“RECOVERY BEGINS FROM THE DARKEST MOMENTS”- JOHN MAJOR
IN INDIA THERE IS A RELIEF OF DIVORCE AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES IN A MARRIAGE WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE SECTION 13-B OF THER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT,1955.THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT COVERS HINDUS,JAINS,SIKHS AND BUDHISTS. THE CLAUSE FOR MUTUAL CONSENT WAS BROUGHT IN THE YEAR 1976 THROUGH AN AMENDMENT MADE.
DURATION OF THE PROCESS:-
On the motion of both the parties made earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the
CONDITIONS:-
- THE WIFE AND THE HUSBAND MUST NOT BE LIVING TOGETHER
- THE SPOUSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIVING SEPERATELY FOR ATLEAST 1 YEAR.
- CONSENT SHOULD BE BI-LATERAL
- BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO COMPLY AND FILE JOINTLY FOR A MUTUAL DIVORCE WITHOUT ANY UNDUE INFLUENCE.
GROUNDS FOR FILING A DIVORCE:-
- ADULTERY
- CRUELTY
- DESERTION
- COVERSION
- UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND
- VENEREAL DISEASES
- PRESUMPTION OF DEATH
PROCEDURE:-
CASE LAW:-
BADRI V/S HARBAI
In the instant case, the parties have been living separately since 1996 for about 17 years, the comfort of marriage has become a mirage and it exists only in form-as a legal tie. The possibility of reconciliation is non a existent and difficulty of making a marriage work under the order of the court quite un-surmountable. In the meantime the respondent wife has been making do with a pittance of Rs.600/- per month as maintenance while the caravan of legal proceedings goes on.
RAJNESH KUMAR SHARMA V/S PREETI SHARMA
In the current case, realities are that appeal for separate at the case of spouse was likewise documented and stayed forthcoming for over two years, yet under the steady gaze of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge. That request was permitted to be removed with freedom to the gatherings to move an application for acquiring announcement of common separation by assent under the steady gaze of the Family Court. The procedures both, in prior court and the ensuing court were subsequently between similar gatherings must be acknowledged in continuation.
LEELA MAHDEO JOSHI V/S DR. MAHADEO SITARAM JOSHI
The learned trial judge stated in his judgment that he did not agree with the parties that they had not been able to live together. He concluded, that there appeared to be no real difference between the husband and wife. Now we fini it difficult to understand how the learned Trial Judge could have arrived at this conclusion – how rejected the evidence of both the parties. Perhaps he declined divorce as the parties had lived together in matrimony for long years. Held, if parties able to prove their case then no other course is open to Judge except to grant divorce.
CONCLUSION:-
Divorce by mutual consent provides an opportunity of amicable resolution of disputes between parties and saves time and money
