This article has been written by Chidige Saivarshitha.
Marriage is known in Indian Culture as a ritual. It is an unalterable husband-wife relationship formed by traditions and customs. In the event of a broken marriage, there was no recourse to either party prior to 1955. They had to move ahead with the relationship, and the marriage could not be broken. According to Manu, they cannot distinguish husband and wife from one another, their martial tie cannot be severed. Marriage can terminate if broken by mutual consent, according to the Arthashastra, and marriage should be unapproved. But Manu doesn’t really trust in the dissolution concept. The demise of one of the partners is the only solution to end the marriage, according to Manu.
By the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the clause relating to the divorce concept was added. Divorce is described by the Act as the marriage dissolution. After the passage of the Hindu Marriage Act, things shifted in favour of the marriage of both sides in 1955. The marriage or marital relation must be covered by some protection for the purpose stated by law for society’s interest. Divorce is allowed only for a serious reason, otherwise, alternatives are given.
Today, the parties shouldn’t need to remain in marriage in the situation of a broken marriage and can comfortably sever their marriage relationship by judicial separation or by a divorce decree.
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, makes the grounds for divorce and judicial separation commonly. It is up to the parties to go for two dissolution processes. However, the legal impact of judicial separation and divorce is distinct. A divorce places the final nail in the marriage coffin and the scope of resolution between parties is left in judicial separation.
Judicial Separation is a way under the law to allow both sides of a disturbed married life some time for self-analysis. Law offers both husband and wife the ability to reconsider the expansion of their relationship while directing them to live independently at the same moment. By doing this, the law helps them to reflect on their future course with free space and freedom, and it is the final choice open to both partners for the legal dissolution of the marriage.
The idea of marriage is to build a relation between the wife and the husband. Marriage is a formal ritual, according to old Hindu laws, and is a sacred bond that can’t be broken. Even death can’t sever the bond between a husband and a wife, according to Smritikars. The aim of marriage is to allow men and women to fulfil the spiritual tasks of God’s life. A man without a woman was incomplete, according to ancient texts, and a woman without her husband is also imperfect. In current laws, if a person doesn’t even want to remain in married life and doesn’t want to expend any further, he/she can apply for relief under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 through Judicial Separation and Divorce.
Section 10 – Judicial Separation
- “Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may present a petition praying for a decree for judicial separation on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 13, and in the case of a wife also on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof, as grounds on which a petition for divorce might have been presented.”
- “Where a decree for judicial separation has been passed, it shall no longer be obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so.”
Section 13 – Divorce
(1) “Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce certain grounds.”
(2) “A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce.”
The concept of judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
In India, the courts in their judicial rights never completely impose a divorce at the first time if a divorce petition is lodged. Following the Hindu religion of finding a marriage a sacramental relationship that can’t be dissolved, Indian courts have created a tool called judicial separation that gives both sides to a strained marriage some time for introspection, so that termination of a marriage by means of divorce may be prevented.
Filing petition for Judicial Separation
Under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, any partner who is harmed by another partner can lodge a petition for Judicial Separation before District Judge and the requirements must be fulfilled:
- Under the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage between a husband and a wife should be appropriately observed.
- In the jurisdiction of the court where the petitioner lodged the petition, the respondent should be resolved.
- For a specific period before the claim was filed, the husband and wife stayed jointly.
Every petition should be according to ”Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1973.”
A judicial separation, according to the Collins Dictionary, implies- “a court decree requiring a married couple to stop cohabiting but not dissolving the marriage.” Simply put, judicial separation is a legal process by which partners are separated, but still in the marriage bond. It is a separation given by means of a court order to allow a troubled marriage some time for introspection, adapted from the English definition of mensa et thoro. The parties have the chance to know about the future of their marriage during the time of judicial separation and if they don’t get common interests, the legal actions for the last settlement that is divorce.
After the extreme amendments of 1976, the grounds related to judicial separation have been basically the same under the Hindu Marriage Act as under the laws of divorce provided in Section 13 of the Act. The law concerning Judicial Separation was first enacted in the Special Marriage Act, which made judicial separation a component of the Hindu Marriage Act with some changes after the 1970s and 1976 amendments.
