Seeking mutual concert divorce

@ Author,

Option 1 Via PoA route given to lineal descendant you can seek divorce via MCD route. Search my old post on PoA divorce route.

Option 2 Check with Jurisdiction District Court if they have video conference facility. If yes, then getting an Application allowed deposing via video conference route. Search my old post on video conference divorce route.

Option 3 Requesting concerned Court about leave seek dates of two motion hearing accordingly and make your way (leave - travel) to jurisdiction Court accordingly  

Direct your wife to assist in search of a local advocate found via reference and after due diligence hire h/er services to represent parties case under MCD route using one of the above suggested option.

The hired advocate should have good rapport with concerned Court to seek dates of hearing if option 3 is planned.

[Last reply]

I’m sorry Tajobsindia but I have to tell the author to not follow one of ur advice. Very dangerous advice. The rest of the advice is brilliant and far beyond my education.

Brother Anonymus, do not direct ur wife to assist in the search for a local advocate. U r abroad, u need to find an independent lawyer who will act as ur eyes. By independent I mean that the lawyer should have nothing to do with ur wife. If u give her the opportunity, she will find a lawyer who will look after her interest and do any foul play at her will. Even if ur wife has already hired a lawyer to take care of the proceedings, u should hire another one via ur family back home so HE(sic) can oversee the proceedings. DO NOT TRUST THE LAWYER REFERRED TO U BY UR WIFE AND INLAWS. I’m no expert but trust me on this. This is everyday common sense. 

Trust remains the cornerstone of marriage, even when ending it. Otherwise the agreements of MCD are not worth the paper it is written on.

I agree with TAjobsIndia fully.

Dear Shonee ji, with respect, I knew experts here also give wrong advice, a lot of it, but u have crossed all limits. Your advice will guide the author into dangerous territories. You want a man, who is absent from India, to work out an MCD agreement through a lawyer referred by his wife? R u insane?

You said, "trust remains the cornerstone of marriage, even when ending it." O wow. Sir, did u trust ur wife when u got married? What happened to that trust when she was into foul-plays and filed criminal cases on u? Yet u still have the temerity to say, "trust remains the cornerstone of marriage, even after ending it". Do u write with logic or do u write because it sounds nice? You got fooled by trusting ur wife, and now, r u looking for some company of fools? Do u want the author of this thread to also experience what the hazards of trust are?

And u said that in the absence of trust "the agreements of MCD are not worth the paper it is written on." Brother, this thing that u call MCD, mostly happens when trust is lost between the spouses. Pls write with logic.

The man who started this thread is from USA: I'm sure there will be some money exchanged in this MCD. And u want him to trust the wife and the lawyer referred by her? 

Even though common sense is not a nail that can be hammered into someone's head, I'm still gonna try. Here we go:

In the first link, look for these phrases: “I have given her half of the permanent alimony” and “ during the 2nd motion, my wife said that she is not sure about divorce:”

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Wife-not-agreeing-after-filing-mcd-87763.asp#.VFpz8PnF9Lc

https://www.kaanoon.com/2754/my-wife-applied-for-mutual-divorce-now-she-playing

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Wife-filed-498a-after-13b-mutual-divorce-petition-257081.asp#.VFpyd_nF9Lc

U were a member at 498a.org at one point. I think u still have access to view threads. In the first link, notice how the man paid money and the wife backed out and asked for more money. I guess 'trust' worked out well for him:

https://www.498a.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=12392

https://www.498a.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11244

Brother Anonymus, sometimes common sense should prevail. Do not, under any circumstances, let ur wife run the show of MCD. If any money is to be given, do not pay her upfront. Only a trustworthy lawyer, hired through ur own family, should look after ur interest.

On the go aka Observation:

‘Compelled to learn Law’ means one is compelled to learn law as it is used as screen name and as it gets interpreted – right!. 

Suppose if the Author – Queriest of this very post hires his own Advocate based on your 'alleged to be said sane wisdom' and he does not share a common Advocate as hinted by Intern Shonee, can you say with ‘sanity’ that his independent hired Advocate will not ‘collude’ with his wife and/or his wife’s independent Advocate?
Reasoning: Many queriest here in this very family law forum have complaint about ‘collusion of Advocates', hence, I suggest like you dig - up so many links and presented on a shaky platter to Intern Shonee to read, well, it is about time you dig those ‘advocate collusion’ links too from various family law postings and present to this very post as ‘equity principles’ and let forum readers including the Author of this post decide who is ‘insane’ aka ‘biased’ in expressing once opinion.

Here is a quote which I'm 'compelled' to quote:-
"Advocates are spider webs through which the big flies words passes through and the little ones words get caught."

Ta ra rum pum pum………

[May be just a last reply]

Dear Tajobsindia, u said, “many queriest here in this very family law forum have complaint about collusion of Advocates.” So what r u trying to say? If a meal at home accidentally causes food-poisoning, should we go and eat our next meal at our enemy’s place? Are u saying that the chances of finding an honest lawyer will improve if one asks his wife to refer to him a divorce lawyer? Learned Advocate, if the need ever arises, do not change ur profession to a risk-analyst. U’ll bankrupt the company in the first year of ur employment.

Regards

PS: keep the free advice coming; I have enough sanity to differentiate the harmful recommendations from the useful ones.  

And Sir, learn to pick ur fights. I haven’t met many who can argue better than I can. U r gonna lose this argument. I can guarantee u that. Don’t let it be ur last reply.

Dear Tajobsindia, u also said, “it is about time you dig those ‘advocate collusion’ links too from various family law postings and present to this very post as ‘equity principles’ and let forum readers including the Author of this post decide who is ‘insane’ aka ‘biased’ in expressing once opinion.” After many years of ur service in courts, I hope u came to know that a lawyer should not seek the needed evidence from his opponent. So do not ask me to dig up posts to support ur side of the argument. See if u can handle ur defense on ur own. 

Exactly, that is why I opened my observation with and I re-quote it again, ‘Compelled to learn Law’ means one is compelled to learn law as it is used as screen name and as it gets interpreted – right!.

Here is your legal compulsion for Free from me; did I not make a statement in second para after above observation? In case you omitted taking 'risk' in reading my second para statement then I re-quote my very second para, "Suppose if the Author – Queriest of this very post hires his own Advocate and does not share a common Advocate can you say with ‘sanity’ that his independent hired Advocate will not ‘collide’ with his wife and/or his wife’s Advocate?"

What does above statement means which you didnot took 'risk' 'examing' it being 'Financial Examiner'? It means if @ Anonymous hires his own Advocate and neither he has a common advocate nor one provided (recommended) by his wife (which you are calling as 'insanity'), yet, Advocates as in there is a 's' here which means plural and means two Advocates by parties and are shown to 'collude' (dig links) which then means even if @ Anonymous hires his own independent Advocate his Advocate may or may not ‘collude’ with his wife's Advocate so indirectly it hardly matters based on facts in this brief if at their 'last mile' journey for MCD, spouses have a common Advocate or referred Advocate  Vs. independent Advocate respectively as Advocate's' in generic are found to 'collude' with each other and 'risk assessment’ remains the same at the very end Vs. 'Trust' suggestion where first a leap of faith is taken and then 'Trust' follows and just because you are digging few web links of 'bad Trust' cases that does not mean cases of MCD where with 'Trust' spouses are appearing should be treated as same which indirectly also shows lack of self esteem one has in his own 'risk assessment' and shows on that s/he does not know of ‘legal remedies’ that one takes even when (Trust) MCD fails. 

See I donot give anyone scope to dig up posts to support my arguments, as you failed to rise to accept such public challenges. I have been very well handling my own defenses till date and by reminding you to re-read my second para I exactly did that, whereas you are repeating again to me what you already told to Intern Shonee. Try to 'Examine' whole presentation (reply) and interpret ‘argument’ otherwise you may loose your 'Examiner Certification' one day which ‘not many' might have told you till date as research has revealed that human brain dissociates the explicit memory of a negative event from the emotional response in fearful situations .....  

BTW, Law is not ‘humor’ which you did not ‘assess’ and/or ‘examine’ before you wrote to me via your 2 PMs on Gandhi Jayanti.

[You may continue 'examining' my public replies]

Dear Tajobsindia, where is ur supporting evidence? I read ur post and it’s a politician’s babble. Where is an example that a lawyer referred by a wife is a trustworthy lawyer? Or why a man, who is not in a mental asylum, should ask his wife to refer a lawyer when he needs to divorce her? 

Not that ur reply made any sense to me, but I must reply to it to keep my word:

First of all: about ur favourite quote: ‘last reply.’(EDIT: Sir, u deleted the phrase ‘last reply’ from ur post above after I posted this message) Last reply? Yeah? Even before the prosecution produces all of it’s evidence? U rest? If this is the same kind of behaviour u exhibit in the courtroom, ur client will hang on the next available noose. 

Secondly: u have yet to produce a one shred of evidence to support ur argument. U asked me to help u gather the evidence and ur request was denied without consideration.

Thirdly: do not worry about me losing my 'Examiner Certification,' as u call it. While ur mentor, Gandhi, was preaching non-violence in India, the youth of my state was rendering enemies dead in the UK and inside my state. Ancestors born out of that same bloodline secured enough land and it’s rent to insure my accidental unemployment.

Fourthly: U said ‘law is not humor’.  Sir, law becomes humour when u often talk of ‘last reply.’ I always say to myself, “last reply? He doesn’t seem that old; I hope he lives and posts another reply.” 

Dear Tajobsindia, I was looking for a worthy fight so I could deliver a knock-out punch. To my dismay, u did not bring any fight with u. Next time: make sense. The argument u presented here is no different than ur last reply: so what do u want me to reply to?

To give the defense an ample amount of opportunity to present some evidence, in the interest of justice, I assure u, this is not my last reply. 

Where is an example that a lawyer referred by a wife is a trustworthy lawyer?
Rejoinder: There are thousands of decided Mutual Consent Divorce cases from Judgment list of District Court websites where for 'practical' reasons only one advocate appeared as 'common' advocate of parties. It is not a norm, it is not binding, it is just a choice based on TRUST made by parties. 

XXX Or why a man, who is not in a mental asylum, should ask his wife to refer a lawyer when he needs to divorce her?
Rejoinder: Here in this brief both parties decided that they need divorce VIA MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE ROUTE and not that only he (i.e. queriest) needs a divorce. Read carefully brief then argue further with me. 

XXXXIf this is the same kind of behaviour u exhibit in the courtroom, ur client will hang on the next available noose.
Rejoinder: So far it has never happened as 'first' replies are rock solid based on 'first cut i.e. first statement of a queriest' reading a brief in FREE LEGAL PORTALS. For more replies the moment a queriest opens up with more facts one should pay FEES. Hence 'last reply' is norm in providing FREE service which I have adopted and anyone else is free to go on giving further replies. Let me educate you further, in case you are not aware that 'free legal advice' is given for free only upto certain time limit based on reading down 'first cut' statement - question of a queriest and post that it ought to get converted into 'paid' reply. That free service time limit in free forums such as this by me is copyrighted as I often mention after reply in bold 'last reply', if you or any queriest have problem or like to hear more wisdom then PAY and hear them out.  I'm aware of giving 'first cut' reply without seeking more facts i.e. my reply may be construed as probably wrong but if one pays attention to "what initially"  as first brief is asked and what I replied then till that point the reply is correct and the moment a queriest puts 'more facts' and readers start re-reading my 'first cut reply' then may be my reply may not sound correct but whose mistake is it? It is queriest as he ought to have given all facts when posting first time knowing full that this is a 'free' reply forum. Understand the replies made by me against this backdrop then you will take back your above quote - XXXXIf this is the same kind of behaviour u exhibit in the courtroom, ur client will hang on the next available noose  unquote

u have yet to produce a one shred of evidence to support ur argument. U asked me to help u gather the evidence and ur request was denied without consideration.
Rejoinder: Read various decided Judgments from District Court websites  you will find thousands of cases of parties where for 'practical' reasons only one advocate appeared as 'common' advocate of parties and these judgments are not of HC or SC. Whereas I didnot seek your help, instead I asked you to produce those cases where separate - independent Advocate of one among two spouses 'colluded' which brings out ‘natural justice’ difference in what you say as ‘insanity’ comment Vs. TRUST said by other replier. Unless Trust not there when both have decided to opt for mutual consent divorce even with having separate advocates it may FAIL, mostly, due to ‘collusion’ is what I am grilling you in case you donot know art of crossing ‘last mile’ journey. 

Thirdly........XXXX
Rejoinder: I didnot ask you to boost your employability or un-employability status, save those in your pockets for sunshine or rainy days.

