A rational and progressive divorce law must strike a balance between two seemingly incongruous objectives. It should support and sustain the stability of the institution of marriage. But it should also enable couples to end their contract with the minimum fuss and acrimony once it is established that the marriage is beyond repair and no constructive purpose would be served in keeping it alive. The irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, a concept first recognised in New Zealand's matrimonial laws in 1920, is now widely accepted around the world as a condition for the grant of divorce. In clearing amendments that make irretrievable breakdown a ground for divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954, the Union Cabinet has accepted longstanding recommendations made repeatedly by the Law Commission of India and the higher judiciary. The Delhi High Court struck an extremely sensible and pragmatic note as early as 1967 when referring to married couples in Ram Kali v. Gopal Das: “It would not be practical and realistic…indeed it would be unreasonable and inhumane, to keep up the façade of marriage even though the rift between them is complete and there are no prospects of their ever living together as husband and wife.”
As things stand, the provisions relating to divorce in the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act (which provides for a civil marriage by registration, under which a couple may marry whatever be their religion) mainly relate to ‘matrimonial fault' — or such things as adultery, cruelty, and desertion. The provision for divorce by mutual consent, introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act in 1976, also exists. While this requires both parties to cooperate on the terms of their divorce, irretrievable breakdown is a conclusion the court may reach if the facts before it establish that the marriage cannot be saved. It is important to stress that irretrievable breakdown was never envisaged as a painless, hassle-free way of arbitrarily dumping a spouse. As the Law Commission has recommended, aside from ascertaining that the marriage is wrecked beyond hope of salvage, any grant of divorce under this provision must ensure that adequate financial arrangements are made for spouses, whenever required, and children. The process of reforming Hindu matrimonial law has resulted in a situation where it is not substantially different today from that which governs civil marriage. The challenge in this connection is to persuade other communities — Muslims and Christians, in particular — to accept reforms in their marriage and divorce laws that are progressive, gender-equal, and in keeping with contemporary thought and practice.
Keywords: Divorce law, institution of marriage, matrimonial laws, Hindu Marriage Act, Special Marriage Act, Law Commission
In the modern world, things have changed a lot and its the turn of guys who suffer most in the marriages. Hindu marriage act has been built or written at the olden time and its biased, it has been a weapon in the hands of girls in this age. I agree to the comments by "from: Danish Mansoor " Excellent
This is a great step which brings back confidence on Judiciary, stop people becoming Naxals.
Hassle free,quick, and consensual settlement of divorce cases, is the only way in which unhappy marriages could be sorted out. Law's vexing delay often drag on the cases for a number of years and partners are often feel worse for having taken recourse to law. Our social attitude to marriages, is clouded with suspicion,distrust, and feeling of being cheated into wedlock. A social stigma is attached not only to divorcees, but also to single men and women remaining unmarried. Apart from this, in today's conditions,the common presumption that women are victims in marriages, appears to be incorrect. Essentially, we need a right type of social attitude to marriages and supporting laws to make this possible. I feel we have still a long way to go.
It is a bitter reality that marriages sometimes do not work. In the quest of providing support to the bereived spouse we should not cross our limits. If we will make laws such that marriage and divorce becomes a complicated process and one party has to loose alot because law wants to safeguard other party interest then I guess people will slowly loose faith in the institution of marriage. They will fullfill their emotional,sexual and psychological needs even by not marrying just to escape the clutches of the feirce law.
We should instead work to revive the people ethical standards. We should understand that happiness and true love can not be purchased or sold. Bringing awareness is the only solution to such kind of problems otherwise you will make laws and people will find different ways to defy it.
Bringing Uniform Civil Law is very difficult in a country where cultural background is very diverse. Different culture and people of different religion have different vision regarding concepts such as marriage and divorce.
The courts are known for giving out paltry sums as maintenance and it's always the women and children who suffer most out of divorce. Unless the law commission ascertains to ensure that financial support is such that both the parties match the lifestyle that the two would have lead together, this law will prove to be disastrous to say the least, women as usual will be at the most disadvantage.
The divorce law should be common to all of our society but the way that be done should be according to their own religious traditions. I mean the law must ensure the justice of the people involved and ensure the needed financial arrangement. If we start this types of reforms without mentioning any relegion initially will be better.
Marriage is a contract between two parties. At the same time it is a covenantal relationship between those two agreed persons. They should lead a happy life amidst all happiness and sorrows, loss and gains and all inadequacies in their life. They come from a totally different family back grounds, culture etc. it would be difficult to make a total assessment to all this before marriage.
Recently, government has issued an order to register all marriages irrespective of their cast or religion or community. This enactment was made to effectively consider the unprecedented increase in divorce petitions.
There were not much divorce cases before 15 years. Now majority marriages are so called “love marriages”. They choose their partners by closing “one eye”. Hence they are unable to see what is on the other side.There is a saying…”before marriage a woman looks at his face and after marriage she looks at his purse” I am not trying to say that all arranged marriages are successful.
Still, I strongly believe, our selection can be perfect only with the blessing of God Almighty
Please Email the Editor