Divorce simply means the end of a marriage relationship between two person. It sounds simply , but it’s not easy for a husband and wife to decide to end a marriage. They spend a long time together and try to solve their problems , but they not successed and then they have to take the decision of divorce . Divorce is harder for everyone.
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) calls for the formulation of one law for India, which would be applicable to all religious communities in matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption. The code comes under Article 44 of the Constitution. The aim of such uniformity is meant to be ensuring equality and justice for women in particular, who are often denied their rights in marriage, divorce

Pratibha M. Singh files a divorce case dated July 7. in Delhi high court to take divorce from her husband. On Wednesday, Justice Pratibha M Singh said that caste and religion-related barriers were gradually disappearing from the society. We are grown up now then why women have to face problems in marriage and divorce barriers related to religion . The High Court made the observations while hearing a petition related to the applicability of the Hindu Marriage Act to a couple belonging to the Meena community in Rajasthan. The husband had filed for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Act, but a family court quashed his petition on the grounds that the law did not apply to the Meena community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe in Rajasthan, according to Live Law. The man challenged this order in the Delhi High Court.“The youth of India belonging to various communities, tribes, castes or religions who solemnise their marriages ought not to be forced to struggle with issues arising due to conflicts in various personal laws, especially in relation to marriage and divorce,” Singh said.Singh said that the Hindu Marriage Act applies to everyone practising the religion, whether they were “Virashaiva, Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo”, according to Live Law. She added, “If members of a tribe voluntarily choose to follow Hindu customs, traditions and rites they cannot be kept out of the purview of the provisions of the HMA [Hindu Marriage Act], 1955. When this provision was being discussed during the Constituent Assembly debates, it faced resistance from several members. A few members demanded addition of exceptions to this provision, saying that any community “shall not be obliged to give up its own personal law in case it has such a law”. The members spoke about the right to freedom of religion, and also claimed that “such regimentation will bring discontent and harmony will be affected”. While referring to several decisions of the Supreme court on the need for UCC, including the historical Shah Bano case of 1985, the court said: “The hope expressed in Article 44 of the Constitution that the State shall secure for its citizens Uniform Civil Code ought not to remain a mere hope.”The court was dealing as to whether the marriage between the parties who belonged to the Meena community were excluded from the ambit of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA)

Categories: News

1 reply