RS approves bill to make divorce friendly for women - The Hindu
The Bill allows both parties to file for divorce on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage.
Rajya Sabha on Monday approved a proposal to make divorce friendly for women as it provides for the wife getting share in the husband’s immovable property after “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill seeks to empower the courts to decide the compensation amount from the husband’s inherited and inheritable property for the wife and children once the marriage legally ends.
The Bill allows both parties to file for divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage. Both parties have to live apart for at least three years before filing for such a petition.
Provisions have been made to restrict grant of a decree of divorce on ground of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for maintenance of children has not been made consistently with financial capacity of the parties to the marriage.
Also, the wife has the right to oppose the grant of a divorce on the ground that the dissolution could result in grave financial hardship.
Replying to a debate on the bill, Law Minister Kapil Sibal said it is “a historic peace of legislation” in a patriarchal society like India where women, who constitute 50 per cent of the population, own only two per cent of the assets.
He said the divorce is “gender neutral” as either the wife or the husband can seek divorce. However, the right over property will not be gender neutral as wife can lay claim on husband’s immovable property.
The Bill also provides that a court can take an ex parte decision on granting divorce if one of the two parties refuse to move a joint application.
As per the existing laws, the parties have to move a motion jointly between 6 and 18 months in case of divorce on grounds of mutual consent.
However, it has been observed that in several cases one of the parties do not turn up for filing of motion jointly with the other party leading the party desirous of divorce hapless and remediless.
The amendment has been done to mitigate such hardships, said the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill.
During discussions, several MPs across party lines suggested the Bill be made gender neutral and should not be confined to Hindu marriages only.
The Bill seeks to amend Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Mr. Sibal, however, noted that the legislation is in context of Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act, a couple has a choice to get registered under the Special Marriage Act.
He said it would be the courts that would decided about the division of property post divorce.
“We have to trust our judges...Judges...will decide what (amount of) property will given to women,” he said.
The Minister, however, said there was no amendment which works against women and works in favour of men.
He said the Members of Parliament should show that they are on side of women in a patriarchal society.
Earlier, Najma A. Heptulla (BJP) said divorce is considered a taboo in India and efforts should be made to ensure that family structure remains intact.
She accused the government of not doing anything for the 10 crore women belonging to Muslim community. She promised BJP’s support to any legislation for betterment of Muslim women.
She also said there should be only one law for all women in the country.
As per the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act have proved to be inadequate to deal with the issue where there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage and therefore the need was felt for the amendments.
Supreme Court too had pointed out the necessity to introduce irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mutual consent as grounds for grant of divorce in all cases.
“Having regards to the recommendations of the Law Commission of India and the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court...it is proposed to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, so as to provide for irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce thereunder subject to certain safeguards to the wife and affected children,” the statement said.
The Law Minister said husbands too can move courts for irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Ram Prakash (Cong), Narendra Kumar Kashyap (BSP), Jharna Das Baidya (CPI-M), Derek O’ Brien (TMC), Arvind Kumar Singh (SP), Renubala Pradhan (BJD), Vandana Chavan (NCP), Bharatkumar Raut (SS) and Gyan Prakash Pilania (BJP) also participated in the discussion.
From India, Delhi
174The Bill allows both parties to file for divorce on the ground of "irretrievable breakdown" of marriage.
Rajya Sabha on Monday approved a proposal to make divorce friendly for women as it provides for the wife getting share in the husband’s immovable property after “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill seeks to empower the courts to decide the compensation amount from the husband’s inherited and inheritable property for the wife and children once the marriage legally ends.
The Bill allows both parties to file for divorce on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage. Both parties have to live apart for at least three years before filing for such a petition.
Provisions have been made to restrict grant of a decree of divorce on ground of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for maintenance of children has not been made consistently with financial capacity of the parties to the marriage.
Also, the wife has the right to oppose the grant of a divorce on the ground that the dissolution could result in grave financial hardship.
Replying to a debate on the bill, Law Minister Kapil Sibal said it is “a historic peace of legislation” in a patriarchal society like India where women, who constitute 50 per cent of the population, own only two per cent of the assets.
He said the divorce is “gender neutral” as either the wife or the husband can seek divorce. However, the right over property will not be gender neutral as wife can lay claim on husband’s immovable property.
The Bill also provides that a court can take an ex parte decision on granting divorce if one of the two parties refuse to move a joint application.
As per the existing laws, the parties have to move a motion jointly between 6 and 18 months in case of divorce on grounds of mutual consent.
However, it has been observed that in several cases one of the parties do not turn up for filing of motion jointly with the other party leading the party desirous of divorce hapless and remediless.
The amendment has been done to mitigate such hardships, said the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill.