Currently, under the current law, if a divorce has been sought on any ground referred to in Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (with the exception of the defendant’s absence for more than 7 years or 7 years and conversion), the court might instead grant judicial separation decree, and after one year, any party may request a divorce if they don’t agree with each other.
There is no definition of judicial separation in Muslim law since their marriage nature s contractual, the only breakup by divorce is probable, but there are some reasons why women should stay away from their spouse, but this non-cohabitation is more of the divorce’s nature.
In Subbarama Reddiar v. Sakaswathi Ammal, the Madras High court discussed extensively the essence and range of Judicial Separation (for adultery) and noted that if a partner requires judicial separation, the same could be provided on grounds stated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when the petitioner partner properly demonstrates the adulterous relationship.
The concept of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
There are a few clauses in the Hindu Marriage Act for a legal divorce, i.e., when the partner may get a divorce or appeal in the court for marriage dissolution. The marriage or marital relation must be accompanied by some protection for the purpose stated by law for society’s interest. Divorce is allowed for a serious reason only, otherwise, alternatives are given.
The Hindu Marriage Act is based on “fault theory” in which both of the aggrieved partners (Section 13(1)) may enter the court of law and pursue divorce remedy. Section 13(2) offers the grounds for a wife to address the court of law and pursue divorce redress.
Different theories of divorce
Within this theory, marriage may be dissolved when one party to the marriage is liable for the crime committed against another partner under matrimonial crimes. This solution can only be pursued by an innocent partner. The only limitation of this concept is “no one can seek this divorce remedy if both of the spouses are at fault.”
Under this theory, by mutual consent, the marriage may be abolished. If the couple gives each other their permission to terminate the relationship, the divorce may be taken. But this theory is criticised by many thinkers as this theory is morally wrong and contributes to hasty divorce.
The breakup of marriage arises because of the breakdown of matrimonial relations, as per this theory. The couple will opt for divorce as a very last resort, that is if both are unable to live together again.
No divorce petition within 1 year of marriage
As per Section 14, “No Court will entertain the petition of divorce within the one year of the marriage.” But where the matter is linked to bigamy, and if the spouse’s consent was taken by misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, etc., can be entertained.
Divorced person remarriage
As per Section 15, no future petition was lodged by either of the partners against the court’s order after the dissolution of marriage and the time for appeal ended. It is presumed at that moment that both partners are happy. Only then the divorced spouse is allowed to marry again.
Procedure to file a suit for judicial separation or divorce
These are the key parts of a petition for judicial separation and divorce, according to Order VII and Rule 1 of the CPC:
- Date and place of marriage,
- Affidavit of being Hindu by both the groups,
- Name, status and resident of both wife and husband.
For ex- in the adultery case, one must provide photographs of facts that the individual has some extramarital affair. Proof of the basis for judicial separation or divorce.
Grounds of divorce and judicial separation as per the Hindu Marriage Act
Adultery implies the consensual and mutual involvement of a married person with another individual of the different sex who is married or single. Even the sex between the husband and his second wife, i.e. the individual is responsible for the Adultery if their marriage is regarded within bigamy.
The notion of Adultery was introduced by the Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1976,” under the Hindu Marriage Act. In certain nations, the notion of adultery may not be treated as an offence. But in the marriage violation, adultery is regarded as one of the most relevant grounds for pursuing divorce in compliance with the Hindu Marriage Act or the aggrieved party can demand the remedy, but after the marriage that contributes to judicial separation, the sex should be put in place.
In Swapna Ghose v. Sadanand Ghose, the wife discovered that her husband and the adulteress were lying at night in the same room, and more proof from the neighbours that the husband was residing as a husband and wife with the adulteress is abundant proof of adultery. The fact that clear evidence of adultery is very uncommon is the fact of the matter.
