What are the Indian laws for a mutual divorce case in India

  • by
What are the Indian laws for a mutual divorce case in India

Divorce by Mutual Consent is one of the easiest and easiest ways to get a divorce in India. Unlike in the West, divorces still continue in India. However, such attitudes are slowly changing due to social reforms, and women and men no longer have to be chained to unhappy marriages. Since many people of different religions, customs and cultures live together in India, divorce laws have also been set aside. Therefore, every religion has its own set of rules for marriage and divorce. A look at Indian laws for mutual divorce case as of 2017.

Indian law for mutual divorce
Essential Requirements for Mutual Divorce as per Section 13B
Major Indian Cases for Mutual Divorce
The mutual divorce process in India
Indian law for mutual divorce
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 serves as the main guideline for the law, for divorce by mutual consent. However, according to this law, in order to file for mutual divorce, the husband and wife must live separately for at least one year. Furthermore, the most important requirement is that both spouses should consent to divorce independently without undue coercion or influence.

Essential Requirements for Mutual Divorce as per Section 13B
A joint divorce petition must be filed by both wives in the District Family Court.
The provisions under this law apply to all marriages applicable in India.
The husband and wife should live separately for at least one year. However, living here independently means that the husband and wife have not lived together as a married couple. This essentially means that they have not retained their conjunctive rights.
The couple should see to the court that they can no longer live together and the reconciliation has failed.
If neither of the spouse’s consents, the petition can be withdrawn at any time.
If a second motion is not filed within 18 months, the petition will be quashed.

Major Indian Cases for Mutual Divorce in 2017
The Suman vs. Surendra Kumar case showed the importance of inter-term. The Rajasthan High Court held that such a period helped to ensure that the couple was not hasty in the decision.
In the case of Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, the Supreme Court held that the term separate means that the couple are not living as man and wife. The term has nothing to do with any geographical rules and has nothing to do with their places of living.
The cases of Shikha Bhatia v. Gaurav Bhatia and Avnish Sood v. Tithi Sood showed that the spouses cannot escape the consent given, as it is a violation of the undertaking accepted by the court. In the case of Rajiv Chhikara v. Sandhya Mathu, the Delhi High Court held that in some instances the quantum change for mental cruelty as it inflicted tremendous pressure and psychological torture on one spouse.
The Supreme Court considered in Smt. The case of Sureshta Devi v. Omprakash is that the spouse can withdraw his plea before passing the decree of divorce. However, the High Courts of Mumbai, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh have said that withdrawal is possible only when the first petition is filed. However, the High Courts of Kerala, Punjab and Haryana state that either spouse should be allowed to withdraw consent. These courts held that an interim period is intended to allow the couple to settle down, and therefore the withdrawal should be made legal.
The Delhi High Court held that couples who have filed a petition under section 13B (1) or 13B (2), need to appear before the said court to seek divorce if they wish to withdraw their appeal. Is not. The distinguishing feature of Section 13B is that it gives the couple the right to withdraw their consent unilaterally.
In the case of Smriti Paharia v. Sanjay Pahadia, the Supreme Court held that the absence of a spouse does not mark their consent. Before passing a decree of divorce, the court must ensure that both parties involved give their free consent to the divorce.
The Hirabai Bharucha vs Pirojshah Bharucha case said in the High Court that the court should make every effort to get married.
The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court remarked that since the law allowed couples to withdraw their consent, the court is not required to investigate the reason for their return.
In the case of Sriprakash Kalandari v. Mrs Jahnavi Kalandari, the Bombay High Court rules that the Court should ensure that the consent given by the parties continues until the decree for grant of divorce.
The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court remarked that marriage is an institution that should last and courts should try to amend between the couple in every way.

Furthermore, in a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that a 6-month cooling-off period could ripple if the court sucks it. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur case, the Supreme Court held that the cooling-off period is not mandatory as per Section 13B (2). The decision in respect of the same is left to the discretion of the court handling the case.
The mutual divorce process in India
The first part of the process is to file a mutual or joint petition for divorce in the family court. You should go to the court and after hearing both the parties, the court will examine and verify the documents. If the court is satisfied, it will pass the first resolution.
The couple should wait at least six months and a maximum of 18 months before filing the second proposal.
At the final hearing, both parties will make their statements, and if the court feels that all matters are settled, it will approve the decree of divorce, which dissolves the marriage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *