DIVORCE LAW AMENDMENT AS PER LAW COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION IN 2009 – NOT YET DONE

Another case of :- JUSTICE DENAIED when JUSTICE DELAYED

Groom: Aged about 40yrs, Bride: 41 yrs, Son: Aged about 12yrs

PAST

On or about 1984, I, at the age of 15 years proposed to a 16 year girl – and the story began. I forgot that I lost my father at the age of 11 years , had a sister aged 6 years and my widow mother. I had lots of responsibilities to carry out as the only son of my beloved father. In a romantic mood, I forgot the difference in financial status of the two families. The story could have been entirely different if the girl would have refused me then and there, but she accepted me. But her family was “matured” and they opposed it in every possible way. I had my first big exam (10+) just at door. In spite of broken heart I tried my best and got 70% in the exam.

Thereafter I could realise the real state of affairs, as the girl became totally silent. But I wanted to meet the girl at least once and finally found her in July,1988, in her college,15 km away from her home. In between, the girl never informed me about her whereabouts. Again on that day the girl agreed to “CARRY ON” the romance for the time being.

In 1994, myself got married after lots of inside drama from her family. Her father could never accept me “from heart” as an eligible husband of his daughter and he did a “FAVOUR” to us; by

managing to get a job for her, in a school 65 km away from her in-law’s house, just a month before the said marriage. Meantime I managed to make a house with the proceeds received from LIC, obtained after my father’s death. At that time, I was looking after the “small” business left by my father. But her father could never rely on my financial condition and his daughter continued with the service by ferrying daily up and down 130 km. She used to stay very often at her father’s house (close to workplace). She conceived in 1995, but had a miscarriage, and she had two more miscarriages after that in two consecutive years. I lost the joy of being a FATHER and the doctors told specifically that all these miscarriages happened due to her daily strenuous journey . In between, I have decided to take up a job. And my wife finally decided to leave her job, her father also agreed (after some drama again) to the decision. And just after that she became the “proud mother” of our only son. But she could never forgive me for that decision, although she made her own decision always.

I started feeling humiliated for the indirect responsibility for the cause of leaving her job. The misunderstanding began and it increased day after day. I concentrated on my job, and obtained recognition from my employer. I was earning enough to carry on my responsibilities. I built up another floor in the house, since my mother had a long desire for that. I performed my last pending duty by getting my sister married in 2006. I started realising slowly, that I am nothing but a moneymaking machine for my wife. Needless to say, in between, the marriage lost all its charm in all way. My wife became a “lady” by then and was reasonably satisfied with her monetary status, and I became a late 30’s gentleman and kept myself satisfied with my job with an understanding that for the sake of my son, we should stay together.

But from 2007, she started taunting me even in front of my son. I became mentally broke. My health was broken, started suffering from IBS, BP etc. (diseases from tension and mental unrest) and

started thinking about separation and divorce. I had to take sedative regularly. At the same time I was worried about my son’s future. We were sleeping in different rooms from 2008. My wife stopped using Sindoor from 2006. I really wanted to forget all her past begaviours as bad dreams, but I couldn’t. I love my job; it has given me my own identity and before the situation affects my job performance, I wanted to end it. I was in a dilemma till April 2009 (on the death anniversary of my father); when she humiliated me about my parents and myself with some nasty words (“you have some problem in your blood, that’s why I am worried about my son’s future staying with you”). I have finally decided for DIVORCE. Previously, she said many times that she would also prefer the mutual application for Divorce. But this time she disagreed and after discussing with her father, they demanded huge ransom money as “compensation”. She also told me that as divorce is inevitable, one of us should leave the house. I wanted to provide my son at least the same house after separation, which I felt necessary for my son’s upbringing. I shifted to a rented apartment near my place of work in July,2009. She was taking money (whatever needed) from me as usual and delaying the filing process for any separation, keeping the same humiliation process on. I agreed (also paid till date) to pay all necessary expenses for maintenance of my son and wife, including the maintenance for the house where they are still staying with my mother. After all this in 25 years, her father again failed to rely on me. Earlier, I had no money, so they hesitated to get myself married to her. But now, they do not know how much money to claim from me, to spoil me even after Divorce, and that is why they are hesitating to go for a mutual divorce. So I had no other alternative to file the divorce petition in September 2009. I know lots of odds will come from my mother and relatives, as divorce is still considered as a social taboo. Each marriage is between two individual – not between “Ideal Wife” and “Ideal Husband” . I am responsible for my job (doing it last 13 years) as well as my family. I belong to a social class and agree to pay any reasonable maintenance (the only sub

clause was recommended as check measure for divorce for Irretrievable Break Down) as decided by the Honourable Court.