In Sachindranath Chatterjee v. Sm. Nilima Chatterjee, the plaintiff and the defendant were married. The husband left the wife in his native place after marriage so that she would finish her education and go to another city for work. Two or three times in a month, he went to meet her. He later learned that his wife committed adultery that is, engaged in sexual activity with his own nephew, watchman, etc. The complainant enters the court on the adultery ground to apply for divorce and his claim has been admitted and the marriage is ended.
In Revathi v. Union of India and Ors, the Court ruled that Section 497 of the Indian Penal code was formulated so that a husband could not sue the spouse on the ground of adultery for dishonouring the sacredness of the marriage bond. The law doesn’t authorise the offended wife’s husband to sue his wife, and the wife, therefore, doesn’t allow the offending husband to be sued for just being disloyal to her. Thus, both the husband and the wife have no right to use the arm of criminal law to hit one another. (Judicial Separation)
Both mental and physical cruelties are part of the cruelty concept. Physical cruelty implies that one partner hurts the other partner or induces some bodily harm. But as the partner can also be emotionally abused by the other spouse, the definition of mental cruelty was introduced. Mental Cruelty is the absence of goodness that negatively impacts the individual’s welfare.
In Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, the court ruled that Cruelty was not specified under the Act, but it is considered to be the action of such a kind that harms the petitioner’s life with the respondent in marital affairs. Cruelty is an action that is detrimental to life, organ, or welfare. Cruelty for the intent of the Act implies that wherever a partner comparable has so handled the opposite and conveyed certain feelings about having caused bodily harm on her or him, or to have induced cheap fear of bodily injury, pain, or own damaged health. Cruelty may be physical or emotional as well.
Mental cruelty is the actions of other equivalents of the partner that creates mental distress or worries about the opposite of marital life. Cruelty thus argues the approach of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause an open apprehension that it may be harmful or dangerous to him.”
In Balram Prajapati v. Susheela Bai, The petitioner lodged the divorce petition towards his wife on the grounds of mental cruelty. He showed that his wife’s conduct towards him and his family was violent and unmanageable, and she lodged a false complaint against her husband several times. The court acknowledges the petition and grants the divorce on the ground of cruelty.
In Shyamsundar v. Santadevi, the wife was seriously wounded by her husband’s family after the marriage, and the husband himself stood dumbly, taking no action to defend his wife. The Court ruled that the deliberate failure to protect one’s wife leads to cruelty on the part of the husband. (Judicial Separation)
In sub-section (1) of Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Parliament has explained desertion:
“The expression ‘desertion’ means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly”.
In other word, Desertion means “permanent leave or forsaking of one spouse by the other without any sensible reason without the consent of the other.”
In Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati, the offence of desertion is a course of conduct that occurs regardless of its duration, but it must occur for a period of at least three years at once before the petition presentation or, in which the offence appears to be a cross-charge, of the response as a basis for divorce. Desertion as divorce ground varies from the adultery statutory grounds and cruelty in that the crime that determines the object of desertion’s motion is not always full, but before the healthy is formed is inchoate. Desertion with the offence is persevering
In Guru Bachan Kaur v. Preetam Singh, after seven years of proclaimed desertion, the husband lodged a petition for divorce but never realised the wife’s issues, who also was a working mother. But the wife was able to remain in the position of her work with her husband at her home. The High Court ruled that nothing like mutual desertion occurs. For desertion, one party has to be guilty. (Judicial Separation)
Section 13(1)(ii) talks about conversion. If without any of the permission of the other partner, one of the partners changes his religion to some other religion, the other spouse may apply to the court and request divorce or Judicial Separation remedy.
In Suresh Babu v. Leela, the husband becomes a Muslim and gets married to another female. Here, wife Leela filed a case and, without her permission and abuse, seeking divorce on the basis of conversion.
In Teesta Chattoraj v. Union of India, the court ruled that conversion to some other religion is a reason for divorce, and even if the other partner has adopted any other religion, a partner may be refused divorce if the former goaded the latter to such conversion.
In Durga Prasad Rao v. Sudharshan Swami, it was noted that the formal refusal of religion or the sacrificial ceremony execution is not necessary for any conversion event. The question of truth has thus emerged in the case of conversion. (Judicial Separation)
Section 13(iii) may obtain a divorce decree or judicial separation under Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, if the respondent has undergone such a kind of mental torment frequently or uncontrollably and even though the petitioner can’t be sensibly expected to live with the respondent.