During discussions, several MPs across party lines suggested the Bill be made gender neutral and should not be confined to Hindu marriages only.
The Bill seeks to amend Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Mr. Sibal, however, noted that the legislation is in context of Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act, a couple has a choice to get registered under the Special Marriage Act.
He said it would be the courts that would decided about the division of property post divorce.
“We have to trust our judges...Judges...will decide what (amount of) property will given to women,” he said.
The Minister, however, said there was no amendment which works against women and works in favour of men.
He said the Members of Parliament should show that they are on side of women in a patriarchal society.
Earlier, Najma A. Heptulla (BJP) said divorce is considered a taboo in India and efforts should be made to ensure that family structure remains intact.
She accused the government of not doing anything for the 10 crore women belonging to Muslim community. She promised BJP’s support to any legislation for betterment of Muslim women.
She also said there should be only one law for all women in the country.
As per the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act have proved to be inadequate to deal with the issue where there has been irretrievable breakdown of marriage and therefore the need was felt for the amendments.
Supreme Court too had pointed out the necessity to introduce irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mutual consent as grounds for grant of divorce in all cases.
“Having regards to the recommendations of the Law Commission of India and the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court...it is proposed to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, so as to provide for irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce thereunder subject to certain safeguards to the wife and affected children,” the statement said.
The Law Minister said husbands too can move courts for irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
Ram Prakash (Cong), Narendra Kumar Kashyap (BSP), Jharna Das Baidya (CPI-M), Derek O’ Brien (TMC), Arvind Kumar Singh (SP), Renubala Pradhan (BJD), Vandana Chavan (NCP), Bharatkumar Raut (SS) and Gyan Prakash Pilania (BJP) also participated in the discussion.
From India, Delhi
What changes could have been in the following judgment had the above law would have been in force?
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1794 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007)
K. SRINIVAS RAO … APPELLANT
Versus
D.A. DEEPA … RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the appellant-
husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8/11/2006 passed
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.797/03,
setting aside the decree of divorce granted in his favour.
3. The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar in the Andhra
Pradesh High Court. The marriage between the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs.
Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on
both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals
at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got
separated without consummation of the marriage and started living
separately. On 4/10/1999, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint
against the appellant-husband before the Women Protection Cell alleging
inter alia that the appellant-husband is harassing her for more dowry. This
complaint is very crucial to this case. We shall advert to it more in
detail a little later. Escalated acrimony led to complaints and counter
complaints. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the
Family Court, Secunderabad. The appellant-husband filed a counter-claim
seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion
under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The Family Court while dismissing the petition for restitution of
conjugal rights and granting decree of divorce inter alia held that the
respondent-wife stayed in the appellant-husband’s house only for a day, she
admitted that she did not have any conversation with anyone and hence any
amount of oral evidence adduced by her will not support her plea that she
was harassed and driven out of the house; that the story that the appellant-
husband made a demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- is false; that by filing
false complaint against the appellant-husband and his family, alleging
offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in the Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Hyderabad and by filing complaints against the appellant-husband in
the High Court where he is working, the respondent-wife caused mental
cruelty to the appellant-husband and that reunion was not possible. The
Family Court directed the appellant-husband to repay Rs.80,000/- given by
the respondent-wife’s father to him with interest at 8% per annum from the
date of the marriage till payment.
5. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal carried by
the respondent-wife against the said judgment and set aside the decree of
divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband. The High Court inter
alia observed that the finding of the Family Court that lodging a complaint
with the police against the appellant-husband amounts to cruelty is
perverse because it is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The High Court further held that the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife did not live together for a long time and, therefore, the
question of their treating each other with cruelty does not arise.
According to the High Court, the conclusion that the respondent-wife caused
mental cruelty to the appellant-husband is based on presumptions and
assumptions.
XXXXXXXX
28. In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondent-wife has caused
by her conduct mental cruelty to the appellant-husband and the marriage has
irretrievably broken down. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides
of pain and anguish. In this Court the respondent-wife expressed that she
wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but, that is not possible now.
The appellant-husband is not willing to take her back. Even if we refuse
decree of divorce to the appellant-husband, there are hardly any chances of
the respondent-wife leading a happy life with the appellant-husband because
a lot of bitterness is created by the conduct of the respondent-wife.
29. In Vijay Kumar, it was submitted that if the decree of divorce is set
aside, there may be fresh avenues and scope for reconciliation between
parties. This court observed that judged in the background of all
surrounding circumstances, the claim appeared to be too desolate, merely
born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine
purpose or aim. In the facts of this case we feel the same.
