Skip to main content

Grounds on which wife can be free from the cursed marriage life by suman shaw

 Grounds on which wife can be free from the cursed marriage life  




Grounds available to wife only 


  1. Bigamy: A wife may present a petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground that if the husband has solemnised any marriage before the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 however, it is very essential that at that at the time of submission for petition of divorce the other wife should be alive. 

[Peter married someone in 1950, marriage solemnised with all rituals, in 1965 Peter married again and second wife had no knowledge of his first marriage, she discovers later, Peter is keeping her completely happy, but if the second wife wants the husband to be only hers and not have another wife, she (2nd wife) can file a divorce but the 1st wife should be alive while filing the divorce petition] 

  1. Rape, Sodomy and Bestiality: (rape here strictly means marital rape, sodomy is forceful anal sex with the wife, bestiality is to have unnatural sex like if a drunk man is aroused and has sex with a dog to fulfil his lust). A wife may present a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that since the solemnisation of marriage, the husband has been guilty of rape sodomy and bestiality. 

  2. Non resumption of co-habitation after the order of maintenance: If an order has been passed against the husband for giving maintenance to his wife under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or under section 125 of Code or Criminal Procedure, and after the passing of such order, co-habitation between the parties has not been resumed for more than a year, divorce would be granted.

  3. Option of Puberty: The Wife may present a petition for the dissolution of marriage, by a decree of divorce on the ground that her marriage was solemnised before she attained the age of 15 years, and she repudiated the marriage after attaining that age, but before attaining the age of 18 years.



Talaq by Wife

  1. Talaq-i-tafweez (delegated divorce): He used to give in writing to someone that if you see my wife indulging into any malpractices then you can give her talaq on my behalf.

Ma’am: A husband may either himself or may delegate the power to the wife or to a third party in repudiating the marriage. Such delegation of power is called tafweez. Such an agreement maybe made either before or after the marriage. 

  1. Lian (false charges of Adultery): If a husband puts false allegations of adultery against the wife and such allegations are false, the wife can file a suit in the court of law for the dissolution of the marriage. The false charges will not automatically dissolve the marriage but it gives an opportunity to the wife to move the court and get the marriage dissolved. 

However, the Muslim Law permits a man to take back the charges that he has made, in which the husband must admit that he has put up a false allegation. But, he should take back these false charges before the end of trial. 







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree