NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over an increasing number of divorce cases flooding the courts, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the Hindu Marriages Act had done more harm to the family system in the country than strengthening it.
“The Hindu Marriages Act has broken more homes than uniting,” a vacation Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and G S Singhvi observed.
The apex court regretted that the growing number of divorce cases in the country was having a disastrous effect on children of families which get broken in such a manner.
Enacted in 1955, the Hindu Marriages Act which had undergone several amendments till 2003 contains various provisions for validity of a Hindu marriage, restitution of conjugal rights and divorce, the latter being a concept evolved from the English law.
“Even at the time of marriages, anticipatory divorce petitions are being filed,” the Bench remarked sarcastically.
The apex court passed the observation while dealing with a petition filed by a divorcee for seeking his child’s custody.
“Ego should get dissolved for the sake of the child,” the Bench remarked even as the separated parents tried to air their views.
The apex court told the separated couple that it was more concerned with the welfare of the child, rather than the mutual recrimination between the two.
“Ultimately the child suffers. If it is a girl the trauma is more, particularly at the time of the marriage of such children,” Justice Pasayat speaking for the Bench observed.
The apex court lamented that the provisions provided in the Hindu Marriages Act for granting divorce on the grounds of spouses suffering from diseases like leprosy, mental illness were being misused by some couples.
“In those days our forefathers never had such problems,” the apex court observed while stating that marital disputes during the olden days were sorted out within the four walls of the house.
In this case, Gaurav Nagpal through counsel Manik Karanjawala had sought custody of his 11-year old son.
Nagpal had filed the appeal after the trial court and the Delhi High Court had both granted the custody of the boy to his estranged wife Sumedha Nagpal.
There was high drama during the hearing of the case when Gaurav asked his wife to give him an hour time to sort out certain differences between.
But even before the court could give its views on the plea, Sumedha bluntly rejected the idea.
“It’s just an eyewash your Lordship. He has been beating me and my father,” Sumedha told the Bench, which however, said that it would not go into the merits of the case at this juncture.
Instead, the Bench said it would personally talk to the couple in chamber during the afternoon.
The matter was also listed for further hearing on Wednesday.
I, M. Rathinasabapathy (40 years) got married to R. Rajeswari (29 years) daughter of Mr. S. Rajagopal and Mrs. R. Syamala, of Howrah present residing at No. 42/1, Kailash Bose Lane, Howrah – 711 101, and the marriage was solemnized at Pondicherry on June 04, 2003 at Mahalakshmi Thirumana Mandapam, Chinnakkadai, Pondicherry. After a couple of months spending at Pondicherry, I got a job at M/s. Macmillan India Ltd, Bangalore and we shifted to Bangalore on December 05, 2003 and we lived peacefully and happily and she too worked in a couple of private firms. After she got conceived she lived with me for 2A
NOWADAYS men are tortured in the hands of women by misusing newly formulated laws specially designed only for women. The law makers fully forgetting the constitutions article 14 which says all men and woman are equal before law or say equality before law. This article 14 giving equal strength to man and woman but formulating new law for women so for no law formulated by the law makers for men. Why?
A fine case of one Mr. Rathinasabapathy who was married with Rajeswari of Howrah at Pondicherry on 4th June 2003 started their life initially at Pondicherry latter after five months shifted to Bangalore where he was employed. The husband arranged job for his wife and he had given her all possible freedom which include to visit her parental house, to wear the dresses she feel convenient. But his all these freedoms and love showered towards the wife resulted in one fine day with hand cuffs of iron. Do you believe? YES THIS IS A TRUE STORY. The husband who once tried his best to keep his wife happy meted the cruelty by the same women. The husband arranged all physical mental pleasures for his wife but not fulfilled one demand which is affecting his parents, unmarried brother and sister. The wife demand for separate dwelling that too in such a place the language of which is a strange thing to the husband and leaving the old aged sick parents here all alone was not welcomed by the husband and which only resulted in iron hand cuffing like a herded criminal and lying in illegal custody for eight days.
The wife and her parents even not intimated him the child birth and somehow when he come to know the child birth he requested to send a snap of the child which was also not heard. For the new born the father send some gift which was also returned by the wife and her parents. Their cruelty reached at Himalayan peak when she lodged a complaint using the weapon of dowry and domestic violence act (DVA) and several other criminal section against husband and in-laws, the in-laws who never interfered her life. The question is if she really met cruelty by the hands of husband and his relatives why she had not opted to file a complaint in the jurisdiction police station which was only in walkable distance. She opted to file complaint in the Howrah police station and filed a divorce under section 13a and succeeded to get an expartee decree within 3 months of filing which is very impossible as per marriage law. The husband had not given time to file counter or for a counselling. When husband was attending for maintenance case and came out of the court he was arrested and handcuffed and remained in the custody for eight days and ninth day presented before the judicial magistrate and then kept one day in judicial custody and latter bailed out. The wife atlest shown curtsy by not opposing the anticipatory bail of in-laws.
The women how she forget the sweetness of togetherness, how she forget the sweet face of her husband which is now also in front of her in the form of child.
THE MEN WAS CRUSHED IN THE HANDS OF WOMEN. The men who is a M.Sc., M.Phil., earning sufficiently was now staring the sky with no hope for justice. His parents are weeping and sister, brother still in a stage of shock.
The reward paid by the wife to her husband is the only result of misusing of newly formulated laws. The court at Howrah which have no jurisdiction neither to try the suit for divorce nor for the criminal offence as the couple married at Pondicherry and last resided place at Bangalore, where both of them were employed and as such alleged offence held in Bangalore. So the decree which is passed by the Howrah Court is improper and the complaint also liable to be quashed. But these all will happen in future.
Wake and do something for men otherwise similar trouble tomorrow you also have to face. For this not only togetherness of men required but the togetherness of women also required.
M. Rathina Sabapathy