Pl. help me

dear Richa, mere narrow minded approach of a person may not be a good ground for divorce, u ll ve to travel beyond this ground.

 

if u r unable to approach some lawyer then visit the local courts and seek Legal Aid Cell to seek legal aid counsel, who can help u out.

 

better would be to consult some local lawyers to form an appropriate opinion.

Richa,

You have no good grounds to go for divorce.  If you want to get rid of him then you will have to file divorce petition under the special marriage act before the Dist., Court.  There will be conciliation stage there you both can sort out your problems inspite of it if  you both felt it is very hard to live together then court after considering can grant a divorce.

1. How old are you !

if u can,t live ur husband ,u may file a divorce under section 13 Hindu Marriage act.my contact no. is 9717138381. 

RICHA,

              YOU   SHOULD  GET   RID  OF     U'R   HUBY...........BY   FILING     A   DIVORCE   SUIT  U/S  13  OF   THE   HINDU  MARRIAGE  ACT.

mr d arun kumar, lci friend,

you have done an offence - not criminal, but social offence,

.......ha........ha.......ha....... 

Mrs Richa, once upon a time you loved her.now it is vanished. ok no problem. you will get divorce, but the the posting of the following lnes shows your short temparament, which not looking nice,you could tell the same in a diffrent language. "he is like a man of fifty with narrow minded thoughts which are inheretied from his family and highly egoistic he seems to be intelligent but he is not intelligent.he always speaks rudely but if i do the same that hurts his ego.In short he feels superior by insulting others." now come to your question. when you are huge diffrence in opinion with him once again try for adjustment. ask him for a compromise, you tell your objections to him and ask frankly that if he cares the marriage; wants to save the marriage, then - he has to come with an adjustment; he has to care the points raised by you. if not, then offer him for a mutual divorce; it is the best divorce policy. if you want details of mutual divorce will be sent to you. if not then think for rcr or file divorce petition; where you have to file a petition at court and you have to proove your alligations at court. normal wear and tear do not come under cruelty. you have to charge a heavy amount of cruelty - which makes the marriage impossible.

you have to proove your alligations at court..

normal wear and tear do not come under cruelty.

you have to charge a heavy amount of cruelty - which makes the marriage impossible.

Sh. Arup ji,
1. When people in passion and/or while wearing rainbow glasses and/or with whatever personal reason get married to an older or to a younger "person of opposite s*x" then they donot think of any of 'discoveries" of evils in "that" person and it is only when "incompatible differences" arise people think oh he is b***y 50 years old and I'm young why not get rid of him.
2. It also surprises me that "society supports" that hypocracy.......does society supports that lady with continuation of rest of her life after that "divorce" ...no
3. That is the reason I committed so called social contempt and it is nothing personal a que. for and aginst this lady.
4. May be she may have valid reasons but what age has to do with those reasons other than proving on court "life and limb" incompatibility. Even Hon'ble SC turns down such requests (Arup ji do u recall that Air Force guy who spent 18 years in various courts and our great SC Hon'ble Sh. Justice Katju sahib turn him down from seeking divorce and said same happens in my home too so live with it" so with the provided briefs "knowing her age" is important so that both of them could be asked/guided to approach "marriage counceling" and get over with their "petty incompatiable differences/issues" and look forward to a new life together.
5. A man of 50 plus years old is bound to get fixed ideas and/or clinge to what he has "in hand" in present instead of leaving it so easily morsoover if this lady is 'young in age' and in turn the lady will be hit/asked to take multiple litigation cruelties stages.So what is left for them to lead further morover the lady in question here...think aloud that sir!
6. The important question here is that "is the 50 years old chap not performing his duties as a husband moresover being what ever his short brief has been mentioned here?" if 'yes' then carry on with life with minor adjustments here and there using help of counsellers is the answer not spending your youth in courts and the end what you will get "a mutual consent" with some money that is all na.... but think of the time and energey spent just to achieve that... was it worth all that efforts vis-a-vis "marital counselling" using professionals help !
7. Think "inward" the answer is always been there. All the best even if I don't come to know of your social age ! And none of these are personal for you it is just a 'social contempt though" as "mischiefly" pointed by friend Sh. Arup ji :-))))
Rgds.

Better to contact the local lawyer, if u think that there is no way of conciliation. For further queries u can contact me at 09871158578.

dear friend arun ji,

NOTED YOUR POINTS.

very jenuine question. i appriciate.

seeing her avtar, it looks, a very young girl. the old chap like me (am 56), if grabbed her by taking the advantage of her innosence is very dishonest work. the young person do not know what going to happen, but the elder one must understand the same.

as the 'minimum age' restriction is there for marriage,  an  'age gap' restriction should also be there.

I BELIEVE IN PERSONAL LIBERTY ON MARRIAGE UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

MARRIAGE AND IT'S CONTINUATION SHOULD BE GOVERNED ACCORDING TO ONE'S OWN WILL. THE FINANCIAL LIABILITIES TAKEN BY THE SPOUSES MAY BE THE MATTER OF SUEING ONE BY THE OTHER SPOUSE. BUT THE QUESTION OF ' WHEATHER ONE WILL LIVE WITH OTHER SPOUSE IS NOT THE MATTER OF JUDGING BY A JUDGE; NOT A MATTER OF SUEING ONE, -  A COURT OF LAW. BUT BE DECIDED BY THE SPOUSES ITSELF. IF ONE DISAGREE, OTHER WILL LOST THE SPOUSAL RELATIONSHIP. THIS WILL CREATE ACTUAL BOND OF MARRIAGE.

THE PRINCIPAL WOULD BE - ' IF YOU CARE (ME), I AM THERE (WITH YOU), OTHERWISE NO WHERE (IN YOUR LIFE).

 

Dear Sh. Arup ji,
1. Your craving for Art. 21 COI will come on test at Hon'ble SC in matrimonial suits as Union Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde's daughter has set into motion a debate over the right of a woman to walk out of a traumatic marriage against her husband's will.
2. Here her plea is based on challenging Art. 14 and Art. 21 which was once rejected by same Hon'ble SC in her own case and all ears are on this Appeal outcome.
3. I hv posted the abv. item under News category in Family Law forum just today and is probably under moderations. Kindly wait and read through the News at LCI in next couple of days.
4. With respect to your standing, let no one comment on any ones "avatars image / aka names" of any personality here in LCI irrespective of their gender as everybody adult has a right to use either a real name / real photos and or go by ones pseudo freedom due to variety of personal reasons which we should overlook while replying.
Rgds,

so far i understand, shinde case is different than what i am saying here.

her case already filed. my logic and her are seperate.

she says that the act mutual divorce is zender biased. her ground of challange is zender bianess in favour of mall

though i know that the act is purely zender nutral.

huge money and advocate harish salve is involved.i am affried of it.

in response to yr point 5, how you guess that the wife is too junior,  here?

or it is yr general comments?

Rejoinder Para 5:
(a) Your guess is as good as mine.
(b) It is "generalised statement" based on knowing one spouse age to be 50 + and another spouse not disclosing her age (in an open forum) so as per gender neutral codified Special Act like HMA as we all know "some guess work" is necessary to come at some infrence (like what could have happened behind closed doors between these two spouse) moresoever it was just a pre-judging statement which is valid guesswork in an "open forum" like LCI coupled with casual neumerics post "avatar" image which shows that the person behind the que. is not inclined to tell more than necessary to find a way out of "a situation" presented before legal minds at this stage.
(c) That was the exact reason I first asked a single question which was on her age first !
Rgds