now coming to your logic that since the case mentioned by you is more likely only we should look at those possiblities...and should not at the other side of the coin...

My childish questions to you are ...
1) Wife can claim maintenance if she wants to live separate or if husband deserts.
2) Wife can claim various protection, residential rights etc....even if she is at fault and husband can't do anything about it.
3) If husband does adultery, wife can live separately and ask for maintenance even without proving the adultery done by husband!
4) If wife does adultery and husband objects it wife can file numerous cases against entire family of husband, still can ask for maintenace without prooving anything!
5) If husband is fedup with wife, he can't do anything about it
6) If wife is fedup with husband, she can do everything mentioned in point 4)

As above laws were not enough to protect the rights of women (even if she is at the wront end), the government is introducting these biasness even in divorce and you seems to be justifying that.....my humble questions to you is
7) As you rightly said husband should not be allowed to scott free if he is at the wrong end nad according to this ammendment of divorce law wife is allowed to object that...what if husband is having financial problem and wife is having many properties/earnings on her name just like Mrs. Smriti shinde....Don't you think husband should be allowed to oppose it on the basis of great financial hardship?!?!?!
8) What if wife is fedup with husband/in relationship with other person and starts living with him....while she is also taking maintenance from his first husband....and after 3 years can simply go to court on this ground and take divorce!

Now please don't come with immotional/illogical paragraph that there is more possibility of this and less of this...what we are discussing here is law should consider all the possibility and should not allow one person to gain/object and other to take loss/helplessness.

1 Like

(Guest)

@ PC / @ Shivani / @ Arup ji

1. Click / open the PDF file and read THE BILL first of all. All your statements are based on probabilities / forcasting of situations in a  broken marriage.


2. Now, discuss The BILL in its present FORM if it is gender neutral or not and not probabilities of X Y Z situations on maintenance / custody / alimony becuase a wife will automatically get all these either through this Bill or via other mediums which is not the point (intent and object) of this Bill.


3. Discuss the English Law from which the idea of such reforms came from and not that you get maint. or not. 


4.
All matrimonial Laws should be gender neutral is my point now what all of you three have to say to core subject of The Bill. 

 

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query