On MCD : the recent say of SC

Full text of ld. Ambika’s SC Judgment annexed in PDF format


Link of English version of ld. Ambika’s hindi news post:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-lifts-time-bar-on-mutual-consent-divorce/articleshow/8021985.cms

Why do't trial courts draft and type (rather the typists, employed there in family courts, ensure that they do their job neat and prepare orders and decrees as dictated by the court without mistakes) the way this judgement is prepared?

Every judgment should be seen as a work of art even in trial courts.

Irretrievable breakdown of a marriage

Nothing new for lawyers as this type of condition is also found in a contract such as free consent....so in this case  marriage is consider as contract.(Although in India marriages are treated as holy tie.  Contract marriage is not valid in India.)

But in this situation if one party take his  consent back  than the other party cant get divorce.The court in order to settle the dispute amicably.

I this case the court observed that,“17. The marriage between the parties cannot be dissolved  only on the averments made by one of the parties that as the   marriage between them has broken down, no useful purpose would   be   served   to   keep   it   alive.   The   legislature,   in   its  wisdom, despite observation of this Court has not thought it proper to provide for dissolution of the marriage on such averments. There may be cases where, on facts, it is found that   as   the   marriage   has   become   dead   on   account   of contributory acts of commission and omission of the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping such marriage  alive. The sanctity of marriage cannot be left at the whims of  one of the annoying spouses.......”

What is the solution in this situation?In this case,para 26 states  that she wants   this   marriage   to   continue,   especially   in   order   to   secure   the future of their minor daughter, though her husband wants it to end. But suppose the husband dont want to continue and get divorce than what is the solution?only o file for divorce case and paying maintenance to her wife and child?

"..... at the whims of one of the annoying spouses ....."

be read as ........................ 'so called ..........or the party who is like a 'self proclaimed' victim, wronged party ...................'

By calling onself a victim doesn't accord the status of the victim. Law needs circumstances as well as evidence of circumstance, evidence of involvement other party and motive and intention also.

All these together make the other party guilty, and after that ..... if those proved circumstances are grave enough to 'claim relief' that relief is granted.

Even if 'normal wear and tear' is proved, and even if it is admitted by opposite party, still it may not be sufficient to win the claimed relief.

IT IS QUITE NATURAL, AND WITHIN THE MCD LAW.

13B. Divorce by mutual consent.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, (68 of 1976.) on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

The above citation is woman centric some may say. But here is a 2009 SC judgement by a 3 judge bench on same issue [Consent withdrawn = no divorce] in favor of man.

Arup ji's response is correct.