Contest divorce itself is a very tough decision. Even in my professional life, people are not taking it easily. Still I want to take my own black spots, my failure in the marriage - to the public, at least to the people who matters; cant play hide and seek game anymore. I stopped myself several times; thinking about my son, but he should also better see one parent than parents without love or respect for each other. Perhaps by staying apart both of us can maintain a healthy relation with him.

PRESENT

[ Lots of incidents happened in between: -

In October, I felt sad for my son (but nothing for my wife) and came to my old address. But the “drama” continued. I got seriously depressed after noticing my wife’s behavior. Actually she got much more “CRUEL”, and silently (sometime with abusive language in a very low voice) she started humiliating me. Finally, I went to a psychiatrist. I was suffering from a tremendous depression and trauma for my wife’s behavior. After being checked up by 2 more doctors, I am taking anti-depressant drugs since then. Recently (January, 2009) I got a “fit certificate” from Doctor, but still having medicines. In between, she forced to bring all household goods from my rented apartment and stopped to me sell the same, although some items (like fridge) were duplicated. I really got spellbound noticing her attitude. She forced me to shift to 1st floor leaving my mother on ground floor. On 1st floor we were sleeping in different rooms .Now I am again residing at my rented apartment. ]

Now it’s already 5 months gone after my filing. The first date was in Dec 2009. On that day I just got another date. And on the next date also, I shall surely get just “another date.”

Is not this the right (if not delayed already) time to address the problem associated with Indian Divorce Act itself? Please note, I am not the 1st to say this, the law commissions already felt this in 1971 and 2009 (reports enclosed). Both “seriously” recommended introducing THE IRRETRIEVABLE BREAK DOWN OF MARRIAGE as another ground for divorce. We have now a “Fault divorce” and mutual divorce. When my partner and me can’t agree on a less affecting thing like “mutual divorce” (which means to break the tie of marriage), how can we STAY TOGETHER in marriage thereafter? All of us know that, staying together (in any form) requires much more agreement between any two people than to stay apart. That means I have to request (or beg or buy) my wife to be free from marriage, just like a sentenced captive from the Jail. Judiciary indirectly being used as a tool to bargain terms for divorce, in cases like this. Yes, when there is legal battle between couple, who are staying separate over a year, the only motto can be to get a “good bargain” or to harass one spouse by mere non-cooperation. My wife now more “ cruel” in behaviour. She is fighting legally with me – that means she don’t have any ‘emotional” dependence on me. When we talk about our “old tradition of marriage” we often forget that, no “traditional” wife will come to court to keep or leave her marriage.

I would like to mention another thing. My petition primarily based on “CRUELTY”, as the most suitable “available ground” for divorce. But one has to understand that fairer sex normally don’t act “cruel” by physical nature. Even in some cases “SILENCE” or “ABSENCE OF CORDIAL NATURE” between husband and wife can be cruelty of severe nature, which happened in my case. And when a person like me, who act as a Manager in a reputed company, files the divorce for wife’s cruelty, it can effect my

professional reputation to a great extent. Actually it’s very much humiliating for me to file the petition and fight for that. It’s not explainable to anyone, but one who is in similar condition, can very well understand this. Broken marriage is not a crime and by the recommended amendment, divorce law can address that break with far less complexity. As we all know, nobody or nothing can compel a couple or any two people to live together. Present Divorce Law can delay (and make more bitter) the process of divorce, but can’t really change the direction in this scenario.

Can the Judiciary ask me to point out very private part of my life like marriage? Is not this hampering my basic fundamental right as a citizen? When there is no such law for a “father & son” or “mother & son” relation to be in that tie for ever (although maintenance clause is there), why would be such gross disparity in case of marriage? Are later the more “NOBLE” or “MUST ON” relations than the earlier? Is institution of marriage a serious “offense”, which if I have done once, can’t be freed till my death? Is wedlock means deadlock?

Now as an effect I have two options –

EITHER to stay in my marriage forgetting about my own negative feelings compromising with my health and peace of mind

OR

To badmouth my son’s mother in the court to prove her fault to get rid of her.

