Divorce in india

For the welfare of the society, divorces should not be easy.  When divorces becomes easy, the new generation will be made of orphans and b*st*rds. And in the next generation divorces will become even faster.

That is a very strong opinion you hold, Dr. Ramani. Especially an ancient one.

When divorces becomes easy, the new generation will be made of orphans and b*st*rds.

To say this lacks serious foundation and seems short-sighted. 'Orphan' is not a term to be thrown around with such careless neglect of moral sense, divorce doesn't cause for the parents of the child to die, does it? Moreover, you wouldn't call someone a b*st*rd whose father had died. How does divorce change that?

It is indeed for the welfare of the society that divorce laws have witnessed such amendment in the recent past. 'Irretrievable breakdown of marriage' and 'divorce by mutual consent', though they make the grounds for divorce seem more flexible, are highly useful in the instances where the court finds that there's no hope for reconciliation between the couple, where the marriage appears to be dead emotionally and practically, and indeed where subjecting the child of such parents to the anguish and discomfort of their disfunctional marriage life is only likely to hamper the child's personal growth and future prospects.

It's for a reason that under section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, there are several safeguards provided in cases where a petition for divorce, if it is obtained from the other party by fraud or undue influence, will vilify the section requirements and the court shall refuse to grant the relief. Not to mention that under 13(b), after filing of the petition, a period of 6-18 months is given in case either of the party wishes to withdraw their consent for divorce.

Increase in number of divorces doesn't reflect discord or increase in unrest in society. Many developed nations with lenient divorce laws are first-hand instances of that.

Originally posted by : Raveena Kataria
	Increase in number of divorces doesn't reflect discord or increase in unrest in society. Many developed nations with lenient divorce laws are first-hand instances of that.

Raveena Ji fully agree with this view. Rather practical and sensible divorce laws is sign of individual liberty being respected in society. Even the most moralistic (modern “natural law”) and non-moralistic (“positivistic”) legal theorists today share a common moral goal: liberty/ autonomy. To prioritize individual liberty/ autonomy is to posit a common good and demand that society be structured for its promotion. This can be seen, for example, in the contemporary marriage laws in many common law countries, which allow either spouse to demand a unilateral “no-fault” divorce, prioritizing the liberty/ autonomy of the departing spouse over the other spouse’s desire for community and stability. Liberty/ autonomy in the sense of self-actualization and self-definition is taken as a metaphysical highest good (or right), ordering other, lesser goods (or rights). As the U.S. Supreme Court mused in its decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  We can and should, on this view, define and choose the nature and meaning of our own existence. And thus the Constitution, ought to be interpreted principally as an enactment for protection of individual liberty/ autonomy, must uphold this choice making quality of liberty/ autonomy, by forbidding laws that might intrude thereon. Academics, too, insist on the link between liberty/ autonomy and human dignity; Neumann, for example, insists on the necessity of privacy rights for human dignity, though he denies that this is a moral claim. Ref. Michael Neumann, The Rule of Law : Politicizing Ethics 56–57 (2002).