Amendment to marriage law makes divorce easier

[P.J.]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Reported by Sandeep Phukan, Edited by Nadim Asrar | Updated: July 17, 2013 23:24 IST


To make marriage laws more women-friendly, the government today approved a host of recommendations made by the Group of Ministers (GoM) on divorce and inheritance in the Marriage Laws Amendment Bill.

The amendment now makes filing for divorces easier by doing away with the provision that required a couple to file a 'joint application' after the mandatory waiting period.

In the existing provision, if a couple files for divorce - even when consensual - there is a mandatory waiting period of six to 18 months. After that, the couple needs to come back to the court to sanctify the divorce.

If the couple does not move a joint application, then the divorce is not sanctified.

Now, a judge can exercise discretion in granting divorce if one of the partners does not move a second joint application for divorce with mutual consent within three years.

The other big change in the law is on inheritance. The amendment provides for sufficient compensation to a woman from her husband's ancestral property in case of divorce.

Also, in cases where the ancestral property could not be divided, the woman is now entitled to get sufficient compensation by calculating her husband's share in it. The woman's share will be determined by a court of law.

The compensation can be worked out by the court hearing the divorce case if there is confusion over the amount, the amendment says.

Advantage women: Amendment to marriage law makes divorce easier | NDTV.com

 

[Delhi6]

India should legalise pre-nups.

 

[padders]

Hi,

I read this with great interest. Being a woman, I am all for this amendment. However, just as there are evil, conniving men, there are evil, conniving women too. It's like the "alimony" and "palimony:" of the West; many guys don't want to get married because an ex can take him to the cleaners! Before I make female readers go up in arms, let me clarify and say that this is indeed a good amendment, but there have to be checks in place.
A pre-nup? I really don't like the idea of pre-nups. A marriage should be based on love and trust, and a pre-nup seems to nullify the entire sanctity of marriage. I heard Prince William absolutely refused to have a pre-nup before his wedding to Kate Middleton.
Ladies, we live in an unfair male-dominated world, and this amendment will be welcome to many. But let us beware also of those women who may misuse this rule. But a pre-nup as a check or restraint which protects both sides does not seem to me the way to go.
Thanks Delhi-6, for an interesting piece.

 

[auh]

Actually the reason divorces are not easy is that our policy is to allow a divorce only in the "rarest of rare cases". Marriage is viewed as a sacred bond by the law, and only when they find that it is irretrievably broken and both parties are unwilling to continue, they consent for divorce. Even if there is a small scope for union, an attempt will be made along those lines.

But when money is flouted, courts have a different tongue!

The other big change in the law is on inheritance. The amendment provides for sufficient compensation to a woman from her husband's ancestral property in case of divorce.

This is a double edged sword! Can the husband get a share from the ex-wife's (ancestral or not) property?

 

[biswa]

I have a different opinion regarding pre-nup. In the ideal world, marriage is all love and trust and all is good. No prenup required.

But this is not the ideal world. What if after marriage you find that your partner is not what you expected to be? What if he/she commits adultery? You are entitled to file for a divorce, and you are entitled to protect your property. Via a prenup.

 

[padders]

Call me an incurable idealist/romantic if you wish, but I think a pre-nup is not the answer to any of our present-day woes. Imagine every couple entering marriage with a "what if" clause? Surely we need some ideals? And would a pre-nup make a marriage any more amenable? In my opinion,it's like a sword hanging over a couple's heads. Something which says "You better keep your part of the bargain or I'll see you in court."
No, only legislation is the answer, but we can never have a fool-proof law which protects both sides. But pre-nups? No, that's not the solution.

 

[auh]

I agree with #6.

A pre-nup agreement can create a partnership firm where profit and loss is shared, but not a caring home where love is spread.