Why divorce Will not be a personal liberty.

Mr.Arun Kumar Gupta,

In my view there is a difference in our personal and constitutional rights for the simple reason that (take examples of Hindus) our personal lives are governed through age old norms and beliefs.  The laws are nothing but prevailing norms in the society.  Are you not jumping the que for the reason that by passage of time changes are coming in our society.  Take for example the dowry deaths and then misuse of Section 498A and now protection to the rights of gays and authenticity of live in relation.

PIL is also nothing but an attempt of changing the prevailing norm in the society (like what happened in the case of pollution enamating from water pollution and engulfed so much so that everybody started cursing courts of interfering right to earn livelihood). 

The another aspect to this issue is dicotomy qua our constitutional rights and duty of the establishment in view of the economic growth of the country  there should be more emphasis in tilting towards enforcing directive principles of state - as in my personal view two things are paramount firstly the sincere and genuine will of the establishment to make the life of every citizen less miserable and secondly the society which we want to build for tomorrow should have basic healthy infrastructure available for growth and prosperity.

Best regards

Daksh

 Kick your wife to your hearts content now.

A husband and his relatives cannot be prosecuted for “cruelty” towards wife merely because the mother-in-law or other family members had kicked her or for that matter threatened her with divorce, the Supreme Court has held.

 SC has not defined the manner of kicking.

Webster's dictionary defines kicking in these words:

transitive verb1 a : to strike, thrust, or hit with the foot b : to strike suddenly and forcefully as if with the foot c : to remove by a kicking motion <kicked off her shoes> d : to remove from a position or status <kicked him off the team>

So the wife, as per the judgement, can be hit with the foot or struck suddenly and forcefully as if with the foot etc. etc.

In other words, men are now at liberty, without the fear of divorce, to kick their wives with impunity. ISN'T IT GREAT?

Mr. anil agrawal, i have not seen the said judgement / news. if you have please post here for my knowledge.perhaps you recall the judgement that, if one's wife,tell 'turn your head, he has to turn the head'.

to avoid such types of thinghs divorce is a permanent solution. but in india divorce not granted and allow the spouses to make their matrimonial home ' a bull in a chaina shop'. what is the use of such marriages to be continuing?

Is there any moral right to continue such marriages? just see the web pages of this club. males are in fear of their better half. better half is now a bitter half.are the people marry for fighting?  -akg

Right to marry, right to divorce, right to education, right to work, right to vote,  etc. Even we should get right to give as well as accept bribe (since, we are not able to get our work done, whether it is right or wrong). Everything should be like, what we wish to be.

 Kindly see Time of India 5/8/2009. It is reported there.

 Download judgement:

Every person right over his/her body should be recognised as an absolute right to everybody. Seen in this light, divorce is very much a part of right to life.

mr.rajesh, Thanks.  right to live with dignity - is the personal liberty under art 21 of the C.O.I.

People why crying for divorce? Because  there dignity is at stake. they fill they are being insulted by carrying an unwanted person in the name of marriage. think Smita sinde's case and other cases. all these are quite unnecessarily. If divorce treated as personal liberty, like 'talak' of islam and tribals of india then what is the loss? are they not  indian? The indians were enjoyed divorce according to their religious rites. it was snatched by HMA & IPC. Our codified law is influenced by cannon law. Catholic church ideal in regard to marriage ls " ...till death .". Therefore it is introduced in hma that till death they (the spouses) will be punished in the name of marriage. who is happy in such a Failed marriage.If one party refuse to do the matrimonial duties can a court or the other spouse compel him/her to resume the matrimonial duties? Think about the (sec.9/hma) restitution of conjugal rights (rcr)..what is it's end, if the unwilling spouse ignore the order of restitution? then not only the spouse willing to continue the marriage but also the spouse unwilling also have the right to obtain divorce at his/her own discreation (sec13(1A)/hma.) - which is equivalent to personal liberty. Sec 13 (1a) quoted bellow "

(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground-

(i) that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or

(ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties." Not only RCR, Judicial seperation also gets the same status. Again recall sec 13B of HMA, where the spouses jointly can apply and it will be granted, without any further question,which is equal to personal liberty. but if one withdraw his/her consent other will loose his personal liberty. Is the personal liberty depends upon the other's personal liberty. Personal liberty under art.21 of COI is a right of an individual. one individual is the owener of it, and not a group. THIS RIGHT IS  VERY INDIVIDUAL and not of a group of two or more. Smita sinde case is best example of it.. sec 13B/HMA quoted bellow.

"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"

Personal liberty can not be snatched by one individual. A Man is equiped by law. It's equipment can not be snatched. It can not be equipment less by a civilised sociaty.

Thanks to mr agarwal mr.daksh also .

 Please do not go by SC judgement and start kicking your better half. She will go to the police, file 498A and DV Act cases, police neither knows nor wants to know about SC judgement, simply they will book you and then you go on quoting the judgement till eternity.

thanks for the advice but as an elder brother please do the same . i shall follow you and meet you there

In fact in my view the whole concept of divorce based on grounds is faulty. If somebody does not want to live some other person, this should be a reason enough.

If Hindu marriage is a contract, there is nothing socrasant about it; if it is a sanskar, no court order can dissolve it.

"Be a Roman when you are in Rome" that is a common saying. Our country and its culture treat the MARRIAGE to be a SACRED relation and not as a legal contract or financial understanding. That s the main purpose of legislation of FAMILY LAWS. The statutary control over the decision of DIVORCE restrain those persons who treat the marriage as a fun. Yes you can provide financial need of the children. But can the 'lacuna' formed with the absence of either parent be filled with financial support whatever huge the amount may be. Thats why and how our system is still taking care of the MARITAL BONDS not to be disturbed with small breezes excepting for reasonable causes of irretrievable damages to the sacred bond. "

Posted by sreedevi on 04/01/2010 00:32:12

THE ABOVE MATTER POSTED IN ANOTHER PLACE BY MS. SREEDEVI WHICH FURTHER POSTED BY ME FOR CONVINIENCE

 Donot follow me "there". Police in your pocket and donot go "there".

Dollar is printed in green colour so it is called "Green". Our currency is printed in a variety of colours. But, 1000 rupee note has a tinge of pink. Let us call it PINK.