Skip to main content

Divorce laws

 

INTRODUCTION


 In Ancient India, separation was obscure to general Hindu law as marriage was viewed as insoluble association of the couple . In Modern India Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, divorce was mainly based on fault theory . The theory of fault includes 9 grounds for divorce according to section 13(1), for both the husband and a wife to seek a divorce .

Concept Of Divorce


As we know that in ancient India there no such type of concept exists. Manu announced that a spouse can't be delivered by her significant other either by deal or by deserting, suggesting that the conjugal tie can't be cut off in any case.but in modern India concept of divorce exist, Divorce put the marriage to end, It ceases all the mutual obligation of husband and wife, they are free to go there on way. This leads to end all bonds between them except concerning section 25 (maintenance and alimony) and section 26 (custody, maintenance, and education of children). There is available much ground on which husband and wife could take divorce.


Grounds of Divorce:


Under the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 there exists following grounds of divorce such as:-


  1. Fault Ground (section 13(1))


  1. Breakdown Ground (section 13(1A)(i), 13(1A)(ii))


  1. Divorce By Mutual Consent (section 13-B)


  1. Customary Divorce (section 29(2))


Fault Ground


Under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, section 13(1), lays down nine fault ground of divorce. Some of there are Adultery, Desertion, Cruelty, Insanity, Leporacy, Verenal Disease, while others such as Conversion, Or Renunciation of words are typically Hindu grounds.


Irretrievable Breakdown Ground


Under Hindu Marriage Act 1955, section 13(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


•that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 8 [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or


•that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of 8 [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.


In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa[16] court held that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is not a basis for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. However, where marriage is beyond repair due to the animosity induced by the actions of the husband or the wife or both, the courts have often treated the irretrievable dissolution of marriage as a rather severe situation, inter alia, causing marital separation. A marriage that is dissolved for all purposes can not be restored by the decision of the court if the parties are not able to do so.


Divorce by Mutual Consent


Under Hindu Marriage act, sub-section (1) of section 13B of the Act required that the petition for divorce via mutual consent need to be provided before the court jointly among the events and that there had been 3 other requirements of sub-section (1) specifically


  1. They have been residing separately for a period of 365 days,


  1. They have not been capable of live together and


  1. They've together agreed that the marriage has to be dissolved[18]


Under Hindu Marriage Act, Section 13-B, it might be clear that both the parties are able to document a joint petition for divorce by means of mutual consent, provided they were living separately for a period of 365 days. moreover, it's far provided that at the motion made by means of each the events not earlier than 6 months after the date of presentation of the stated petition and no longer later than 18 months of the stated date, the court on being satisfied after hearing the events and after making such an inquiry as it thinks suit, pass a decree of divorce dissolving the wedding by way of mutual consent.

In Smt. Jayashree Ramesh Londhe vs Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe[19] court held that either party can withdraw the petition after thinking over the matter about divorce through mutual consent and that in this way a party can withdraw the earlier consent though not obtained by using fraud, undue influence, and coercion.


Customary Divorce


It is a fact that divorce was not known to the general Hindu rule, but however, in some cultures, divorce was accepted by custom and the courts followed the custom where it was not contrary to public policy. The scheme and the purpose of this Act are not to circumvent any of those customs which have been recognised as having divorce and effect by the saving found in this chapter. Under any other situation, it is not mandatory for the spouses to come before the Court to seek divorce on the grounds recognised by custom.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more