In both cases either my wife or I would be sufferer, not the Honurable Judiciary or the legislative body! Won’t the chances of

any healthy relation would decrease or diminish just because of amount of tension created between us during the process, as more dates means more blames or more defense (which is also a part of attack mechanism)? Even the child would be indirectly sufferer for the bitterness between the parents as helpless witness of the whole event. Breaking up is a hard decision for anyone, but while doing, why we (in the process itself for its duration & nature) need to be nasty instead of peaceful? If a marriage can be done in a one-month notice period, why the divorce would be delayed for YEARS?

I am referring to some very pertinent cases where Honourable Supreme Court of India understood the gravity of the circumstances and granted the decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage, sometimes even after the lower court’s verdict in an opposite direction. In most of the cases, petition filed against wife’s cruelty. Judiciary understood that delaying the process would only increase bitterness between the couple. Whenever we delay something, it affects. In this scenario its affecting unfortunate people like me.

(1) Vineeta Saxena Vs Pankaj PanditCASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1687 of 2006DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2006BENCH: Ruma Pal & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

(2) Kajol Ghosh Vs Sanghamitra GhoshCASE NO.: Transfer Petition (civil) 228 of 2004DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/11/2006BENCH: G.P. MATHUR & DALVEER BHANDARI

(3) Shobha Rani Vs Madhukar ReddiDATE OF JUDGMENT12/11/1987BENCH:SHETTY, K.J. (J), RAY, B.C. (J)CITATION: 1988 AIR 121 1988 SCR (1)10101988 SCC (1) 105 JT 1987 (4)4331987 SCALE (2)1008

(4) Ashok Hurra Vs Rupa Bipin Zaveri- Dt 10/03097CIVIL APPEAL NO 1835 OF 1997

(5) Suman Kapur Vs Sudhir Kapur – Dt - 07/11/2008CIVIL APPEAL NO.6582 OF 2008

(6) V. Bhagat Vs D. BhagatDATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1993BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J), KULDIP SINGH (J)CITATION: 1994 AIR 710, 1994 SCC (1) 337JT 1993 (6)428 1993 SCALE (4)488

(7) A. Jayachandra Vs Aneel Kaur

CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 7763-7764 of 2004DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/2004BENCH: RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K.THAKKER

(8) Mayadevi Vs Jagdhish PrasadCASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 877 of 2007DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/02/2007BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & DALVEER BHANDARI

(9) N. G . Dastane Vs S. N. Dastane - dt 19/03/1975BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, N.L.CITATION: 1975 AIR 1534 1975 SCR (3) 967, 1975 SCC (2) 326CITATOR INFO : RF 1988 SC 121 (7,10)

(10) Romesh Chander Vs Savitri - Dt 13/01/1995BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J), MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)CITATION: 1995 AIR 851 1995 SCC (2) 7JT 1995 (1)362 1995 SCALE (1)177

(11) G.V.N. KAMESWAR RAO Vs G. JABILLICASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 140 of 2002DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/01/2002BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & K.G. Balakrishnan

(12) Samar Ghosh Vs Jaya GhoshCASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 151 of 2004DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/03/2007BENCH: B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar & Dalveer Bhandari

(13) Sujata Uday Patil Vs Uday Madhukar PatilCASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5779 of 2006DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/12/2006BENCH: G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur

(14) Rishikesh Sharma Vs Saroj Sharma- Dt 21/11/2006CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 5129 of 2006

(15) Satish Sitole Vs Smt Ganga - Dt 10/07/2008CIVIL APPEAL No. 7567 of 2004

(16) Praveen Mehta Vs Inderjit Mehta- 11/07/2002CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3930 of 2002

(17) Durga Prasanna Tripathy Vs Arundhati Tripathy – Dt 23/08/2005CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5184 of 2005

(18 ) K R MAHESH Vs MANJULA CASE NO.:Transfer Petition (civil) 947 of 2005 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/2006 BENCH:ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA(19) Kanchan Vs Mittal

And Last but not the least, THE LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

(20) Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli – Dt 21/03/2006CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 812 of 2004

Some Newspaper articles about our present Divorce Law : -“Examining the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce Ankit Kejriwal, Prayank NayakIrretrievable breakdown of marriage can be defined as such failure in the matrimonial relationship or such circumstances adverse to that relationship that no reasonable probability remains of the spouses remaining together as husband and wife for mutual comfort and support. It is the situation that occurs in a marriage when one spouse refuses to live with the other and will not work towards reconciliation. When there is not an iota of hope that parties can be reconciled to continue their matrimonial life, the marriage can be considered as Irretrievable Breakdown of marriage.  This concept was first introduced in New Zealand. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, 1920 included for the first time the provision for separation agreement for three or more years was a ground for making petition to the court for divorce and the court was discretion whether to grant divorce or not. In England, the gate for this theory was opened up in the case of Masarati v. Masarati, where both the parties to the marriage had committed adultery.  The court of appeal, on wife’s petition for divorce, observed breakdown of marriage. The law commission of England in its report said, The objectives of good divorce law are two: one to buttress rather than to undermine the stability of marriage and two, when regrettably a marriage has broken down, to enable the empty shell to be destroyed with maximum fairness, and minimum bitterness, humiliation and distress. On the recommendation of the Law commission, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage was made the sole

ground for divorce under section 1 of the Divorce Law reforms Act, 1973. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1959 of the Commonwealth of Australia provided for divorce on the grounds of breakdown of marriage. In India, breakdown of marriage is still not ground divorce in spite of the recommendation of the Law Commission and various Supreme Court judgments to include breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. This paper examines the need to introduce irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce.

Theories of divorce   The provisions relating to divorce are contained in Sec 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Act recognizes two theories of Divorce: the fault theory and divorce by mutual consent. Under the fault theory, marriage can be dissolved only when either party to the marriage had committed a matrimonial offence. Under this theory it is necessary to have a guilty and an innocent party and only innocent party can seek the remedy of divorce. However the most striking feature and drawback is that if both parties have been at fault, there is no remedy available.

Another theory of divorce is that of mutual consent. The underlying rationale is that since two persons can marry by their free will, they should also be allowed to move out of their relationship of their own free will. However critics of this theory say that this approach will promote immorality as it will lead to hasty divorces and parties would dissolve their marriage even if there were slight incompatibility of temperament. Some of the grounds available under Hindu Marriage Act can be said to be under the theory of frustration by reason of specified circumstances. These include civil death, renouncement of the world etc. In this article we shall

see that how these theories, owing to change in social circumstances and change in attitude towards the institution of marriage had failed to provide full justice in matrimonial cases.

Judicial opinions

 The Supreme Court has adopted a literal view and granted divorce under irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In Ashok Hurra v. Rupa Bipin Zaveri, the husband and wife filed a suit for divorce by mutual consent. But, subsequently wife withdrew her consent. So the petition was dismissed by trial court. The Supreme Court held that We are of the view that cumulative effect of various aspects involved in the case indisputably point out that marriage is dead both emotionally and practically, and there is no chance at all of the same being revived and continuation of such relationship is only for name-sake. The Honble Court used Article 142 and granted divorce. The Delhi High Court in its full judge bench decision in Ram Kali v. Gopal Das, took note of modern trend not to insist on maintenance of an union which was broken and said, ‘it would be practical and realist approach, indeed it would be unreasonable and inhumane, to compel the marriage to keep up the facade of marriage even though the rift between them is complete and there are no prospects of their living together as husband and wife’. In the case of Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, the Supreme Court reiterated the need for the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The Supreme Court in Manjula v. K.R. Mahesh held, the marriage has irretrievably broken down and there would be no point in making an effort to bring about conciliation between the parties. In Neetu Kohli v. Naveen Kohli, husband alleged that the wife was quarrelsome and was found in compromising situation with one Biswas Rout. The

wife counter alleged that husband had a concubine. This established that the marriage had broken down irreparably and hence granted divorce on grounds of an irretrievable breakdown. It also observed that it was high time that this be included as ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Seventy-first Law Commission Report

