Grounds for Divorce under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 Amendment 1988 The following are the grounds for divorce in India included in the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 and the amendment of the same in 1988. Recognizing this loophole, the Courts have sought to restrict such abuse of this provision by laying down stipulations such as casual acts of intercourse are not to be considered as proof of resumption of the marital relationship. In actual desertion, it is necessary that respondent must have forsaken or abandoned the matrimonial home. When the parties are living apart from each other under a separation agreement, or by mutual consent, it is a clear consent of living away with the consent of the other. It stands as an embodiment for continuance of the human race.
The Act was viewed as conservative because it applied to any person who is Hindu by religion in any of its forms, yet groups other religions into the act Jains, Buddhists, or Sikhs as specified in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. Dealing with the concept of 17 desertion, this Court in Savitri Pandey v. In other words it is a total repudiation of the obligations of marriage. Her conduct clearly exposits that it has resulted in causing agony and anguish in the mind of the husband. Among the human beings there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty.
Desertion may also be constructive which can be inferred from the attending circumstances. If from the conduct of the spouse it is established or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty; Maya Devi v. Having held that, the question would be whether a decree for divorce on the ground of mental cruelty can be granted. No party can be permitted to carve out the ground for destroying the family which is the basic unit of the society. · Non-consummation of marriage within one year.
This aspect has to be considered in the background of the other facts and circumstances of the case; Chetan Dass v. For the offence of desertion so far as deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there 1 the factum of separation and 2 the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end animus deserendi. . In this process, there are two ways in which the deserting spouse has an opportunity to misuse the position of law: There exist cases where the separation was consensual like when the husband is on a voyage with no animus to desert. · The husband has failed to provide maintenance to the wife for at least two years. The proof of desertion has to be considered by taking into consideration the concept of marriage which in law legalises the sexual relationship between man and woman in the society for the perpetuation of race, permitting lawful indulgence in passion to prevent licentiousness and for procreation of children.
Each case depends on its own facts and must be judged on these facts. No Resumption of Co-habitation — It becomes a ground for divorce if the couple fails to resume their co-habitation after the court has passed a decree of separation. The proof of desertion has to be considered by taking into consideration the concept of marriage which in law legalises the sexual relationship between man and woman in the society for the perpetuation of race, permitting lawful indulgence in passion to prevent licentiousness and for procreation of children. Similarly, two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse in concerned: 1 the absence of the consent, and 2 absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention. Held that the marriage is not illegal and void; T.
Why is it only for the Hindus? For upholding the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Shri Dinesh Kumar Garg, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as after the decree of divorce the appellant had remarried with one Sudhakar Pandey and out of the second marriage a child is also stated to have been born, it would be in the interest of justice and the parties that the marriage between them is dissolved by a decree of divorce. Manu declared that a wife cannot be released by her husband either by sale or by abandonment, implying that the marital tie cannot be severed in anyway. Surrajmani Stellee K ujur v. The expression persistently means continue firmly or obstinately and the expression repeatedly means to say or do over again; Vimlesh v. Hindu law regards marriage as a sacrament- indissoluble and eternal. The basis for this theory is built upon the recognised position of law in matrimonial matters that no-one can desert who does not actively or wilfully bring to an end the existing state of cohabitation.
She resumed cohabitation with the respondent after he paid her a sum of Rs. It states that to amount to a matrimonial offence desertion must be without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of the petitioner. No person can be permitted to flout the course of justice by his or her overt and covert acts. Violence and force are less. It has always to be kept in mind that the question of desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be cases where, on facts, it is found that as the marriage has become dead on account of contributory acts of commission and omission of the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping such marriage alive. The question whether the act complained of was a cruel act is to be determined from the whole facts and the matrimonial relations between the parties.
With the aforesaid directions, we affirm the decree for divorce passed by the High Court. Conversion When the other party has ceased to be Hindu by conversion to any other religion for e. There is nothing like mutual desertion under the Act. Though there has been a settlement of Rs. Desertion, therefore, means withdrawing from the matrimonial obligations, i. The waiting period of one year, as was provided in Sec. After the amendment, the courts were flooded with applications of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty and the courts were to do the tedious task of defining cruelty.