Totally Agree with Rahul Kapoor, under which act / rules you married ? She even has not mentioned here that both are Hindu or either person is of different religion .It's also not clear that the Marriage is registered or not, if yes, under which Act ? Assuming that both are Hindus & no Registration of Marriage under any Act & without knowing that from whom she was advised " I have heard sometimes court ask to petty amounts like 3,000/month " , a J & K Lawyer or some litigants. It appears that you are hiding many facts.
Is it Hindu Marriage Act.....?
Special marriage Act....? Applicable
or is there any other act which governs the marriage ceremony's of Jamu & Kashmir people...........?
Hindu Marriage Act 1980
Hindu Marriage (validation of Proceedings) Act 1963 ?
Special Marriage Act 1954 ?
THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001
THE MARRIAGES VALIDATION ACT, 1892
J. & K. Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 ?
Is DV Act, 2005 applicable at J & K ? Is Special Marriage Act, 1954 applicable in J & K ? Applicability of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
-
Any person, irrespective of religion.[4]
-
Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs can also perform marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.[4]
-
The Muslim, Christian, Parsi, or Jewish religions can also perform marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.[4]
-
Inter-caste marriages are performed under this Act.[4]
-
This Act is applicable to the entire territory of India (excluding the states of Jammu and Kashmir) and extends to intending spouses who are both Indian nationals living abroad.
-
Dear Sister, kashmir has not beeen an integral part since 1947-88 as you seem to suggest. the maharaja of kashmir did not sign the document of accession for a very long time till the political situation was in his favour.the millitary occupation by indian forces has been there since the valley was invaded by western tribals. as far as the claim that ms roy has been having the freedom of speech and expression is concerned, she has been threatened by charges of sedition, and i assume you understand the gravity. interestingly mahatma gandhi was once charged by the same "waging war against the state" offence. and about sharing the dias with geelani, well i am sure nehru and chou did the same. i am not a kashmiri, nor a fundamental religious fanatic. i just know my history. thanks.
-
Section 13(1)(A) of the Central Hindu Marriage Act is applicable to the State of J. & K. ? Before proceeding further, it would be of advantage to take note of certain provisions of J. & K. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as well as the J. & K. Hindu Marriage Act of 1980.
Jammu High Court
Man Mohan Kapoor vs Smt. Kailash Kumari on 24 November, 1983
Equivalent citations: AIR 1984 J K 59
Author: A Anand
Bench: A Anand
Think over it , because for your any Case, there will be much more Comlexity in Laws.. In present case, no Law machinery is initiated by either side, hence why you are hesitating under Depression, go for in Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 empowers the Government to make rules to provide that the parties (Hindus) shall have their particulars relating to marriages entered in such a manner as may be prescribed for facilitating proof of such marriages. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (in short 'CEDAW') was adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. J & K Govt. latest amendments regarding Jammu & Kashmir Marriage Act .
Coming after 25 years, a High Court ruling grants Kashmiri women marrying outsiders the rights to work, education, inheritance, even adoption
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has pronounced a historic verdict in favour of the women of the state. The court ruled -- after 25 years of argument -- that Kashmiri women marrying outsiders did not stand to lose her right to work, education, inheritance and even adoption.
A full bench of the court, hearing a bunch of petitions filed over the years, held by a majority decision that a woman by marriage to an outsider `will not lose her state subject rights'.
The impugned law governing permanent resident status in the state provided that a female ceased to be a subject of the state if she married a non-permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir. She would then lose her right to get or continue in a government job, own land and property, pursue higher education, contest or vote in municipal and state elections. However, wives of J&K men automatically became state subjects.
In court, the counsel for women petitioners argued that the existing laws violated a woman's right to equality and sought to deny natural consequences of birth to a female in retaining her permanent residentship of the state in case she marries an outsider. At present, women in the state get their Permanent Residentship Certificate (PRC) with a marking `valid only till marriage'.
The legal battle started in 1978 when Amarjeet Kaur of Chogal village in Kupwara district sought to acquire her share of property left behind to three siblings by their father. Since Amarjeet and her sister were married in Punjab to non-residents, their brother Harjeet Singh claimed that his sisters were no longer residents and therefore could not get possession of the property.
Amarjeet won in the trial court, from where the case came to the High Court in appeal. K N Bhat, Amarjeet's advocate, called the ruling an “historic verdict in favour of women's rights”.
After Amarjeet other affected women joined in, including Rubina Nassarullah, granddaughter of Kashmir's ex-chief minister Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad (and daughter-in-law of former Punjab governor Surinder Nath). She challenged the law after being barred from pursuing her post-graduation in medicine when she married an outsider.
Women's groups across the country that empathised with the cause were prevented from taking up the issue as it was sub-judice.
Source: The Indian Express, October 8, 2002. MUMBAI: In a significant judgment, the Bombay high court on Monday held that Hindu women whose marriage is solemnised in Jammu & Kashmir are free to file for divorce before a family court in any other state under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The verdict delivered by a bench of Justices Ajay Khanwilkar and Nitin Jamdar comes as a relief to a 42-year-old Hindu woman Sarita Lalchand (name changed) who was married in 1993 to a Hindu man in Jammu under the Jammu & Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980. Her husband Sanjay (name changed) opposed her divorce petition which was filed on grounds of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, which is a Central law applicable throughout India, except J&K .