The 71st Law Commission of India submitted to the Government on 7th April 1978 dealt with the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This matter was taken by the Law Commission as a result of the reference made by the Government of India in the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company affairs. The Report points out the fact that the fault and the guilt theories of divorce are not sufficient and cause injustice in those cases where the situation is such that although none of the parties is at fault, or the fault is of such a nature that the parties to the marriage do not want to divulge it, yet there has arisen a situation in which the marriage cannot be worked. The marriage has all the outward manifestations of marriage but the real substance is gone, it’s just like an empty shell. The Report unequivocally asserts that in such circumstances it will be in the interest of justice to dissolve the marriage. It is also mentioned in the Report that in case the marriage has ceased to exist in substance and in reality, there is no reason for denying divorce; the parties alone can decide whether their mutual relationship provides the fulfillment, which they seek. Divorce should be seen as a solution and an escape route out of a difficult situation. Such divorce is unconcerned with the wrongs of the past, but is concerned with bringing the parties and the children to terms with the new situation and developments by working out the most satisfactory basis upon which they may regulate their relationship in the

changed circumstances. The majority view, which is shared by most jurists, according to the Law Commission Report, is that human life has a short span and situations causing misery cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. A halt has to be called at some stage. The law cannot turn a blind eye to such situations, nor can it decline to give adequate response to the necessities arising there from. By refusing to sever that tie the law in such cases do not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.

Other jurisdictions  

In most developed nations, the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is recognised as a ground for divorce. New Zealand was the first country to recognize it, through the (New Zealand) Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment Act, 1920 where a separation agreement for three years is a ground for making a divorce petition. In England, on the recommendation of the Law Commission, it was made the sole ground for divorce under section 1 of the Divorce Law reforms Act, 1969. The Matrimonial Causes Act, 1959 of the commonwealth of Australia provided for divorce on the grounds of breakdown of marriage.  The Family Law Act (Australia), 1975 considers irretrievable breakdown as sole ground for divorce. USSR in the initial years was very liberal in the granting of divorce. It was called post card divorce. Family instability led to the tightening of the divorce conditions lately. Under the (Canadian) Divorce Act, 1967-68 it is clearly recognised as a ground for divorce, apart from the normal fault grounds.

Problems, suggestions

However the an attempt to introduce irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce has met with resistance by women organization on the grounds that husbands would desert their wives and then ask for divorce under breakdown of marriage. Also it has been stated by few that the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is somewhat vague. In answer to first criticism it has to be stated in situation where wife has been deserted it indicates that husband wants to get rid of wife and any continuation of such relationship would not make sense to both the parties to the marriage. However a safety clause can be inserted which would empower the court to refuse divorce if it adversely affects the interests of the children. A provision for maintenance for child and wife should be made. As far as the second objection is concerned, it should be necessary for grant of decree of divorce under this theory that parties had lived separately for reasonably long time say for three years. Living separately can be considered as objective criteria for breakdown of marriage. 

The concept of marriage is moving from a sacrament to a contract. The spouse should be granted a right to move out of the wedlock if they cannot live together due to extreme situations. Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Aboobacker v. Mam stated while the stream of life, lived in marital mutuality, may wash away smaller pebbles, what is to happen if intransigent incompatibility of minds break up the flow of stream. Since the social conditions prevailing in the country are peculiar, sufficient changes are needed to be made in the law made so that law is able to ameliorate the conditions of the people who, in absence of required law are craving for relief and hence would be able to make process of dissolution less excruciating. A question may be asked that when irretrievable breakdown of marriage has been recognized as a ground for divorce by judiciary why we need

an amendment in legislation. This is so because amendment would lay down conditions and safe guards, which should be taken into consideration before the grant of any decree.  It is high time that the Government recognizes the need of the time and save many couples from the disgrace and humiliation by introducing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. REFERENCES  Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, Vol II, 19th ed. (ed SA DESAI), LexisNexis Butterworths, New Delhi.Paras Diwan, Hindu Law, 2nd ed.2002, Orient Publishing Company, New Delhi Rangnath. Misra, (rev.),Mayne, Hindu law and Usage, 15th ed.2003, Bharat Law House, New Delhi.Agrawala, Raj Kumari (1972). Changing Basis of divorce and the Hindu Law, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol.14, 1972, New Delhi.B.D. Agarwala (1997). Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage'' as Ground of Divorce - Need for Inclusion, (1997) 8 SCC (Jour) 11.Kusum, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: A ground for divorce, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol.20, 1978, New Delhi.  (The authors are students of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.)” “In AUSTRALIA

If a marriage breaks down, it can legally be ended by the court granting a Divorce.There is only one ground for divorce in Australia - the fact that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The legal test of irretrievable breakdown is that you have lived apart for at least twelve months and there is no prospect of reconciliation. As far as the court is

concerned, this is all you have to establish. The judge won't be interested in who left whom, or whether one of you is having an affair, or whose 'fault' it was that the relationship broke down.”