30. While we are of the opinion that decree of divorce must be granted,
we are alive to the plight of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband
is working as an Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He
is getting a good salary. The respondent-wife fought the litigation for
more than 10 years. She appears to be entirely dependent on her parents
and on her brother, therefore, her future must be secured by directing the
appellant-husband to give her permanent alimony. In the facts and
circumstance of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellant-husband
should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. In the
result, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The marriage
between the appellant-husband - K. Srinivas Rao and the respondent-wife -
D.A. Deepa is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant-husband
shall pay to the respondent-wife permanent alimony in the sum of
Rs.15,00,000/-, in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) should be paid on 15/03/2013 and the remaining
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) should be paid in
instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each after a gap of two months i.e. on
15/05/2013 and 15/07/2013 respectively. Each instalment of Rs.5,00,000/-
be paid by a demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent-wife “D.A.
Deepa”.
Xxxxxx
37. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
……………………………………………..J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
From India, Delhi
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1794 OF 2013
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4782 of 2007)
K. SRINIVAS RAO … APPELLANT
Versus
D.A. DEEPA … RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the appellant-
husband, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8/11/2006 passed
by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.797/03,
setting aside the decree of divorce granted in his favour.
3. The appellant-husband is working as Assistant Registrar in the Andhra
Pradesh High Court. The marriage between the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs.
Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on
both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals
at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got
separated without consummation of the marriage and started living
separately. On 4/10/1999, the respondent-wife lodged a criminal complaint
against the appellant-husband before the Women Protection Cell alleging
inter alia that the appellant-husband is harassing her for more dowry. This
complaint is very crucial to this case. We shall advert to it more in
detail a little later. Escalated acrimony led to complaints and counter
complaints. The respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the
Family Court, Secunderabad. The appellant-husband filed a counter-claim
seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion
under Section 13(1)(i-a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. The Family Court while dismissing the petition for restitution of
conjugal rights and granting decree of divorce inter alia held that the
respondent-wife stayed in the appellant-husband’s house only for a day, she
admitted that she did not have any conversation with anyone and hence any
amount of oral evidence adduced by her will not support her plea that she
was harassed and driven out of the house; that the story that the appellant-
husband made a demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- is false; that by filing
false complaint against the appellant-husband and his family, alleging
offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in the Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Hyderabad and by filing complaints against the appellant-husband in
the High Court where he is working, the respondent-wife caused mental
cruelty to the appellant-husband and that reunion was not possible. The
Family Court directed the appellant-husband to repay Rs.80,000/- given by
the respondent-wife’s father to him with interest at 8% per annum from the
date of the marriage till payment.
5. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed the appeal carried by
the respondent-wife against the said judgment and set aside the decree of
divorce granted in favour of the appellant-husband. The High Court inter
alia observed that the finding of the Family Court that lodging a complaint
with the police against the appellant-husband amounts to cruelty is
perverse because it is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. The High Court further held that the appellant-husband and the
respondent-wife did not live together for a long time and, therefore, the
question of their treating each other with cruelty does not arise.
According to the High Court, the conclusion that the respondent-wife caused
mental cruelty to the appellant-husband is based on presumptions and
assumptions.
XXXXXXXX
28. In the ultimate analysis, we hold that the respondent-wife has caused
by her conduct mental cruelty to the appellant-husband and the marriage has
irretrievably broken down. Dissolution of marriage will relieve both sides
of pain and anguish. In this Court the respondent-wife expressed that she
wants to go back to the appellant-husband, but, that is not possible now.
The appellant-husband is not willing to take her back. Even if we refuse
decree of divorce to the appellant-husband, there are hardly any chances of
the respondent-wife leading a happy life with the appellant-husband because
a lot of bitterness is created by the conduct of the respondent-wife.
29. In Vijay Kumar, it was submitted that if the decree of divorce is set
aside, there may be fresh avenues and scope for reconciliation between
parties. This court observed that judged in the background of all
surrounding circumstances, the claim appeared to be too desolate, merely
born out of despair rather than based upon any real, concrete or genuine
purpose or aim. In the facts of this case we feel the same.
30. While we are of the opinion that decree of divorce must be granted,
we are alive to the plight of the respondent-wife. The appellant-husband
is working as an Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. He
is getting a good salary. The respondent-wife fought the litigation for
more than 10 years. She appears to be entirely dependent on her parents
and on her brother, therefore, her future must be secured by directing the
appellant-husband to give her permanent alimony. In the facts and
circumstance of this case, we are of the opinion that the appellant-husband
should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. In the
result, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The marriage
between the appellant-husband - K. Srinivas Rao and the respondent-wife -
D.A. Deepa is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The appellant-husband
shall pay to the respondent-wife permanent alimony in the sum of
Rs.15,00,000/-, in three instalments. The first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) should be paid on 15/03/2013 and the remaining
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) should be paid in
instalments of Rs.5,00,000/- each after a gap of two months i.e. on
15/05/2013 and 15/07/2013 respectively. Each instalment of Rs.5,00,000/-
be paid by a demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent-wife “D.A.
Deepa”.
Xxxxxx
37. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
……………………………………………..J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
From India, Delhi
"GDP growth to fall short of 8 p.c. in X Plan: Montek"
"New Delhi: Even as External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee
projected a double-digit growth "in the realm of possibility" the
Planning Commission Deputy Chairman, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, on
Tuesday declared that the country would fail to achieve the Tenth
Plan target of 8 percent GDP(gross domestic product) owing to a
slowdown in the manufacturing sector"(The Hindu, 8/11/2006).
What I have been saying since I joined this forum is goinng to become true. When a government functionary gives a statement in public he is thorough on the matter. So the euphoria which India had in the first half of this decade will evaporate soon.
Now joining issue with Aswini Kumar, let me inform that motivation to work depends upon optimum endorphin generation in the body and not by sermons. I think, HR speciality is not equipped with this skill.
attribution https://www.citehr.com/2975-challeng...#ixzz2e6XTc0Z5
Growth rate has gone down below 5% as predicted. After this law it will go down further.
From India, Delhi
"New Delhi: Even as External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee
projected a double-digit growth "in the realm of possibility" the
Planning Commission Deputy Chairman, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, on
Tuesday declared that the country would fail to achieve the Tenth
Plan target of 8 percent GDP(gross domestic product) owing to a
slowdown in the manufacturing sector"(The Hindu, 8/11/2006).
What I have been saying since I joined this forum is goinng to become true. When a government functionary gives a statement in public he is thorough on the matter. So the euphoria which India had in the first half of this decade will evaporate soon.
Now joining issue with Aswini Kumar, let me inform that motivation to work depends upon optimum endorphin generation in the body and not by sermons. I think, HR speciality is not equipped with this skill.
attribution https://www.citehr.com/2975-challeng...#ixzz2e6XTc0Z5
Growth rate has gone down below 5% as predicted. After this law it will go down further.
From India, Delhi
Let us have a bet.
A.After the enactment of the law posted in the opening post, the economic growth of the country including the corporate world will accelerate.
B. After the enactment of the law posted in the opening post, the economic growth of the country including the corporate world will decelerate.
I bet in favour of B
From India, Delhi
A.After the enactment of the law posted in the opening post, the economic growth of the country including the corporate world will accelerate.
B. After the enactment of the law posted in the opening post, the economic growth of the country including the corporate world will decelerate.
I bet in favour of B
From India, Delhi
The Happiest Countries In The World - Yahoo! India Finance
But India is missing in the list
From India, Delhi
But India is missing in the list
From India, Delhi
A new govt. takes over the administration of central governmntCan it raise GDP growth?
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Expecting inflation in the given situation where the rupee is increasing and the fuel prices are likely to shoot.
The taxes on SUVs might not increase. But over all would shoot the rate of inflation high .
Jobs situation would further remain cautious, hitting the real estate boom .
Looking forward to hear more from our experts on this .
From India, Mumbai
The taxes on SUVs might not increase. But over all would shoot the rate of inflation high .
Jobs situation would further remain cautious, hitting the real estate boom .
Looking forward to hear more from our experts on this .
From India, Mumbai
Reserve Bank to keep rates on hold, Jan-March GDP to confirm economy remains sluggish: Reuters Poll | Reuters
The poll of 48 economists predicted Asia's third-largest economy grew 4.8 percent in the three months to March compared with the same period last year, up from 4.7 percent in the previous quarter.
xxx
In anticipation of a BJP election win, investors' confidence in Indian assets revived, leading to a rally in shares and the rupee.
But despite the market euphoria, economists cautioned inflation, high borrowing rates, weak industrial output and subdued demand are among the main economic risks facing the new government.
"Budget, growth, current account deficit and fiscal management would be the major issues. Priority for Modi would be to improve growth environment and provide a platform by easing out various bottlenecks," said Mittal.
From India, Delhi
The poll of 48 economists predicted Asia's third-largest economy grew 4.8 percent in the three months to March compared with the same period last year, up from 4.7 percent in the previous quarter.
xxx
In anticipation of a BJP election win, investors' confidence in Indian assets revived, leading to a rally in shares and the rupee.
But despite the market euphoria, economists cautioned inflation, high borrowing rates, weak industrial output and subdued demand are among the main economic risks facing the new government.
"Budget, growth, current account deficit and fiscal management would be the major issues. Priority for Modi would be to improve growth environment and provide a platform by easing out various bottlenecks," said Mittal.
From India, Delhi
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Motivation-frog _philosophy_406 .pdf
Employee Motivation.ppt