U said ‘law is not humor’.  Sir, law becomes humor when u often talk of ‘last reply.’ I always say to myself, “last reply? He doesn’t seem that old; I hope he lives and posts another reply.”
Rejoinder: General public like you when pop up in FREE legal forums of Advocate's interaction with General Public then as FREE service 'last reply' is option and I do take up several next post of several new queriest and give FREE 'last reply' respectively instead of romancing only one post till eternity and have been replying as per my FREE time. If you being general public has problem with my 'last reply' then move ahead to PAID service and empty your pockets you will get case lifetime paid service. Don't take free service as your birth rights by poking faulty challenges. 

I was looking for a worthy fight so I could deliver a knock-out punch. To my dismay, u did not bring any fight in u. Next time: make sense. The argument u presented here is no different than ur last reply: so what do u want me to reply to?
Rejoinder: I want you to 'differentiate' 'sanity' vs. 'trust' when both spouses wants divorce via mutual consent route and may have one common advocate (provided by either spouse to other) if not possible to have two separate once due to practical reasons. When common advocate appeared in mutual consent divorce cases those cases didnot end up in 'insanity' route. It is a choice not norm nor is binding and simply rejecting it does not hold waters since it is happening in thousands of MCD cases even today.    

PS:
I didnot die or was dying OR asked you to read my various 'last replies' in the Free Legal Forum, it is you who sent me PM commenting my replies are 'humorous' and you said in your own PM you are informing www.498a.org to refer to my various alleged to be 'last replies' posting whereas I donot even needed to go to such Forums. Thanks but no thanks for free publicity which does not even interest me. 

Problem here is general public becoming over smart especially NRI's and commenting about Indian Advocate(s) replies in this forum as if general public knows Laws better than Indian Advocates and funny part is they themselves cannot even reply legally mentioning procedures, acts, codes, sections etc. after an advocate's reply, yet have tenacity to comment Indian Advocates are 'fools' or give 'bad replies' or 'donot know law' yet their tail itself is caught by their Indian wives or is struck – slow moving in some or the other Indian Court. You generic public are good at making fun of law or legal replies nothing more as you have no iota of knowledge or practice of procedures, acts, codes, sections etc. had it not been so you could have found yourself reading decided citations where one common advocate provided his services for mutual consent divorce instead of asking me to give them as evidence on a platter. 

Now, let me tell you a last eGyan; even if separate advocate hired there are number of cases post decree in mutual consent divorce where wife has re-opened cases and after decree in MCD court gave further relief to divorced wife. So what happened to what intern Shonee hinted about 'Trust' and your faulty comment on Indian advocate's 'insanity' in such re-opened cases where separate advocates were hired? This much you may not know but poke up here challenging Advocates wisdom and calling Advocates replies as 'humor'! 

Keep talking more I have patience to hear all sorts of general public's like you unlike your faulty quote 'denying request without consideration'. I give earful of 'consideration' as I want to remain within Law and not above Law as over smart public like you aspire to with faulty engagements.

Dear Tajobsindia, last night, while I wrote the last two replies in this thread, I was somewhat under the influence of alcohol: I did not mean to call u a housemaid. And I do not think ur replies r babbles. Please accept my apology.

But Sir, u should learn to acknowledge ur blunders and correct them in the future: u made a huge error in judgement when u recommended that, to work out an MCD, an NRI husband should hire a divorce-lawyer referred by his wife. I quote ur recommendation: “direct your wife to assist in search of a local advocate found via reference.”

Sir, u did not look after the interest of the author while providing ur advice. To the contrary, u provided advice, which will most likely result in satisfying his wife’s interests.

I welcome u to continue this argument. I have no doubt in my mind that u r wrong. If u r not satisfied with the reasoning given so far, u will be provided more argument and evidence to change ur mind. So that, in the future, u r prevented from pushing another NRI into the harm’s way.

Sir Tajobsindia, I hope u r clear that u r never to suggest to an NRI that he should ask his wife to recommend a divorce-lawyer to him.

Also, u said, "as if general public knows Laws better than Indian Advocates and funny part is they themselves cannot even reply legally mentioning procedures, acts, codes, sections etc."

Nothing bothers me more than a proud educated man who flaunts his degree to support his argument. Will flaunting ur degree, in front of a judge, win u a lost case in the courtroom?

If u r not clear that u r not to offer such advice to an NRI, let me know. I'll use all of my sense to remove the fog from ur logical thinking.