Irbm bill (passed in rs) is utterly anti hindu!!!

1.   It is not to be said as to be anti-Hindu for a simple reason Hindu marriages are treated as Amendment laboratory because of one too many 'liberal' interpretations given to each and every Section(s) of The Act, 1955.

2.   Many parts of Hindu Marriage Laws Amendment Bill 2013 are totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL and liable to be struck down by Hon’ble SC once it becomes Act for a simple reason Amendment(s) to any Act cannot go beyond Scope of the main Act.

well said Tajobsindia,

You can't be correct any more than this!!! 

The amendment law/bill is indeed unconstitutional!!!

simple reason :-   Amendment(s) to any Act cannot go beyond Scope of the main Act

According to the tenets of Hinduism, marriage is a sacred relationship, a sacrament, and a divine covenant meant for procreation and continuation of family lineage

Hindu codes /personal laws enacted in 1955,56 and especially scope and objectives of HMA 1955 talk of hindu marriage as a sanskar and hindu belief and sentiments to look at it as a sacrament and NOT merely for enjoyment/procreation but for furtherance of/uphold traditional family values in accordance with Dharma. In the traditional Hindu system of marriage, there is no role for the state as marriage remained a private affair within the social realm.[4] Within this traditional framework reference, marriage is undoubtedly the most important transitional point in a Hindu’s life and the most important of all the Hindu ‘’sanskaras’’ (life-cycle rituals).

The Amendment bill/law attacks the very core of Hindu values and also makes the Hindu way of life a joke and redundant

In the name of an amendment bill , one can't simply revamp to add 'irbm theory'.

Fault theory and consent theory was introduced in hindu way of life a a progressive thought against misconduct of and unruly spouse towards other but not at the expense of Hindu core values, and it really enhance core values.

But this IrBM theory completely demolishes the Hindu core values in regards to institution of marriage !!! and converts a sacrament and most important sanskar (core part of hindu way of life) into a casual, self serving, consumerist, materialistic companionship.

Where the concept of standing by side of the partner in the thin and thick of life is gone?

Legislature has come to define IrBM in terms of duration for separation a 3 year period.

What kind of jerks are they?

2 years separation --------------------  then go through an ordeal of proving that it was desertion

OR

Just wait for another year!!!!!! ... and then judge the judge doesn't have to compulsorily grill the applicant itself whether the applicant itself had taken advantage of own wrongs ............... who was at fault in reality ? .....(whether the applicant itself or defendent was at fault in reality !!!! )

But the amendment does not block /prevent the judge from conducting such an enquiry whether applicant itself caused the marriage to reach the stage of irretrievable breakdown.

In other grounds, it is compulsory on judge to enquire whether applicant itself is a real culprit or not!!!!! (whether defended on not by respondent)

so female applicants ...don't celebrate prematurely !!!!

Amendment s.23 has a loop hole (it makes the above said enquiry discretionary and no longer a binding one on FC judge. )

But, on the other side,  the Amendment does not ALSO tie the hands of judge from conducting such enquiry while arriving at the question of fact whether 'marriage under examination has reached to a stage of irretrievable breakdown?'.

The amendment talks of 3 years of separation ..... as a pre-condition ONLY.  

But  it is certainly not a compliance criteria/concrete evidence of IrBM (relief to husbands/ defendents!!!! if judge behaves honestly and read the law correctly!!!)

It says 'judge should not even consider the question of fact 'whether 'marriage under examination has reached to a stage of irretrievable breakdown?' unless 3 years of separation is evident.

So..... it is left to the judicial conscience of judge to judge/deal with above said the question of fact.

Hence if case is handled by an ethical judge ..... then there is chance that innocent husbands-respondent would be spared from decree of divorce...... so let's pray that caseis dealt by an honest judge

And  pleeeze  .......be assured that .......................... even after all this amendment  .... the cases are going to go on for at least 4-5 years minimum!!!.

We have already thought about 1000  ways of prolonging the case!!!!

You can't snatch out bread and butter ............  so easily!!!

:)

This amendment law is friendly (in your dreams!!!)

Yes it is 100% anti hindu
as we all know in other religion you can make 3-4 wives lawfully but if hindu marries second time then he get arrested.if hindu has more than 2 children then population of india increases but salman has 3rd one then nobody opposed but welcomed!!where is equality?
"marriage is marriage" there is no difference in the relation of man and women though it is of any religion all are human only then why the difference?ok there can be difference in the procedure (vidhi) of marriage 

@ Author,

Issue: Is new Hindu Marriage Amendment Bill 2013 unconstitutional in some parts?

Legal views are YES.

Legal reasonings:

A. First know FOUR Legal Principles. 

Legal Principle 1- This is an Amendment. An amendment can be struck down by Court if it goes beyond the scope of Main Act.

Legal Principle 2 - Discrimination based on s*x is prohibited under Constitution unless it is for protection of a weaker class. If it is shown to court that there is discrimination on basis of s*x in favor of "Women who are not financially or otherwise weak", then law can be struck down as "Discriminatory on basis of Sex" to that extent.

Legal Principle 3 - Law can be struck down if it is shown that it is excessively vague. Vagueness breeds arbitrariness. Too much power in hands of judges without any guidance about how to use this power is arbitrary and it can be struck down.

Legal Principle 4 - If a Act provides to doing of an impossible thing, that part of the Act can be struck down.

B. Now Let us see how far this new Hindu Marriage Laws Amendment Bill 2013 is hit by above four legal principles

1. This bill is prepared under moral pressure of Supreme Court. Supreme Court pointed out two lacunas in Hindu Marriage Act which needed to be addressed by Parliament.

The two LACUNAS were:-

FIRST LACUNA- When husband and wife files case for divorce by mutual consent, they are asked to wait for six months. After 5 months and 25 days, wife turns around and says she is withdrawing her consent. The husband then cannot get decree of Divorce. He is remediless. So Supreme Court suggested Parliament to amend law to help husbands. 

SECOND LACUNA - There are many grounds under which husband and wife can apply for divorce- like cruelty etc.  But suppose for some reasons parties find themselves just incompatible with each other. Then the marriage gets break down irretrievably.  Earlier Hindu Marriage Act, did not provide for ground of divorce for "Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage. So Supreme Court suggest that such a ground should be added in ground of Divorce.

But then the Amendment Bill 2013 makes provisions that Husband (ONLY HUSBAND) cannot get divorce on this or any-other ground mentioned in MAIN LAW (HMA, 1955), unless he gives Financial Compensation to wife this is where the Bill

1. goes beyond scope of an Amendment,
2. it becomes s*x discriminatory
3. and too much vague, As it placing arbitrary powers in hands of ld. Judges to refuse divorce without laying down any verifiable guidelines.

C. Now here are arguments or reasons to support above propositions or claims.

Argument 1 - Look at the OBJECT & REASONS of the Amendment. (As per 2010) Bill when it was first introduced). See first PDF file annexure.

It had 7 paragraphs. In paragraph 1 to 6 it says that OBJECT of Bill is to remove two defects pointed out by Supreme Court, suddenly in last 7th para, it says that provisions is made to permit woman (ONLY WOMEN!) to oppose grant of divorce unless financial compensation is paid. There is not a whisper of object of such a provision in entire "Object and Reasons".

Argument 2 - Any Amendment which goes beyond scope of Main Act can be struck down.

Firstly, under Hindu Marriage Act already has provision for granting permanent alimony to divorced wife (U/s 25 HMA). There are procedures allocated for the same.  The new provision nullifies and makes redundant all earlier provisions regarding permanent alimony. Thus the Amendment 2013 goes beyond the main Act, and hence liable to be struck down. In other words in guise of Amendment, it overrules other provisions in MAIN ACT (HMA, 1955). See second PDF file annexure.

Secondly, apart from Breakdown of marriage there are many other grounds under parties can get divorce (S. 13 HMA). This Amendment 2013 says even on those grounds like cruelty etc. a Court will refuse to grant divorce unless Financial Compensation is made.  This certainly goes beyond what Supreme Court had suggested, i.e. it goes beyond Object of Bill 2013 and it goes against the spirit of the MAIN ACT (HMA, 1955). It changes entire Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under guise of an Amendment.

Argument 3 - Vagueness in the provisions.

Law should be clear so that parties can act accordingly. Here a Court is asked to refuse divorce on any or all of following grounds: (As mentioned in original Amendment 2010 / 2013 Bill)

A. for conduct of parties to marriage,
B. interests of these parties,
C. interest of any children,
D. interest of ANY OTHER PERSON concerned,
E. if court thinks that it is WRONG to give divorce [it is mentioned 5 times in Amendment Bill 2013 as well as in 2010 Bill]. Here, words like wrong, right, good, bad are not supposed to be used in Laws. They are vague and incapable of being objectively verified),
F. court can dismiss petition of HUSBAND ONLY on above ground A to E or can stay case in limbo till husband is ready to comply with demands made by wife.

Argument 4 - Lastly the FOUR Legal Principles revisited

If Law asks you to do anything impossible, the law is bad to that extent.

Firstly, here law asks the ld. Judge(s) to consider properties of husband which he may inherit in future. This is not legally possible. No one knows, the husband may not inherit anything.

Secondly, so far as husband's own property is considered, to deprive him of his property, Special Law is required. This can't be done by way of a pre-condition for divorce.

Hence many parts of Amendment Bills 2013 are TOTALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL and liable to be struck down by Hon’ble SC.

When i saw the discussion in RS, the reply by law minister was anti male. The way he said that judges make mistakes, we have courts go and fight for justice indicates that ." Buggers, go and waste your life running around courts for no mistake of yours".

He said men can claim alimony, Why can't he introduce the amendment where husbands also gets 50% share of wife's property.

I was happy when a woman MP raised her voice saying that wife should be replaced with the word "spouse".  Also shame on the Men MP's who were absent in the house instead of spending the time here to fail the bill which would have saved crores of families.

Hope LS MP's will not commit the same mistake of passing this law.

Many thanks Mr. Sufferer, Jamai of Law & Tajobsindia  for sharing your knowledge, this will really help men to wake up against this anti-constitutional Bill

Thanks to all for sharing their views.

It is 200% anti hindu, and it is all italian politics, in a country like India where hindu population is high and if they break the instution of marriage in india people start converting into other religions and that too they will benefited with voter politics..

it is our fate we are been ruled anti hindu political heads..

Politicains are exploiting tolerant attitude of Hindus...............unfortuanately there is not a sngl COMMITTED MOVEMENT in India for this religion presently.

So finally whats the update. has the bill been Password in Lok sabha or not ?

Any idea.. Do anyone know about the Bill is passed finally or not in Lok Sabha ?

All Bills Dowry/DV?IrBM are Anti Hindu - Mehar is same as dowry but not a crime,Bigamy is a crime for Hindus only (Earlier Kings n Hindu Ancestors had multiple ones)

Go to Supreme Court 90% Transfer petitions are for divorce and filed by Hindus only.So actually u r right Hindus are in a mess & Once Bitten Twice shy will mean remarrying is not easy so our geneartion may reduce in long term

This is some  startegy to break Hindu families of politicians in power

Originally posted by : R K........
	Any idea.. Do anyone know about the Bill is passed finally or not in Lok Sabha ?

Parilament session over..............it cud not be taken, so not passed. May be in winter session, they plan 2 take it!

The Bill could not be taken up on the last day of Lok Sabha as the time was not sufficient and only because Congress wanted to push thru other bills........but please don't be under any false impressions...It will get passed in the Winter Session in November. Kapil Sibal & Renuka Choudhry are the driving force in the parliament to pass this bill and they are extremely determined to do so.......this bill is Anti-Hindu, Anti-Family, Anti Gender Equality, Anti-Constitutional and will create havoc in the lives of many hindu husbands who will become victims of the educated, blackmailing, greedy and vicious wives wanting to misuse this law. Very few deserving wives will benefit from this law but unimaginable number of husbands will be cheated and many will commit suicide also.....