A lot of discussion is going around now a days based on the the introduction of the new marriage law. This post is my attempt to understand what it is all about and give my perspective on the same.
To start with marriages of hindus are registered under The Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 . Under this act the reasons for divorce could be one of the following: -
1) Sexual Intercourse with a person other than their partner
2) Cruelty
3) A partner deserting the other for at least 2 years
4) Change in religion
5) Mental Disorder
6) Renunciation of world under some religious practice
7) Partner not found alive for 7 years
8) Mutual Consent: Both parties are not living together for at least one year and agree that marriage should be dissolved.
The latest news in is that "Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" is approved by cabinet as a reason to grant divorce. Legally is means is that if both husband and wife agree that they are not willing to live together and there is no scope of their reconciliation then they can be granted divorce.
In simple terms in means that if one of husband or wife refuses to live together under any circumstances and there is not chance that he/she may support the marriage in the future then divorce can be granted. e.g. if wife in a marriage decides to desert the husband and refuses to live or support the marriage then the couple can be granted divorce because both husband and wife in this case cannot benefit from such a marriage.
Stating another example, sometime back a person filed for divorce stating that his wife was a source of constant quarrel in their home and was found to have affair with another person. In the court the wife also proved that her husband had a mistress. After reviewing such situation divorce was granted to the couple because court concluded that marriage was broken to such an extent that there is no point continuing it.
My Perspective:
According to me this makes divorce really easy and hence this privilege can be exploited. To express in more detail this gives power to both the partners to end the marriage whenever they want to. In case any of the partners realize that other partner would not like to have divorce the previous party would start blackmailing.
I feel our society does not accept divorce with as open mind as the western societies do. It is still a matter of shame for both families if the marriage results in divorce and it ruins the future prospects of marriage of both sides equally. This social pressure works fine till the time that both husband and wife experience it equally. In case one of them does not care about it then he/she becomes empowered to take advantage of the other person.
I am not saying that all cases will lead to this. There are some genuine cases that would be solved by this new amendment. All I am saying is that to me the repercussions outweigh the benefits.
Open to discussion on the same...
15 comments:
Hmm, i donno why you are worried about divorces when there are much more serious issues. Anyway your bloggin seems an annual ritual, one post in 2008, one in 2009 and one in 2010 :)
Well, I agreee that there are more serious issues to write upon and I am working on them. This was just a start.
About that annual ritual of mine, I am trying really hard to break this year.
:)
hmm...agree with pankaj ..seems nothing new and obviously new law is better...hope to see some regular good posts soon..best of luck :)
P.S. : why is this word verification???????????????
don't worry spammers are nt going to target ur blog :P
he..he..
I just realized that word verification was on. Thanks.
dude... you have a blog? did not know that...
I am too lazy to think and write an intelligent comment right now... so may be next year, when you update your blog :p
No g2.
As i said this year the tradition will be broken.
I am completely for the new changes in the law. Just yesterday we discussed it and how broken marriages are so harmful for a family.
Anyway, for more serious issues, turn to http://thenewconstitutionofindia.blogspot.com/ :)
Hi! Without getting into the legal / moral/ social issues connected with divorces I wish to state following:
1. I was divorced in 1987. Although I had not sought the divorce and had tried my best to save the marriage for the future of my 5 yr old son, divorce had replaced my son's place in my lap.
2. I was devastated to lose my son.
3. However in 1987 I felt that divorce being an event symmetrically opposite to wedding, divorce also should be broadcast with a reception. Felt that divorce liberated me from my spouse. Felt that I did not have anything to be ashamed about. And hence I could and should announce it with pride. And expect others who care for me to share the event of my freedom.
4. The idea was too radical even for me. Hence it remained in my mind only and I was focused on loss of my son.
5. This week only I read somewhere that in Japan they actually have receptions for divorce like we have for weddings. Such receptions are well attended by relatives and friends.
6. This news ratified my feelings of 1987.
7. Why have I written all this? To let you have a feel of how people trapped in a bad marriage feel to be liberated from it.
8. This is what the change in law is about. It wants people to breath who are suffocated in a bad / wrong marriage.
9. On a personal note, you are an intelligent student of IIT. You are likely to join IAS. Hence in future you may become responsible for the lives of thousands / lacs of Indian people. You should have very open and independent thinking /ideas. Your thinking should not be imprisoned by the usual defense of wrong ideas "may be ok for west but not right for our society".
Hi,
First of all, I am really sorry for your loss.
The law is duly appreciated by me also. It is just that from my perspective I find it more damaging than profitable.
One thing that I must accept that the perspective I form about things is mostly based on whatever reading I have done. Hence my viewpoint is not all encompassing and may not correct. I hold my inexperience responsible for the point that I have made.
Reading your example I too feel that there are a lot more cases that are benefited by this law than harmed.
Thanks for making me realize my shortcomings...
Well, I am an unashamed liberalist, and believe that more freedom is always a good thing. The government shouldn't have to act like an overbearing parent that decides how much freedom we are mature enough to get (I resist with great reluctance to go off on a tangent about the Censor Board :)). If, by making it easier to get a divorce, couples who wanted to get a divorce anyway but were dissuaded by the stringent rules, get divorces, I say, wooooohooooo. What's the point of a marriage that is propped up by a strict law, anyway? In fact, arguing against an easier divorce law on the grounds that more couples will now get a divorce is perfectly analogous to arguing against the removal of Lan-ban (IITB junta, u know what Im talking about) because it will induce more people to play, etc.
@Rajhans:
Well said. But I partially agree with you. The reason being that I feel that this excess of everything is bad.
You and me both know the fact that current generation has a lot of impatience and make hasty decisions.
All I am saying that in the light of validity of the above given fact there might be misuse of this law. And I think there would be majority misuse of this law because majority people have that quick result mentality.
This is what I feel is wrong with introduction of law. The law in itself is fine but the people using it are not the ones who actually need it.
I liked reading your article. I just have the following thought.
Is there really any point in saving a marriage in which one party is unwilling to continue to the extent that they could resort to blackmailing? The way in which we define marriage, and the reasons for getting married can be particularly insightful.
Hi Omesh,
I am really sorry for the late reply. Was really caught up with something. Wont happen again.
Now getting back to the discussion, I get your point there there might be no point in saving a marriage in case the condition has deteriorated to blackmailing but I still feel that to decide weather to fight for the marriage or not depends on man other factors.
According to me the blackmailing part might be caused by something else and if that thing is resolved then the problem is solved. It all depends on how well you face the issue. So the best judge to choose either to save a marriage or not is the person suffering and depends on how he solves the problem.
This is what I have to say on your comment.
You make a good point, Nitin. But I still think you are extrapolating from the condition of marriage in the US (which has a similar 'lax' divorce law). And you need to understand that our concept of marriage is a lot more sacrosanct & binding than theirs... We, with our social baggage of "saat janmon ka milan" or whatever, will be less inclined to consider divorce as a serious option except in extreme circumstances.
And I'd again like to reiterate that the best government is the least government . The government doesn't need to be the moral police, we have enough of those, thank you. If someone wants a divorce and can't get one because of some technicality of a strict law, I think that is much more unfortunate than 25-30 (kaise toh 25-30 ghusana hi tha :)) cases of couples who are inclined to get a divorce but don't get one because of the strict law.
Rajhansa,
I totally agree that good government is least government. We are grown ups and are capable enough to take our our decisions and face their consequences whatever they might be.
Going through all the discussion that has followed this post I have realized that this is going to help more than it can damage. But there is this another thing that I have realized that this law will help only if people of our generation use it wisely. It is a great power and as they say with great power comes great responsibility.
So if people use it logically this can be a cause of relief for many suffering couples.
Nitin
Post a Comment