“Divorce law in our country belongs to an era that has long elapsed. But the laws have neither kept pace nor do they take into account the altered socio-economic realities of contemporary India. This is highlighted, once more, by the recent controversy surrounding grounds for divorce following Smriti Shinde's petition to the apex court urging it to consider granting unilateral divorce when a marriage has irretrievably broken down. The Supreme Court itself is ambivalent about where it stands on the matter.Under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, there are no provisions that recognise "irretrievable breakdown" or "irreconcilable differences" as grounds for granting divorce when it is not a mutually consensual decision. However, in 2006, the apex court granted divorce in the Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli case, precisely because of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But, early this year, another SC bench refused to entertain this argument in the Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Manju Sharma case. It decided to stick to the letter of the law.This is as good a time as any for the laws governing divorce to be updated. In doing so, the issue must not be looked at through a moral prism alone. As Indians interface with the world and are exposed to new ideas and opportunities, there is bound to be a social churn, which impacts on personal affairs like marriage and family relations. Add to this the fact that more women today are economically more independent and assertive of their rights and choices. Divorce must be

seen as a social reality, unfortunate though it might be, and not as a social evil.There are of course legitimate concerns that waiving the mutual consent clause to grant divorce in cases of irreparable marital breakdown would put women in a vulnerable position. But that cannot be used as an excuse to deny those who would genuinely benefit from easing the process of obtaining a divorce. As things stand, one has to go through a lengthy, convoluted and extremely stressful procedure to get a divorce. It's time that changed.”

“Feelings of two human beings are involved in a couple’s

married life. This could not be patched up by enforcement of

law by courts. It is up to the individuals to mend themselves.

A horse can be taken to water but it is the horse that should

drink it. However, the law should not deny divorce if the

marriage has really broken down. By forcing unity with a

hammer in the hand, the law does not serve the sanctity

attached to the institution of marriage by religions. If the

relationship of husband and wife wrecks beyond repair, what

is wrong in recognizing that fact and allow them to live

separately. How can one compel a wife or a husband to

continue to live with spouse if they have fallen apart? If so

compelled they would have to lead miserable life.”

Forget everything else , just imagine a scenario in a bedroom of a couple where a Judge is sitting and deciding about the “cruelty” performed or not among the couple. It must be sounding ridiculous and to avoid such embarrassment, Law Commission suggested the

amendment in the divorce law itself through recent Report (Report no 217, November 2008): -

III.RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is, therefore, suggested that immediate

action be taken to introduce an amendment

in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the

Special Marriage Act, 1954 for inclusion of

‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as

another ground for grant of divorce.

3.2 Theamendment mayalso provide that the

court before granting a decree for

divorce on the ground that the marriage has

irretrievably broken down should also

examine whether adequate financial

arrangements have been made for the parties

and children

I like to highlight some facts in countries, where NO- FAULT (effectively faster & peaceful) divorce exists: -

A decline in the rates of domestic violence (which is obviously of a very high concern in India)

These laws empower a man or woman in an “abusive marriage” and make it easier to leave and live separate

Means less conflict during divorce, which means less emotional harm to children whose parents, are divorcing (very much valid in my case)

Shortens the length of time it takes to obtain a divorce, which, in turn, shortens the amount of time spent in a stressful situation causing physical and mental damage to involved party (as in my case, I am having anti depression drugs as prescribed)

Financial settlements are based on need, ability to pay and contribution to the family finances, rather than on fault ( I am ready to accept any reasonable amount decided by judiciary)

Helps reduce the heavy caseloads of family courts (obviously valid for India)

Our legislation is hesitating to amend the law. Nobody wants to disturb the “STATUS CO”. Its human nature to resist any kind of change. A Surgery is done only when that is needed, to avoid some greater pain or loss. If we remember, we in India had customs like “SOTI DAHO PROTHA” (burning the widow with dead husband), which now we can’t even imagine. As we are getting exposed to

the world, we have to ratinolise our thought process and laws, by improvising any outdated system or rule. Staying apart for a considerable period itself points towards the death of the marriage, “Divorce” is just the legal nomenclature of that unfortunate incident. No divorce or even cause of any divorce will initiate because of the said amendment, but surely it will decrease the suffering of couple whose divorce already initiated. This amendment is only an addition to the grounds of divorce; no way it can hamper the relationship between a married couple.

At the end we all must remember- LAW IS MADE BY THE PEOPLELAW IS MADE FOR THE PEOPLE.