LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Jamai Of Law (propra)     15 April 2012

Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - curse or blessing!!!

 

Let's go one by one:
 
 
 
Q: Where it all started from? 

 
Ans:
 
Govt started in the disguise of 'making new provision for Sec 13-B and MCD that if one of the party 'backs out' during 2nd motion without giving 'sufficient reason/cause/excuse', then it causes the harm to opposite party!!!! and there should be remedy for the party who does not want to backout or give up and whim of unwilling party after they have mentally already made decision and 1st motion is already through!!!
 
 
But Govt came up with a new spin!!!!


But using above pretext Govt came up with absolutely ridiculous amendment which is going to shatter the whole social structure of India and one can't even imagine the repurcussions in rural India.
 
 
 
Q: Is there/was there any definition of IRBM in the first place? THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION

Ans: 
 
There is NO definition of IRBM anywhere (only silly example that if a party leave apart from spouse for 3 years then IRBM. there are many who r staying in overseas/gulf/out of stattion in other states  for years, only bcos of job and earning obligation on their shoulders !!! What if spouse staying in India unilaterally gets divorce!!!!)
 
 
 
 
When a party/plaintiff climbs the doorstep of court to ask for divorce ...the act itself says that party thinks that marriage is broken and hence it needs to be called of 'in the eyes of law' as well!!!
 
But this unilateral 'commotion' itself has become a new ground or 'whim of one of the two parties' has become a new ground!!!! 
 
 
 
 
Earlier claimant had to prove that party is inflicted with wrongs and hence the remedy ....now as per the new amendment there is no such need !!!!
 
 
 
 
 
And albeit the other party is innocent , the other party can't do anything as per this new ground of IRBM!!!
 
 
 
 
 
That's why it is a draconian amendment.

 
 
 
In 'IRBM' culprit gets a reward for her/his misconduct.

 
 
Q: Should it be made retrospective?

Ans:
 
 
At least Govt should apply some wisdom and should not make it retrospective.
 
 
 
If the new generations prefer to tie knot of marriage knowingly that either spouse has capacity to walk out for no reason, then at least their decision would be 'informed decision and a conscious decision'
 
 
 
Govt. is enforcing something unjust to those who honestly and morally did their part of obligation and are now being made to bare the brunt ............................... for none of their mistakes.
 
 
 
 
 
Q: Is it a burning issue for India and indian citizens? in comparison to other issues before us?

 
Ans:

It is certainly NOT a priority issue for India.
This is a rotten brain for some high profile cases especially for some politicians and their kids.
 
They seem least bothered about impact of such absurd amendments. they simply seem out of their minds.
 
 
This is a erally hopeless amendment.
 
 
 
 
 


Learning

 4 Replies

Shonee Kapoor (Legal Evangelist - TRIPAKSHA)     15 April 2012

It can be curse or blessing depending upon who is filing. For a man whose wife is not agreeing to divorce and he is willing top part with his money to get it, it would be a blessing. Regards, Shonee Kapoor harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
1 Like

Cutie (self)     24 April 2012

The provisions are very unclear.

We have experiences of setting back lives of street mothers and children, who are abused by in-laws and husband, day in and day out. When their husbands needed to remarry (though not legally of course), they turned them away on many pretexts....even used physical tortures and goons support, in many cases. Indian society (permit me to say this please) is very cruel on turned-out women. They are almost seen and treated like prostitutes, especially if they don't have parental/ financial support. There are larger issues. To save their skin now from any legal implication for their conduct, atleast for this section of hapless women, a man and his family have got an easy way out in this ammendment.

Any law should encompass benefits to and cater to all sections of the society. It can't be for affluent families, who can support their daughters after marriage, like those of politicians. And we can't of course say anything against politicians' sons.

Thank you

Jamai Of Law (propra)     24 April 2012

 

One thing is sure ....after this amendment takes place as a law ................... even culprits (especially women) would ensure separation of 3 years and go to court in the disguise of a petitioner!!!!
 
 
 
 
 
Intentions aren't matching to actions here.
 
 
 
 
 
Why we made 'marriage by registration' but 'no divorce unless sanctioned by a court'?
 
Reason was that : Legislature wanted to save the institution of marriage.
But now, vide this amendment, legislature has made judicial intervention absolutely useless/redundent.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Who to decide 'whether marriage is dead or NOT'? party who is claiming/walking out or opposite party?
 
Will any plaintiff of divorce petition ever say 'marriage is in good shape but I want divorce!!!'
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What are the parameters/symptoms of 'irretrievable breakdown?'
 
Does 'separation period of 3 years' really say that marriage is broken? Is it not giving a culprit 'and especially a wife' an arbitrary option to just walk out and stay apart for 3 years and that's it!!!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Then why to have 'divorce by court order/intervention from court/sanctity of of court to divorce'? Isn't the court/judiciary made redundent ever than before? 
 

Vide this amendment there is no scope for court to have any equitable inference as well. it curtails the power to court 'to do justice' Court has not been left with any discretion whatsoever as to  '3 years of separation means marriage broken irretrievabley ' and would have no choice NOT to accept this definition of  'irretrievable breakdown of marriage'.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Why don't we just make it as a 'divorce registration' process instead?

By making this amendment, we have nullified the very intention/importance of 'Court's consent or Court's decision mandatory any marriage was about to break apart'.
 
 
 
 
 

 

Let's stop saying that 'legislature and judiciary wants to save institution of marriage'
 
 
Vide this amendment, they are already made 'helpless' onlookers ............... just like the respondent is cases that would start to flow in.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The whole institution of marriage in Hindus would become like a contract/travel marriages (like 'muta' or 'misyar') and it changes the foundation of hindu society!!
 
 
 
 
Why to spend money on rituals? and pujari/pandits etc and 'pooja's etc if either party is anyways able to walkout any ones own whims and fancies and based on a consumerist attitude.
 
 
 

Cutie (self)     24 April 2012

Jungle-raaj. So, now you found your wife cheating. If you ask her a question, try to correct her by applying social pressure etc., she simply walks out with the cheater, lives separately with him ...and lo....she gets divorce from her husband. The man loses his self-esteem and will be questioned on his manliness for the rest of his life....until he marries again and proves that he is capable of producing a kid or sustaining a relationship. As for a woman sufferer, the pains are even greater. She might be reduced to being a doormat if she complains that husband's illicit relationships hurt her as the court of law, legislature or society can't guarantee her that she will be not left alone to lead a single life. The effect on lower strata of society shall be potentially dangerous. 

There have been studies in the US, that document how the numbers of single mothers have steadily and steeply risen, since the passage of this draconian law. There are more single mothers (more than 51%). Our lawmakers are not consulting research neither good judgement and seem to be totally oblivious of our unique Indian context. This draconian law has a potential to terminally rupture our society and cause irreparable damage. It should be debated across the sections of the society. We don't believe in this government or cabinet of Manu Singhvis and Digvijay Singhs.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading