Saturday, August 30, 2014

Divorce Tips : Men's Solutions -1

·         Disown joint accounts and credit cards: You don’t want to spend anymore on your wife’s expenses that you no longer feel responsible to provide. You would have to expel her name from all joint accounts before she unduly takes advantage. So you need to curb your expenses and channel them into areas which need your urgent attention. 
CContact Team : Daniel & Daniel @ 9884883318

Sunday, March 9, 2014

Get Help from friends- Divorce Solutions

Call your closest friends and family and ask for their support without taking sides or placing judgment on either you or your partner. Ask them to be there for you when either you or your partner moves out, to talk with your children (if there are any), and watch your pets while on travel or vacations. Most people feel helpless as to how they can be a part of your life when you are in transition or crisis. Make a list of some easy tasks or involvement that lets your closest confidants know how much you need them and want them to be a part of your life – on either side of the divorce.
For Divorce Solutions Talk to the Top Divorce Lawyer @9884883318.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Don’t use your partner as a therapist for your emotions - Divorce Solutions

 Don’t use your partner as a therapist for your emotions. Ask friends to listen empathetically (without much feedback) if you need to vent. Pets make great listeners!
Do not use your partner as a dumping ground for your guilt, anger, or remorse. If you have apologies to make for your behavior, let your partner know, and let your partner choose a time to hear this from you. Process your guilt and anger with someone else (but exercise discretion).
For Divorce Solutions Talk to the Top Divorce Lawyer @9884883318.

Dont Make your Private affairs in Public - Divorce Counseling

Think before you put anything in writing: email, tweet, letter, etc. Whatever you post online could end up there forever. In the heat of the moment, it might seem funny to take revenge and say some tactless words, post funny pictures of your partner, or shame your partner by disclosing sacred stories shared between the two of you. If you must, write it down for PRIVATE purposes, have your laugh, and then discard it. You’ll be glad you didn’t air your passive-aggressive move in the public sector. 

For your Divorce Counseling Talk to the Top Most Divorce Lawyer @ 9884883318 

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Stop unnecessary emotional banter - Divorce Counseling

For Divorce Counseling talk to the Top Most Divorce Lawyer @ 9884883318.
Do not engage in unnecessary emotional banter with your soon-to-be ex-partner (or anybody connected to her in some capacity for that matter). These fights are almost never worth having on the way out the door of the relationship. Be the bigger person in the room: end the fight, attempt to set up a more productive time to discuss any necessary questions or plans, and leave the room, if necessary or possible.

Garbage IN, Garbage OUT- Divorce Counseling

Make a commitment to take better care of yourself: mind, body, and soul. You are going to need everything you have to close the relationship. When it comes to the body, it’s “garbage in, garbage out.” If your partner has been providing all the meals, it’s time for you to learn simple procedures. Dining out every day is not only expensive, it may not be healthy unless you know something about selecting balanced meals. Consider Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: at the bottom level, you should be meeting your needs for food, shelter, rest, and safety.

Get a haircut. Shower. Shave. Wear cologne. Don’t forget to remove extraneous ear and nose hair. The first thing to go for most men is self-maintenance. Keep your job and keep your friends by not smelling like beer and pizza, or looking like that’s all you eat.

And if you didn’t do any of that before the divorce, there’s no time like the present to begin!
For counseling talk to the top most Divorce Lawyer @ 9884883318.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

How to end a Christian Marriage

The Indian Divorce Act deals with divorce among Christians. The reasons are almost similar to the ones under the Hindu Marriage Act. Roman Catholics do not come under the purview of any divorce proceedings since the Roman Catholic Church has not recognise divorce. The Divorce Act also does not contain any provision for divorce by mutual consent.Maintenance: During the period when the divorce case is in the court, the husband has to give one fifth of his salary for the maintenance of his wife. Later, maintenance can be given either yearly or once for all as total settlement.Custody: Custody of the child is decided by the court after going into the details of each individual case.

The Dissolution of Marriage and Judicial separation (under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869), allows a Christian wife to file petition for a divorce either in High Court or District Court on the grounds…
o      That her husband has exchanged his profession of Christianity and gone through a form of marriage with another woman.
o      Has been guilty of incestuous adultery.
o      Has been guilty of bigamy and adultery.
o      Has been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality.
o      Is guilty of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse for two years or more.
The Indian Divorce Act, 1869, is an attempt to amend the law relating to the divorce of Christians and to confer jurisdiction on certain Courts in matrimonial matters. Section 7 of the Act specifically provides for the application of the principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England acts and gives relief.
The relief granted under Indian Divorce Act, 1869…
o      Dissolution of marriage
o      Nullity of marriage
o      Judicial separation
o      Protection orders
o      Restitution of conjugal rights.
The Courts also have powers to:
o      Order adulterer to pay damages and costs
o      Order alimony, pendante-lite (pending decision of the Court) or permanent
o      Order settlement of property
o      Make order as to custody of children in a suit or separation
Though Section 22 of the Act bars ‘divorce mensa et toro’ (a decree that can be obtained without the presence of the other party, an exparte decree), it provides for obtaining a decree for judicial separation on grounds of
o      adultery
o      cruelty
o      desertion, without reasonable excuse for two years or more.
Once the separation is awarded, from the date of the sentence, the separated wife would be deemed spinster, with respect to property, which she may acquire or which may devolve on her. This status would apply for the purposes of contract, wrongs and injuries and suing and being sued in civil proceedings.

Talk to your Divorce Lawyer @ 9884883318

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Muslim women Divorce Law in India

A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for divorce for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:-
• That the whereabouts of the husband have not been known for a period of four years: if the husband is missing for a period of four years the wife may file a petition for the dissolution of her marriage. The husband is deemed to be missing if the wife or any such person, who is expected to have knowledge of the husband, is unable to locate the husband. Section 3 provides that where a wife files petition for divorce under this ground, she is required to give the names and addresses of all such persons who would have been the legal heirs of the husband upon his death. The court issues notices to all such persons appear before it and to state if they have any knowledge about the missing husband. If nobody knows then the court passes a decree to this effect which becomes effective only after the expiry of six months. If before the expiry, the husband reappears, the court shall set aside the decree and the marriage is not dissolved.

• That the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years: it is a legal obligation of every husband to maintain his wife, and if he fails to do so, the wife may seek divorce on this ground. A husband may not maintain his wife either because he neglects her or because he has no means to provide her maintenance. In both the cases the result would be the same. The husband’s obligation to maintain his wife is subject to wife’s own performance of matrimonial obligations. Therefore, if the wife lives separately without any reasonable excuse, she is not entitled to get a judicial divorce on the ground of husband’s failure to maintain her because her own conduct disentitles her from maintenance under Muslim law.
• That the husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years or upwards: the wife’s right of judicial divorce on this ground begins from the date on which the sentence becomes final. Therefore, the decree can be passed in her favour only after the expiry of the date for appeal by the husband or after the appeal by the husband has been dismissed by the final court.
• That the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years: the Act does define ‘marital obligations of the husband’. There are several marital obligations of the husband under Muslim law. But for the purpose of this clause husband’s failure to perform only those conjugal obligations may be taken into account which are not included in any of the clauses of Section 2 of this Act.
• That the husband was impotent at the time of the marriage and continues to be so: for getting a decree of divorce on this ground, the wife has to prove that the husband was impotent at the time of the marriage and continues to be impotent till the filing of the suit. Before passing a decree of divorce of divorce on this ground, the court is bound to give to the husband one year to improve his potency provided he makes an application for it. If the husband does not give such application, the court shall pass the decree without delay. In Gul Mohd. Khan v. Hasina the wife filed a suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of impotency. The husband made an application before the court seeking an order for proving his potency. The court allowed him to prove his potency.
• If the husband has been insane for a period of two years or is suffering from leprosy or a virulent veneral disease: the husband’s insanity must be for two or more years immediately preceding the presentation of the suit. But this act does not specify that the unsoundness of mind must be curable or incurable. Leprosy may be white or black or cause the skin to wither away. It may be curable or incurable. Veneral disease is a disease of the sex organs. The Act provides that this disease must be of incurable nature. It may be of any duration. Moreover even if this disease has been infected to the husband by the wife herself, she is entitled to get divorce on this ground.
• That she, having been given in marriage by her father or other guardian before she attained the age of fifteen years, repudiated the marriage before attaining the age of eighteen years, provided that the marriage has not been consummated;
• That the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say,-
(a) Habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical illtreatment, or
(b) Associates with women of ill-repute or leads an infamous life, or
(c) Attempts to force her to lead an immoral life, or
(d) Disposes of her property or prevents her exercising her legal rights over it, or
(e) Obstructs her in the observance of her religious profession or practice, or
(f) If he has more than one wives, does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Holy Quran.
In Syed Ziauddin v. Parvez Sultana , Parvez Sultana was a science graduate and she wanted to take admission in a college for medical studies. She needed money for her studies. Syed Ziaudddin promised to give her money provided she married him. She did. Later she filed for divorce for non-fulfillment of promise on the part of the husband. The court granted her divorce on the ground of cruelty. Thus we see the court’s attitude of attributing a wider meaning to the expression cruelty. In Zubaida Begum v. Sardar Shah , a case from Lahore High Court, the husband sold the ornaments of the wife with her consent. It was submitted that the husband’s conduct does not amount to cruelty.
In Aboobacker v. Mamu koya , the husband used to compel his wife to put on a sari and see pictures in cinema. The wife refused to do so because according to her beliefs this was against the Islamic way of life. She sought divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The Kerela High Court held that the conduct of the husband cannot be regarded as cruelty because mere departure from the standards of suffocating orthodoxy does not constitute un-Islamic behaviour.
In Itwari v. Asghari , the Allahabad High Court observed that Indian Law does not recognize various types of cruelty such as ‘Muslim cruelty’, ‘Hindu cruelty’ and so on, and that the test of cruelty is based on universal and humanitarian standards; that is to say, conduct of the husband which would cause such bodily or mental pain as to endanger the wife’s safety or health.

Talk to the Top Divorce Lawyer @ 9884883318

Friday, February 28, 2014

Christians must wait one year to file for divorce

The separation period required for a Christian couple to file a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent will be one year, the Karnataka high court ruled on Monday.

The court disposed of public interest litigation relating to Section 10A (1) of the Divorce Act, 1869, (applicable to Christians) in the light of a 2010 verdict of a division bench of the Kerala high court.

The Kerala court had read down the 'two years' separation period in Section 10 A to 'one year' so as to bring the same in conformity with Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act.

A division bench headed by Chief Justice DH Waghela noted that the Kerala court judgment has become the law of land in the light of an apex court judgment which says that any verdict of a high court holds good for the entire country unless the same is challenged in the apex court.

The bench also noted that the Centre, which was a respondent before the Kerala court, did not challenge the said judgment.

During the hearing, counsel for the Archdiocese of Bangalore said that the dissolution of a Christian marriage by divorce by mutual consent or by decree of court is not at all recognized by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC).

"But realizing that a 'marriage' could be brought about with underlying defects or shortcomings or other disqualification, the RCC has procedure for annulment of marriage. Annulment by church is the only way of termination of marriage recognized by the RCC," he said.

The PIL  challenged the norm under Section 10A of the Divorce act prescribing a two-year period prior to filling of petition for divorce by Christians.

The petitioner contended that a two-year separation period is arbitrary as the Special Marriages Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Parsi Marriage Act have a one-year separation period clause.

The Kerala high court had said: "Having considered all the relevant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the stipulation of a higher period of two years of mandatory minimum separate residence for those to whom the Divorce Act applies, in contra-distinction to those similarly placed to whom Sec 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, Sec 32B of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and Sec 28 of the Special Marriage Act would apply, offends the mandate of equality and right to life under Arts14 and 21 of the Constitution."

24*7 Divorce Consultation by Daniel & Daniel @ 9962999008

Man granted divorce on grounds of cruelty

Acts of commission by a woman in filing a criminal complaint against her husband and his relatives resulting in the husband being in distress in jail constitute mental cruelty to him and, therefore, he is entitled to get the relief of divorce, the Madras High Court has held.
A Division Bench said this in its judgment while allowing appeals by a person challenging a common order of the Principal Family Court dismissing his petition praying for divorce and allowing his wife's petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
He had married the daughter of a former Tamil Nadu MLA here in April 2000 as per Hindu custom.
The appellant contended that his client's wife after initiating criminal proceedings against her husband and nine others was not entitled to obtain the relief of restitution of conjugal rights because of the inconsistency in her case.

Defining cruelty

The judges said what conduct would amount to cruelty was a question of fact to be decided on the facts and particulars of each case. When a divorce was being sought on grounds of cruelty, the acts complained should be so grave and weighty to enable a court to conclude that one party could not reasonably be expected to live with the other.
The Bench said that in its considered opinion, on grounds of cruelty, the whole matrimonial relations should be considered.

SC judgment

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Judges observed that cruelty would normally consist not of harmful acts but of injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts.
It should be established that one party in the marriage, ignoring consequences, had misbehaved, which the other party could not be called upon to endure, and that misconduct had caused injury to health or a reasonable apprehension of such injury.
The Bench pointed out that in the present case, the husband had been put in jail for 22 days for alleged offences of dowry harassment and attempt to murder. Further, the woman had gone to the extent of filing intervening application opposing the bail sought by her husband. The case later ended in acquittal.
Filing of a criminal complaint by the wife against the husband and his relatives, instituting cases based on it and the same ending in acquittal and before that the husband being in distress for 22 days in jail, all these acts of commissions by the wife clearly constituted mental cruelty to the husband who admittedly would have undergone a traumatic experience and suffered humiliation in social circles.
In the present case, the marriage had become emotionally dead. It had irretrievably broken down. Moreover, the element of separation between the parties unerringly point out that there was an intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. The differences of opinion should not be considered as temporary passions.
The Bench ruled that the husband was entitled to get divorce.
His wife was not entitled to get the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. It said the marriage would stand dissolved. 

Talk to your Divorce Lawyer @ 9884883318