Marriage law amendment 2010 - standing committee report

IRBM is not an easy licence to get divorced and the judiciary has to apply its judicial mind in each case before divorce is granted, we should have trust in the judiciary .

1. IRBM is not an easy licence to get divorced

Then what purpose is it solving?

2. judiciary has to apply its judicial mind in each case before divorce is granted

Uske lie contested divorce hai na!

In CD,the judiciary grants divorce ONLY WHEN it is assured that the grounds to seek it are strong enough..

My above post is in response to poppy's statements..

IRBM as a ground for divorce:

HMA gives the following grounds for marriage

Adultery – The act of indulging in any kind of s*xual relationship including intercourse outside marriage is termed as adultery. Adultery is counted as a criminal offence and substantial proofs are required to establish it. An amendment to the law in 1976 states that one single act of adultery is enough for the petitioner to get a divorce.

Cruelty – A spouse can file a divorce case when he/she is subjected to any kind of mental and physical injury that causes danger to life, limb and health. The intangible acts of cruelty through mental torture are not judged upon one single act but series of incidents. Certain instances like the food being denied, continuous ill treatment and abuses to acquire dowry, perverse s*xual act and such are included under cruelty.

Desertion – If one of the spouses voluntarily abandons his/her partner for at least a period of two years, the abandoned spouse can file a divorce case on the ground of desertion.

Conversion – Incase either of the two converts himself/herself into another religion, the other spouse may file a divorce case based on this ground.

Mental Disorder – Mental disorder can become a ground for filing a divorce if the spouse of the petitioner suffers from incurable mental disorder and insanity and therefore cannot be expected from the couple to stay together.

Leprosy – In case of a ‘virulent and incurable’ form of leprosy, a petition can be filed by the other spouse based on this ground.

Venereal Disease – If one of the spouses is suffering from a serious disease that is easily communicable, a divorce can be filed by the other spouse. The s*xually transmitted diseases like AIDS are accounted to be venereal diseases.

Renunciation – A spouse is entitled to file for a divorce if the other renounces all worldly affairs by embracing a religious order.

Not Heard Alive – If a person is not seen or heard alive by those who are expected to be ‘naturally heard’ of the person for a continuous period of seven years, the person is presumed to be dead. The other spouse should need to file a divorce if he/she is interested in remarriage.

No Resumption of Co-habitation – It becomes a ground for divorce if the couple fails to resume their co-habitation after the court has passed a decree of separation.

The following are the grounds for divorce in India on which a petition can be filed only by the wife.

• If the husband has indulged in rape, bestiality and sodomy.
• If the marriage is solemnized before the Hindu Marriage Act and the husband has again married another woman in spite of the first wife being alive, the first wife can seek for a divorce.
• A girl is entitled to file for a divorce if she was married before the age of fifteen and renounces the marriage before she attains eighteen years of age.
• If there is no co-habitation for one year and the husband neglects the judgment of maintenance awarded to the wife by the court, the wife can contest for a divorce.

A case: 

Briefly the fact is that, the petitioner, Naveen Kohli, a reputed businessman of Uttar Pradesh, who was married to Neelu Kohli in 1975 and had three sons from their wedlock, had alleged that his wife constantly harassing him by filing false cases against him and she had relationship outside the marriage. The wife also alleged that the husband had kept a concubine with him. The trial court (Family Court) had allowed the divorce plea of the husband directing him to deposit Rs.5 lakh towards permanent maintenance of the wife. It, however said that both of them failed to prove the allegation of character assassination. Thereafter the wife appealed in the Allahabad High Court for granting divorce, the High Court held that, the trial court had not properly evaluated the evidence. It held that the husband was living with another woman. The wife’s appeal was allowed and the suit for divorce by the husband dismissed. On appeal by the husband, the apex court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 17 cases filed by the wife against her husband, set aside the High Court judgment.

The Supreme Court held that, In our considered view, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of the trial court.

The apex court further observed, In our considered opinion, wisdom lies in accepting the pragmatic reality of life and take a decision which would ultimately be conducive in the interest of both the parties’’.

