|
Originally posted by : Mani |
|
|
XXX renouncing the world.
Suppose a divorce hit husband out of pressure, renounces the material world to pursue religious belief. i know divorce can be granted to wife? If husband donated every bit of his wealth to charity, what will be judiciary stand on this if wife claims any maintenance?
suppose after divorce if husband resumes his material life what will be judiciary stand if wife approaches again? say for example after an year granting divorce? what will happen if husband remarries now?
Suppose during renouncing the world, if he adopts a child, will wife consent is necessary at this instance? |
|
What a (bald) IDEA sir jee J
Renunciation of world is a ground for divorce only under Hindu law. The ground cannot be used after filing Petition under HMA!
According to the religious belief of Hindus, every Hindu is required to enter into the Sanyasa Ashrama (a Hindu’s life is organised into four ashramas of which sanyasa is the last ashrama). Since this is the last ashrama entered into the old age, it amounts to the civil death. In fact one of the essential rites for entering into this ashrama is the performance of the one’s own funeral rites. The entering into this ashrama means not merely renunciation of the world or worldly things, but it is also an end of one’s world life. Entering into this ashrama is part of Hindu religion. A person may become sanyasi even at a young age, and it is considered meritorious. Looked at from the point of view of the non-sanyasi spouse, it may mean worst deprivation. It brings consortium to a dead end, and thus, in matrimonial law, it is nothing but desertion. But if we would call it desertion, it is going to hurt religious feelings. Therefore, with a view to ameliorating the hardship of sanyasi’s spouse, it has been made specifically a ground for divorce and judicial separation.
The requirements of this ground are two:
1. Renunciation of world by the respondent (i.e. before filing and not after or during as your query sounds after and during after thoughts to me), and
2. Entering into a holy order by him.
A person may renounce the world, such as when he does not take any interest in the worldly affairs or retires to a single room, withdraws from cohabitation, or takes a vow of celibacy, or becomes a mauni, yet he may not join a holy order. Such a spouse will not be covered under this clause, though his conduct may amount to desertion or cruelty. Unless the second condition is also fulfilled, the other spouse cannot sue for divorce or judicial separation under this clause.
A person enters into holy or religious order when he undergoes the ceremonies and rites prescribed by the order, which he has entered. Becoming a chela of a guru does not by itself mean entering a holy order may not always amount to renunciation of the world. Thus, when a Sikh becomes a granthi or a Hindu becomes a pujari is allowed to lead a family life. It is also submitted that the clause will not apply to those cases where a mahant or saint is allowed to lead married life.
The mere fact that a person declares that he has become a sanyasi or that he calls himself or is described by others as such or wears clothes ordinarily worn by sanyasis would not be sufficient to make him a perfect sanyasi. The essential ceremonies in this connection include the performance of "prajapathiyesthi homan" and the "viraja homan" or 'ghatta shradha'!
Here you are again wrong in self assuming that your wife will get divorce. No she cannot because it will be treated as after-thoughts of respondent (husband or as the parties Memo may be in a Case).
I suggest contesting the charges while still living in materialistic world with a beautiful wife eying matrimonial Laws fruits study these earliest Judgments by paying money for Xerox copy to your advocate and following what @ Amit hinted in his first reply above, instead of one fine morning waking up to (bald) idea of what ever has been mentioned in your query before us J
Ref.:
Krishanji Vs. Hanmaraddi [(1934) 58 Bombay 436]
Satyanarayana Vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board [AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 824]
Parshottam Vs. Desaibhai [AIR 1932 Bombay 459]
Gouri Vs. Niader [(1913 -1914) CWN 59]
Ramakrishnan Vs. Srinivasarao [AIR 1960 Andhra Pradesh 449]
PS:
When something is given for FREE one too many IDEAS dwells into a personality. Suppose same is put as COST then all such (bald) ideas vanishes is my view. If you don’t understood this much then it is bound that you will ask another FREE IDEA question here J