In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit, the petitioner lodged a case to seek the respondent’s divorce on the basis that the respondent suffered from Paranoid Schizophrenia, which implies mental illness. These were the ones she got to understand after her marriage. Here, on the basis of insanity, the court gave divorce to the husband.
In Ram Narayan v. Rameshwari15, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner shouldn’t only demonstrate any such mental illness in the case of schizophrenic mental disorder, but also determine that the petitioner couldn’t fairly be supposed to stay with the respondent.
In Anima Roy v. Prabadh Mohan Roy, after two months of marriage, the respondent was found to suffer from an irregular disorder. It was also not possible for the doctor who tested the respondent to identify the correct time to initiate the illness. It was also concluded that the condition was not proven at the time of the marriage (Judicial Separation).
Section(1)(iv) says about this in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Leprosy is a skin infectious disease, mucous membranes, nervous system etc. This disease is spread from one individual to another. It is therefore called the valid basis for divorce and Judicial separation.
In Swarajya Lakshmi v. G. G. Padma Rao, the husband, G. Padma Rao, filed suit for divorce on the grounds of leprosy. He believed that his wife was struggling from the expert’s reports of untreatable leprosy. Here, he manages to get a divorce on the grounds of leprosy.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 offers grounds for divorce toward communicable Venereal Disease in Section 13(V). Under this definition, this can be regarded as the correct ground for divorce and Judicial Separation if the illness is in communicable form and it can be transferred to the other partner.
In Mr. X v. Hospital Z, the Supreme Court ruled that either husband or wife may get a divorce on the grounds of venereal disease, and an individual who has struggled from the disease can’t be termed to have any right to get married even before marriage, as soon as the disease is not fully cured.
In Sm. Mita Gupta v. Prabir Kumar Gupta, the court ruled that venereal disease is a reason for divorce, but even though the other spouse struggles as much if the former is liable for the disease, the partner can be denied relief.
The ground was designated in accordance with “Section 13(1) (vi) of the Hindu Marriage Act.” It implies that if one of the partners wishes to renounce the world and follow the path of God, the other partner will address the court and apply for divorce or Judicial separation. The party who renounces the universe is regarded as civilly dead in this definition. It is a traditional Hindu tradition and is regarded as a legitimate reason for divorce and Judicial Separation.
In Sital Das v. Sant Ram, it was held that while undergoing a few ceremonies and rites recommended through faith, someone is said to have reached a religious order. Now there are some issues to look at. For instance, if one man or woman has joined a religious order but comes home and each day cohabits, then since he has no further renounced the universe, it can’t be regarded as a divorce floor.
Presumption of Death
In this case, if the relatives or friends of that individual have not heard any details of an individual living or dead for 7 years, the individual is presumed to have died. It is believed to be the valid ground for divorce, but the onus of proof is on the individual who demands divorce or Judicial separation.
In Sohan lal v. Kamlesh, Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, i.e., Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the petitioner against his wife lodged the suit. And the respondent lodged a maintenance request and legal costs to be granted. Then, the husband wanted to withdraw the suit before the declaration, but it was rejected as withdrawn.
The court ruled that the husband had to provide the wife and children with maintenance as the wife did not receive anything else at this time. The judge ordered her to give Rs. 50 pm as maintenance on the wife’s request, but she turned up with a revision as she said the sum was too small for herself and for the baby, so the court ordered Rs. 75 pm instead.
Thus, even though she is not capable of supporting herself, the wife will obtain maintenance during the judicial separation.
Concept of divorce with mutual consent
As per Section 13B, the individual can, by mutual consent of the sides, file a petition for divorce. If the partners agree to end their marriage on the basis of mutual consent, they must wait 1 year from the marriage date. They have to explain that for one or more years they live apart and aren’t capable of living with each other.
In Smt. Jayashree Ramesh Londhe v. Ramesh Bhikaji Londhe, the court ruled that after considering the divorce issue by mutual consent, either side can pull back the petition or in this way a party can revoke the earlier consent, but not gained through the use of fraud, undue control and coercion.
In Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, the court ruled that, in the exercise of its authority under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, this court is qualified to waive the legislative limit of 6 months. In accordance with Section 13B(2) of the Act, the said statutory period of 6 months for the lodging of the second petition was specified to provide a basis for events to reconcile and revoke the petition for the marriage dissolution.
The irretrievable breakdown of marriage
Another basis for pursuing divorce was added by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, i.e., the Irretrievable marriage breakdown under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. As the word indicates, it refers to a problem in which one or both parties to the marriage are not able to coexist happily with one another because of personality disputes, differing opinions and have resided apart from one another for a long period and are no longer too willing to continue their marital relation.
Special grounds for the wife
Wife’s Special Grounds for Divorce
In addition to the reasons mentioned above, under Section 13(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a wife was granted additional grounds for divorce and judicial separation. These are as follows:
Pre-Act Polygamous Marriage
This clause says the ground for divorce as:
“That the husband has another wife, alive during petitioner’s marriage solemnization, from before the beginning of the Act.”
For instance, the case Venkatame v. Patil, where the men had 2 wives, one of which was claimed for divorce, and the 2nd wife was divorced while the petition was pending. He then remarked that, because only one wife had remained with him, the petition should be rejected. The plea was dismissed by the Court.
Such a basis is valid if both marriages are legitimate marriages, and at the period of the petition’s filing, the other wife (2nd wife) should be alive. Today, however, this land is no longer of practical value.
Non-Resumption of Cohabitation after a Decree/Order Of Maintenance
If a wife has received a maintenance order in proceedings pursuant to Section 125, CrPC, 1973 or a decree pursuant to Section 18, “Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956” & cohabitation has not really been restored after 1 year or more b/w parties, and then this would be a legitimate ground for divorce prosecuting.
It is a truth that the general Hindu rule did not recognise divorce, but in some societies, even so, divorce was approved by tradition and the courts enforced the practice where it was not contrary to the public policy. The system and the intent of this Act are not to bypass any of those customs recognised by the savings contained in this chapter as having divorce and effect. It is not necessary, in any other case, for the partners to appear before the Court to request a divorce on grounds accepted by the custom.
Wife’s Special Grounds for Judicial Separation
Bigamy [Section 13(2)(i)]
This implies that if the husband is remarried when he is still married, both of his wives are entitled to receive the request for judicial separation on assumption that, during lodging, the other wife is still alive.
Illustration- For 5 years, ‘A’ and ‘B’ have been a married couple, and they are satisfied with their family. ‘A’ unexpectedly remarried another woman ‘C’ without the permission of his 1st wife ‘B’ and ‘C’ still had no knowledge that ‘A’ was previously married. ‘B’ is able to file a judicial separation petition.
Common additional grounds for the wife to claim justice between divorce and judicial separation
Rape, Sodomy or Bestiality [Section 13(2)(ii)]
A divorce or Judicial Separation can be submitted under this provision if the husband has been accused of “rape, sodomy or bestiality” since the solemnization of the marriage.
Illustration- ‘A’ and ‘B’ are the husband and wife of 3 years. If the husband ‘A’ assaulted some other female and he is convicted for that, then, in this situation, the wife ‘B’ can file the judicial separation petition.
Repudiation of Marriage
This clause offers the wife a justification for divorce or judicial separation because the marriage was solemnised before she reached 15 years, and the marriage was rebuked before she reached 18 years.
Illustration- There is a 14-year-old girl here and she’s from a tribal region. There, child marriage is a rather popular nature; without her permission, her parents give offered her to the bridegroom. This Act would not make it possible to leave a relationship without any legitimate purpose after marriage. Specific grounds on which the partner may file a case for judicial separation or divorce should be provided.
In order to settle the conflicts between the partners and release them from marital relations, this Act has a great provision. In this situation, because of her underages, she lodged a judicial separation petition.
