what is your view? Proposed Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IrBM) Act The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 was first introduced in the Rajya Sabha on the 4th August, 2010. The Bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to provide for Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as a new ground for grant of a decree of divorce; and also to provide certain safeguards to protect the interests of wife and children and do away with the waiting period of six months for moving a joint petition for grant of divorce by mutual consent. We have learnt from the latest news reports and from our calls to the Legislative Department of Law Ministry, and by meeting the Hon’ble Law Minster Sri. D.V Sadananda Gowda that the Government is about to re-introduce this Law, Marriage Law (Amendment) Bill in this Winter Session. The draft bill is to change Hindu Marriage Act. 1 When the Bill was first made available in 2011, Our NGO CRISP was invited by the standing committee of Parliament for providing feedback. We had had strongly opposed the Bill in its then form. & also adduced evidence against the drawbacks of the bill which is now a part of the records. However, the same Bill, with hardly any major changes, has been brought forward again. We oppose it since it is not pro-family or protecting child rights but only wife centric. Key highlights of the IrBM Bill The main amendments that are being proposed in the bill introduced are · Provide for divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriages · Provide to the wife the right to oppose a divorce petition by the husband on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage on the grounds of grave financial hardship · Ensure adequate maintenance to children born out of the marriage before granting divorce · Do away with the mandatory waiting period of 6 months for moving a joint petition after filing a petition for grant of divorce on the ground of mutual consent · Provide for provision of division of matrimonial property Concerns regarding the Bill · The Bill, out-rightly, violates the essence of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution which prohibits discrimination against any citizen on the grounds of religion or gender. · There is no protection for children to be connected to both parents through shared parenting plan as there is a presumption that children with remain only with the mother. Studies shows single parenting is adverse to the welfare of the child. · The Government has declared at the outset that the primary intention behind introducing this bill is to facilitate quick divorces in case of irretrievable breakdown of marriages, and also provide for a mechanism for the wife to oppose a petition if she is suffering from financial hardship. However, these amendments are aimed at only the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. The Government therefore makes a fundamentally incorrect assumption that irretrievable breakdown of marriages and financial hardships of wives are limited to only Hindu society. The intentions, if genuine, ought to translate into amendments to all marriage laws that are applicable in this country. 2 · The first intention of the Government, as declared in the bill draft is to provide for quick divorces in the case of irretrievable breakdown of marriages. The very next intention stated is to provide the wife a way to oppose quick divorces. These 2 intentions are evidently contradictory to each other and will end up into a law that makes divorce completely a one-sided affair. In future wives will have the liberty of deciding whether or not divorce is to be obtained which is unfair for husbands. · The Bill plans to introduce a mechanism for a portion of the self-earned, and inheritable, property of the husband to be transferred to the divorcee wife. Assets/Properties are acquired after years of hard work and not because of few years of matrimonial life. Losing hard earned property in case of failed marriage will lead to increase in Husband Suicide (already it is double) and increase in Crime Rates, along with other repercussions which is anti-family. · The Bill does not specify any duration for the marriage to have survived, for the question of division of inheritable property to come into consideration. So even if a marriage is ineffective from the very outset, the separating wife still gets to have a huge chunk of the husband’s property. Clearly, this loophole is going to be exploited as a means to make quick property by unscrupulous elements. · Marriage will lose its sanctimonious purpose and become a property acquiring business. Already, there is an increasing trend towards material expectations in a marriage; the amendment will have a far reaching consequence. With divorce no more being a taboo in India, the incentive of women taking divorce would work as reverse DOWRY menace where women would marry for property and not for family or love, or in the interest of family and children. · It is an established trend and confirmed by Apex court that, in failed marriages women are grossly misusing IPC 498a and DV Act for extortion. This amendment will be another tool and further distress families. It is proven that property disputes take the longest time to get resolved in Indian courts. The tagging of property division along with divorces will only lead to even lengthier legal entangles for the parting spouses. Appeals of lower court judgments will see a phenomenal rise. CRISP Demands 1. By attempting to create draconian marriage breaking laws like the IrBM Act , the government has been misled by certain womens organizations with western influence.. This bill needs to be immediately stopped and new public opinion must be sought through an extensive debate involving all stakeholders. 2. Amending section 13D and making it gender neutral and allowing both the Husband and Wife to pray for ‘Financial Hardship’ in the spirit of equality. 3. Providing a clear & objective definition of “Financial Hardship’ so that this term is not interpreted in a wrong way and divorces are not sold by wives. All other maintenance cases filed by the wife, like Sec24, CrPC 125, DV etc, should not be allowed to continue, blocking the judicial dockets, as the relief sought in all of them, will also be available in this Bill only. 4. Include condition of finishing/quashing all litigation before divorce is granted so that both parties can live peacefully and that judicial burden can be reduced. 5. Condition of closing child custody litigation before granting divorce under Section 13C, so that rights of child to seek the involvement of both parents are not taken away from it, and encourage shared parenting as the best alternative. 6. Initiate the process of formation of National Commission of Men involving bodies who have been working for Men for years to bring the equitable balance back into the society in terms of Laws and Law Making process. 7. Hindu Marriage Succession Act of 2005 be strictly implemented. The woman’s share in her parent’s property should be Suo Moto given to her either at the time of marriage or at the time of Divorce is filed in the court (by either party) if the party wishes as she may be getting double benefit of claiming inherited property on top of claiming husband property along with his ancestral property. 8. In cases of unemployed women or wives with long career break, State should take the responsibility of providing employment and livelihood to divorced wife, Employment for Divorced wife should be given top priority . Conclusion We earnestly request the immediate intervention of the Law Minister of India since such half-baked hastily prepared formulations, sans due consultation, & based on unfounded prejudices, have the potential to grievously imperil the social fabric of the society. This is apart from the stupendous economic impact caused by the matrimonial disputes and their offshoots including criminal cases. CRISP would like to highlight that it does not oppose the Bill per-say, but it opposes it from the point of view of the unconstitutional and illogical proposals it incorporates as any act should be equitable to all cross sections of the society & all stake holders.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 15:38:24 +0000