The Court observed that public interest demands that the married status should, as far as possible, as long as possible and whenever possible, be maintained. However, where a marriage has been wrecked beyond any hope of being repaired, public interest requires the recognition of the fact. The judgment notes that there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort and that situations causing misery should not be allowed to continue indefinitely and that law has a responsibility to adequately respond to the needs of the society.

The profound reasoning is that in situation when there is absolutely no chance to live again jointly or when it is beyond repair, in such a case it would be futile to keep the marital tie alive. Here the ground of irretrievable breakdown is really needed. But it should not be oblivious that the ground, when introduced, needs to provide safeguards to ensure that no party is exploited.

As stated above where no ground for marriage exists between couples and their marriage have totally broken up isn’t this in the interest of justice and equity that the couples should be granted divorce as the repair to their maritial relationship is beyond repair.

2) As far as your second reply goes please be eleborate i could not understand it. 

Neelu Kohli vs Naveen Kohli  case does not represent whole India and the marriages in India.

Lawa can't be made/amended referring/using rare cases.

We don't want all men to start behaving like Neeru Kohli's husband.That you change your partner like a dress and say that I have discarded my old dress.Now I want a new dress.This is what IRBM will do..

Already 498A is being amended which may harm genuine victims.

Now an innocent wife will have no place to go.

If she tolerates her hubby's dowry demands for too long and wants legal help,she may be threatened of IRBM.

And finally when she files 498A,she may face major obstacles due to changes in it.

IRBM and 498A amendments will cook up innocent wives like anything.

Clause:-

Thereafter, if the court is satisfied on the basis of ‘all the evidence’

that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, it shall grant a decree of

divorce.

Saying that 'it would be miused ' is an understatement!

Rather This above clause would trigger rampant corruption!

Divorce is going to become a discretionary matter of Hon Judge!!

the Government may consider defining the term “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” in the Bill so that some uniform standards are followed in dealing with divorce petitions by the Courts.

is a fickle reccomendation by committee!!

Does it mean that court may proceed with the grant of a decree of divorce on this ground despite the fact that the wife may be put to ‘financial hardship’ and not “grave” financial hardship?

Committee needs to be sentive to Husband's plights also as follows!

Does it mean that court may proceed with the grant of a decree of divorce on this ground despite the fact that the Husband may get shattered, kid's lives may get into disarray... for rest of their life........ merely due to unilateral decision of wife?

This IRBM law should have some provisions like minimum 6 months and maximum 1 year period either grant divorce or reject divorce. Don't drag for years.

Same way 498A should not be removed, only two amendmends will solve the current issue.

(1) Complete the case with in 6 to 12 months time

(2) Guilty should be punished severly no gendiar bias, if found husband at fault 3 yrs jail same way wife filed false 498A, and even the witness who gave wrong information 3 yrs in Jail. Normally in fasle 498A cases it is not the wife, her parents or relatives are framing these cases for money extortion mostly.

You wrote       "Don't drag for years."

But it can added not only for HMA but all Laws, criminal, civil !!! But that does not need to include IRBM clause.

We are seeking the remedy to 'delaying and dragging of cases' in a wrong direction and in a wrong manner. Introduction of IRBM is not going to erase problems of 'delaying and dragging of cases'  but in fact it is going to cause  'delaying and dragging of cases'  even more!! 

Hi Jamai,

I totally agree with you. Atleast all the family related cases should be sorted out with in 1 year. Unnecessary delays should be avoided. I think governmet should remove delaying of cases first as high priority and then should look into new laws. If the delaying of cases which is happening most of the time purposefully and intentionally when avoided misuse of law will reduce a lot.

But I read in many news articles and forums that the lawyer community is against this speedy trials and a lot of lobbying is going on against quick disposal of cases.

The divorce was granted by the Apex court on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of mariage because one party was not entering appearance before the court and thus delaying the case. When one party absents for a considerably long period, that amounts to IRBDM. Here delay is combated when it becomes detrimental to the other party.

I suspect that If IRBM is introduced there will either many more murder cases !! Or Ex-parte IBM cases !!

Who will contest the IRBM case in court!

If anyways there is no scope to defend the marriage!

I believe that IRBM is a curse, based on whatever I read on it so far.

is there any news of putting the bill at RS?