LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     06 August 2010

THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010

FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDY AND COMMENTS BY THE INTERESTED LD. MEMBERS

AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA Bill No. XLI of 2010 THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 A BILL further to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:— CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY Short title and commencement. 1. (1) This Act may be called the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. CHAPTER II AMENDMENTS TO THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 25 of 1955. Amendment of section 13B. 2. In the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Hindu Marriage Act), in section 13B, in sub-section (2), for the words, brackets and figure “On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime”, the words, brackets and figure "Upon receipt of a petition under sub-section (1)" shall be substituted. Insertion of new sections 13C, 13D and 13E. Divorce on ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage 3. After section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the following sections shall be inserted, namely:— ‘13C (1) A petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by either party to a marriage [whether solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010], on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. (2) 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 three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. (3) If the court is satisfied, on the evidence, as to the fact mentioned in subsection (2), then, unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably, it shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, grant a decree of divorce. (4) In considering, for the purpose of sub-section (2), whether the period for which the parties to a marriage have lived apart has been continuous, no account shall be taken of any one period (not exceeding three months’ in all) during which the parties resumed living with each other, but no other period during which the parties lived with each other shall count as part of the period for which the parties to the marriage lived apart. (5) For the purposes of sub-sections (2) and (4), a husband and wife shall be treated as living apart unless they are living with each other in the same household, and reference in this section to the parties to a marriage living with each other shall be construed as reference to their living with each other in the same household. Wife’s right to oppose petition on ground of hardship. 13D. (1) Where the wife is the respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13C, she may oppose the grant of a decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to her 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 on the ground set out in section 13C; 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, the court is of the opinion that the dissolution of the marriage shall result in grave financial hardship to the respondent and that it would, in all the circumstances, be wrong to dissolve the marriage, it shall dismiss the petition, or in an appropriate case stay the proceedings until arrangements have been made to its satisfaction to eliminate the hardship. Restriction on decree for divorce affecting children. 13E. The court shall not pass a decree of divorce under section 13C unless the court is satisfied that adequate provision for the maintenance of children born out of the marriage has been made consistently with the financial capacity of the parties to the marriage. Explanation.— In this section, the expression “children” means— (a) minor children; (b) unmarried or widowed daughters who have not the financial resources to support themselves; 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, the court is of the opinion that the dissolution of the marriage shall result in grave financial hardship to the respondent and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage, it shall dismiss the petition, or in an appropriate case stay the proceedings until arrangements have been made to its satisfaction to eliminate the hardship. Restriction on decree for divorce affecting children 28C. The court shall not pass a decree of divorce under section 28A unless the decree for court is satisfied that adequate provision for the maintenance of children born out of divorce the marriage has been made consistently with the financial capacity of the parties to affecting children. the marriage. Explanation.— In this section, the expression “children” means— (a) minor children; (b) unmarried or widowed daughters who have not the financial resources to support themselves; and (c) children who, because of special condition of their physical or mental health, need looking after and do not have the financial resources to support themselves.’ Amendment of section 40A. 8. In section 40A of the Special Marriage Act, in sub-section (1), after the word and figures “section 27”, at both the places where they occur, the words, figures and letter “or section 28A” shall be inserted. STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was enacted on the 18th May, 1955 to amend and codify the law relating to marriage among Hindus. Similarly, the Special Marriage Act, 1954 was enacted on the 9th October, 1954 to provide a special form of marriage in certain cases, for the registration of such and certain other marriages and for divorce. The provisions of the said Acts have proved to be inadequate to deal with the issue where there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage and therefore a need has been felt for certain amendments therein. 2. In view of the demand from various quarters for making irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Central Government referred the matter to the Law Commission of India for its consideration. The Law Commission in its 71st Report titled "The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as a Ground of Divorce" submitted in April, 1978 had examined the issue in detail and recommended amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to make irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a new ground for granting a decreee of divorce among the Hindus. Accordingly, a Bill, namely, the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1981, further to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, was introduced in Lok Sabha on the 27th February, 1981. However, before the Bill could be considered and passed by Lok Sabha, the Seventh Lok Sabha was dissolved on 31st December, 1984, and hence the Bill lapsed. 3. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ms. Jorden Diengdeh vs. S.S. Chopra (AIR 1985 SC 935) had pointed out the necessity to introduce irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mutual cosent as grounds for grant of divorce in all cases. Similarly in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli (AIR 2006 SC 1675), the Hon'ble Supreme Court recomended to the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. 4. Further, the 18th Law Commission of India suo motu took up the mater and in its 217th Report titled 'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage —Another Ground for Divorce' presented to the Government in March, 2009 recommended that 'Irretrievable breakdown of marriage' should be incorporated as another ground for grant of a decree of divorce under the aforesaid Acts. 5. Having regard to the recommendations of the Law Commission of India and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid and the demand from various quarters, it is proposed to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 so as to provide for irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divroce thereunder subject to certain safeguards to the wife and affected children. 6. At present, a petition for grant of a decreee of divorce on the ground of mutual consent could be presented by both the parties to the marriage together before the court under sub-section (1) of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and similarly under sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Under sub-section (2) of section 13B and that of section 28 respectively, the parties have to move a motion jointly not earlier than six months after the date of presentation of the petition referred in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date for the said purpose. It has been observed that in several cases one of the parties do not turn up for filing the motion jointly with the other party under sub-section (2) of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or under sub-section (2) of section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as the case may be, leading the party desirous of obtaining a decree of divorce hapless and remediless. In order to mitigate such hardships and to allow divorce in cases of complete failure of such marriages, it is proposed 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, respectively, by doing away with the aforesaid condition of moving motion subsequently. 7. In case the wife happens to be the respondent in respect of a petition for grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage under the proposed new section 13C of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or under the proposed new section 28A of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as the case may be, the wife is entitled to oppose the grant of a decree of divorce on the ground that a dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to her. Similarly, provision has been made to restrict grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for the maintence of children born out of the marriage has not been made consistently with the financial capacity of the parties to the marriage. 8. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. M. VEERAPPAMOILY NEW DELHI; The 13th July, 2010. ANNEXURE EXTRACTS FROM THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 ( 25 OF 1955) 13B. (1) **** (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree. 21A. (1) Where— (a) a petition under this Act has been presented to a district court having jurisdiction by a party to a marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under section 10 or for a decree of divorce under section 13, and (b) another petition under this Act has been presented thereafter by the other party to the marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under section 10 or for a decree of divorce under section 13 on any ground, whether in the same district court or in a different district court, in the same State or in a different State, the petitions shall be dealt with as specified in sub-section (2). 23. (1) In any proceeding under this Act, whether defended or not, if the court is satisfied that— (a) any of the grounds for granting relief exists and the petitioner except in cases where the relief is sought by him on the ground specified in sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) of clause (ii) of section 5 is not in any way taking advantage of his or her own wrong or disability for the purpose of such relief, and ********** then, and in such a case, but not otherwise, the court shall decree such relief accordingly. EXTRACTS FROM THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954 ( 43 OF 1954) Divorce by mutual consent. 28. (1) ***** (2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the district court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized under this Act, and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree. Power to transfer petitions in certain cases. Power to 40A. (1) Where— (a) a petition under this Act has been presented to the district court having petitions in certain cases. jurisdiction by a party to the marriage praying for a decree for judicial separation under section 23 or for a decree of divorce under section 27, and (b) another petition under this Act has been presented thereafter by the other party to the marriage praying for decree for judicial separation under section 23, or for decree of divorce under section 27 on any ground whether in the same district court or in a different district court, in the same State or in a different State, the petition shall be dealt with as specified in sub-section (2). RAJYA SABHA A BILL further to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. (Shri M. Veerappa Moily, M.P.)



Learning

 30 Replies

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     07 August 2010

Analysis of the said marriage amendment bill 2010,

Part - 1

If the bill accepted by the parliament in toto, the shape of the bill will be as follows :-

13B. Divorce by mutual consent.

(1)  Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court  * by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, (68 of 1976.) on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, "Upon receipt of a petition under sub-section (1)" the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the        averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

 

By the following words * by both the parties to a marriage together,  - the door closed by the act for those, who are unable to file a joint petition together.

 

By practical experience, we know that, to file a joint petition together, almost impossible, because of the fighting attitude of the spouses, very particularly, where a particular party greedy of money, and coming almost in the stage of blackmailing to other party.

(contd)

 

The base of analysis.

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010.

Amendment of section 13B.

2. In the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Hindu Marriage Act), in section 13B, in sub-section (2), for the words, brackets and figure 

 “On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime”, 

 the words, brackets and figure  

"Upon receipt of a petition under sub-section (1)" 

shall be substituted.


(Guest)

Sh. Arup ji,

What is the point to duplicate a post of same topic !


I see only the full text here of The Bill, 2010 as a difference but same could have been posted in the Author - "Unbiased Advise" created same name Post don't you think so Sir ?


It is confusing to readers where to continue further discussion on The Bill, 2010 that is all I am requesting.

Kind regards.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     07 August 2010

COULD NOT FOLLOW.

IS IT THAT BILL OR SEPERATE ONE?


(Guest)

Sir

 

Who was Sita :-)

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     07 August 2010

Are you talking about the fruit - Sitafal ?


(Guest)

THIS  is bad . law shud be clear how to clear that financial security. something like say one year annual income of husband be given as permanent alimony if husband is at fault and wife is unable to earn due to her being uneducated or handicapped. if wife is at fault she cannot raise this issue.  

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     07 August 2010

if wife is at fault she cannot raise this issue - it is already at law, but tactful approach by court, make the intention of the act - fruitless.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     07 August 2010

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/The-Marriage-Laws-Amendment-Bill-2010-22353.asp?1=1&offset=2

am also following that thread.

the thread matter diverted into personal problems.

Sreenivas V (S/W)     08 August 2010

 

In this website I read marriages being breaking up after living together for some time.

But Now a days there is another common thing happening in marriages. A Girl will be in love with a boy and their relationship is going very deep. Most of the cases Girls parents don't like that relationship and so they will do her marriage with another boy, keeping these things secret. But after marriage case (1) Girl will be creating problems to the boy as she did not like this marriage and trying to break this marriage (2) Girl and the lover still keep going on their relationship by keeping the husband in dark. (3) Girl and lover killing the husband  (4) Husband and his parents will know after marriage. These marriages usually break within one month of marriage only.

In the 4th case normally husband will file for divorce or put this in elders. Then normally the Girls parents are reacting like this. As the story got exposed the girls parents filing 498A on the boy and his family just to get money out of it. As it is a false 498A once get bail then the girls parents know they cannot get any money and then they are filing suits saying they have given lot of gold during marriage which is absolutely false. They will not give divorce also as they will not get any money for a marriage of less than one month living together. 

So it looks like now this IBD will give them an option to get money easily without the need of black mailing by putting 498A which normally end up in settlements even though the girl side is totally wrong. 

So I request here the people who are saying that 13D is needed, there should be some clauses attached to it. I agree for some cases what they were put here that 13D is needed. I think based on the case 13D should be made applicable but not saying just for all women in all cases. 

13D is definetly required in cases where the they have children which already it is there. But in cases of marriages having no children, wife is at fault, or short lived marriages this should not apply. But normally proving the fault of wife is also very difficult.

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     08 August 2010

A Girl will be in love with a boy and their relationship is going very deep. Most of the cases Girls parents don't like that relationship and so they will do her marriage with another boy, keeping these things secret.

 - these happening grossly.

But after marriage case

(1) Girl will be creating problems to the boy as she did not like this marriage and trying to break this marriage

(2) Girl and the lover still keep going on their relationship by keeping the husband in dark.

(3) Girl and lover killing the husband  

(4) Husband and his parents will know after marriage. These marriages usually break within one month of marriage only.

 - right diagonesis. sometimes, the party ( in laws ) down to blackmailing the party - innocent, and the judge is in the role of 'dhritarastra'

THIS IS CALLED INDIAN MARRIAGE

IN THE NAME OF MARRIAGE, PARTY IN FAULT, CHEATED, BLACKMAILED, THE PARTY INNOCENT.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN INDIAN LAW MUCH MORE.

ANYHOW IT TRIES TO TWIST THE MATTER AND DEPRIVE THE INNOCENT.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     08 August 2010

+ DEPRIVE THE INNOCENT FROM HIS LAWFULL RIGHT.

anandangan (self employed)     10 August 2010

This bill is going to open a can of worms and it is disastrous. It needs to be opposed.

anandangan (self employed)     10 August 2010

The Report 71 (year 1978) of law commission is simply cut pasted in this bill, the report 71 was outrightly rejected by then INC ruling party as 'junk' and inappropriate

The report had lost its significance since it was assessed 30 years back. That time a woman living apart from the husband for 3 years was an achievement in itself, and '3 year' separation in those days was a sufficient 'proof' to assume irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But that is the case in year 2010.

Now a days man and woman working in different shifts (days and nights) or on deputation to different cities. or one spouse missing for 3 years or in hospital or in coma etc or for whatsoever reason, mere a proof of '3 years separation' without fixing the blame who was responsible for the separation is going to create erroneous interpretations and one 'can' take advantage of the law and taking advantage of law is not 'taking advantage of one's own wrongs'

Section 23 of HMA is also being amended to exclude Section 13C from the fault theory.

What is the need to revet back to report71, if another report 217 was submitted which analysed report 71 and made enhacements to reccomendations in Report 71 that: Irretrievable breakdown be made part of 'fault theory'

This report was also rejected by the govt. But just b'cos of lobbying of few political leaders or for their daughters  this bill is brought apparently.

Is it too late to oppose the bill now? as it is already presented in rajyasabha for approval and debate etc.

  

 

 

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register