Differences between judicial separation and divorce
It is provided under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
It is provided under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A petition for judicial separation can be filed at any time after marriage.
A petition for divorce can be filed only after one or more years of the marriage.
Judicial separation over a certain amount of time gives relief from matrimonial duties and responsibilities
Permanently, divorce ends the marriage.
An act of adultery is a very big ground, by which anyone files the petition.
The husband and wife must be living in an adulterous relation then only a party can file for divorce.
Judicial separation is a mechanism that takes in one step
Divorce is a process in 2 steps.
The parties can think about their marriage and resolve it under judicial separation.
Under divorce one can’t reconcile their marriage.
Setting up of Family Courts in all the districts: There is an urgent need to establish a family court in every district of the country to deal with all kinds of matrimonial issues and special training must be given to family court judges.
Basic instruction regarding sex and the importance of family to be imparted to youth in schools: If the youth of the nation will understand the moral values and sanctity of marriage then definitely there will be a decrease in the rate of divorce in India. Education plays a very important role in the mental upliftment of youth of a nation and society also grows with this. The healthy development of society depends upon the healthy thinking of the youth. They must be taught a feeling of adjustment and tolerance towards their spouse so that it may lead to slow down the rate of divorce in India.
Laws to safeguard rural women: Even today, women living in rural areas of our country face cruelty and harassment by their husbands and parents in law. So they must be provided with some basic legal education and some counselling committees must be established in villages to safeguard such women from torches and cruelty by husband and his family.
Law must be in Line with contemporary practices: The marriage and divorce laws of all the religious denominations in India must be in line with contemporary practices according to the cosmopolitan thinking of young generations who receive higher education. A happy and stable family is the epitome of Indian society.
Safeguarding some provisions related to Marriage: There must be strict rules to safeguard some provisions like Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, and Child Custody etc. from getting misused. Many cases in the courts are just due to misuse of such Laws.
A speedy justice must be the priority of law: The spouses seeking divorce generally waste their golden youthful days in courts. The time to remarry and led a better life almost ends up in courts to get rid of an unhappy marriage. There is a need for a timeline, a strategy to manage cases that is litigant friendly so that cases end up within a reasonable time.
Homosexuality must be made a ground for Divorce: When a woman gets married she just needs the attention of her husband and the same is the case with a husband. But when a spouse comes to know that his /her spouse is gay or lesbian (especially in the case of arranged marriage) it becomes difficult for the straight spouse to spend a normal life with the homosexual spouse.
Different divorce rules are provided by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. “Divorce as a Marriage Dissolution” is specified by the Hindu Marriage Act. Fault Theory, Mutual Consent, and Irretrievable Theory are the 3 primary theories in relation to divorce. The “Fault Theory” in India operates on the topic of divorce.
Under this principle, if one of the partners is liable for the crime under marital offences, marriage may be dissolved. The innocent partner is free to obtain divorce remedies.
Under the Hindu Marriage Act, adultery, desertion, conversion, leprosy, cruelty etc. are the prime reasons why Hindu women should pursue the relief of divorce. Yet there are also thinkers who oppose the notion of divorce. According to Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hindu married women can also file for maintenance. That the innocent partner can contact the court and can request divorce relief.
In our country, a marriage is called a sacred relationship, but a person should have an outlet from a relationship if the individual is not satisfied with that marriage. People have confidence in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, that by lodging a divorce, they may obtain remedy from the marriage.
This Act wouldn’t enable a relation to be abandoned for any legitimate purpose. Specific grounds on which the partner may lodge a case for judicial separation or divorce should be provided. To settle the conflicts b/w partners and release them from marital relations, this Act has a great provision.
- Family Law on Divorce and Judicial Separation- Naseem Akhtar
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Law times journal- http://lawtimesjournal.in/judicial-seperation/
- Latestlaws- https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/analysis-of-grounds-of-divorce-under-the-hindu-marriage-act-1955/
- Helpline Law- http://www.helplinelaw.com/family-law/DIVH/divorce-under-hindu-marriage-act.html
- Lawctopus- https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/divorce-under-hindu-law/
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: