கணவன் தன்னுடைய 2வது மனைவியை தன்னோடு சேர்த்து வாழ மனு தாக்கல் செய்ய முடியாது.

முதல் மனைவி உயிரோடிருக்கும் போது இரண்டாவது திருமணம் செய்து கொண்ட கணவன் தன்னுடைய 2வது மனைவியை தன்னோடு சேர்த்து வாழ (Restitition Conjugal Rights) உத்தரவிடும் படி குடும்ப நீதிமன்றத்தில் மனு தாக்கல் செய்ய முடியாது. அவ்வாறு செய்யப்பட்ட திருமணம் இந்து திருமணச் சட்டம் பிரிவு 5ல் கூறப்பட்டுள்ள நிபந்தனைகளுக்கு முரணானதாகும். இந்து திருமணச் சட்டம் பிரிவு 11ன் படி அத்தகைய திருமணங்கள் சட்டப்படி செல்லாத திருமணமாகும். எனவே 2வதாக திருமணம் செய்து கொள்கிற போது முதல் மனைவி உயிரோடு இருந்தால் 2வதாக திருமணம் செய்து கொண்ட மனைவியின் மீது இந்து திருமணச் சட்டம் பிரிவு 9 அல்லது 13 ன் கீழ் கணவர் எந்த ஒரு மனுவையும் தாக்கல் செய்ய முடியாது Talk to the Leading Divorce Lawyer in Chennai @ 9551716256

India denies rights for surrogacy mothers

The country where mothers were worshiped as gods denies surrogacy mothers legal status. And she have no legal or any customary rights over the child. The rights of the surrogacy mother was put an end by a gestational surrogacy agreement and the intended parents in the agreement will have all the legal rights over the child born on surrogacy. The ICMR guidelines 2005 even denies the visitation rights of mother for the child delivered by her which was in the mothers paradise for 9 months and 10 days. The child born by surrogacy have on records as mother and father only the intended parents not the surrogacy mother. And no need for the court to interfere in this matter and the agreement signed by the parties in the surrogacy will prevail. The Indian laws only recognize the intended mother as the legal mother. The parental responsibility only applies to the intended parents and the surrogate mother cannot claim any right over the child. Surrogacy is a well known method of reproduction whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant for the purpose of gestating and giving birth to a child she will not raise but hand over to a contracted party. She may be the child's genetic mother (the more traditional form for surrogacy) or she may be, as a gestational carrier, carry the pregnancy to delivery after having been implanted with an embryo. In some cases surrogacy is the only available option for parents who wish to have a child that is biologically related to them. Even the surrogacy mother cannot change her mind before the child birth and she will be always in the clutch of surrogacy agreement and she will be penalized for violation of the agreement. The Mother goddess are now converted in to child vending machines and even denied some basic rights which the world customs provided. As per the IMCR guidelines the surrogacy child cannot seek the information of the genetic parents and surrogacy parents until the child reaches 18 years. And even after that the child cannot get the information of the name and address of the gamete donor and the surrogate is excluded from the information. In this juncture the state should enact laws for the rights of surrogacy mother and child from (i) deprivation and violation of child rights (ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children and (iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities. For all your queries write to Daniel & Daniel Whattsapp Service No.9840802218.

Will Muslim men loose divorce rights

Will Muslim men undergo lawlessness for Divorce when Triple Talaq is banned in India. Now Triple talaq comes under the scanner of Judicial review of the Indian constitution by the supreme court of India in Shayara Bano v. Union of India case. In India fastest divorce is obtained by the Muslim men’s. There is no court to decide the case or no grounds of divorce for Muslim men’s to dissolve the marriage. But for Muslim women’s the dissolution of Muslim marriage Act, is the solution to get divorce from proper court for the limited grounds they have. In case of men there was no barrier or bondages in dissolving their marriage expect to pay maintenance for the iddat period which is maximum 3 month’s and to return the mahar amount. In India the state cannot enact any law which are gender biased under Article 15. It is on the open platforms that Triple talaq is against women’s and gender biased. Muslim men’s get divorce very faster than other men’s who want to wait for decades in the family court. And even in mutual consent an Hindu and a Christian should wait 6 months period after filing the case to have a decree under mutual consent with an pre-condition that the couples are separated one and two years before filing the case for Hindus and Christians respectively. But for the Muslims there was no such waiting period for mutual consent divorce, since they had no codified law except their personal law read with section 65 of Verma Act. Some deliberate discussions are going on whether personal law will come under the ambit of the state law. Some arguments are going the gender biased is the scale for the enactment of state laws and not for personal laws. Even on the recommendations of the law commission of India the gender biased personal laws of Hindus are converted in to gender equality codified laws. The abolition of coparcenery system and equal rights of property for women’s are the modern revolutionary laws in India. The draconian personal laws are now codified in to the rights protection laws. To put an end for all this disputes the Indian parliament should enact codified laws for the governance of Muslim matrimonial disputes as the other religions have their own in this country. Strucking of Triple Talaq without proper laws will bring only chaos in the Muslim community. For all your queries write to Daniel & Daniel Whattsapp Service No.9840802218.

Can contempt lies against who withdraws Mutual consent

After signing the agreement by mutual consent to file for divorce, will either of the partner face contempt proceedings if they have any 2nd thought? That is the question the Delhi HC asked recently while referring to a batch of 8 separate divorce petitions to a larger bench. There have been contradictory views in earlier rulings Justice Manmohan expressed some serious doubts on the practice of the courts hauling up spouses for contempt if they fail to honour their earlier stand of divorce by mutual consent during the 6 month “cooling off” period. Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act allows for ‘divorce by mutual consent’ in a 2 step process. The 1st motion of divorce can be filed by a couple if they haven’t been living together for at least one year. After this, the law mandates a “waiting period or cooling off period” of 6 to 18 months. When this period ends, the spouses can either withdraw their consent, & attempt to continue their married life, or file the 2nd motion for divorce, after this their separation is finalized. Even in the case of a “contested divorce”, where there’s a criminal complaint filed by either of the spouses or any 1 of them comes to court for a divorce against the other’s will- the couple gets a waiting period to resolve the differences. During this period of mediation, if the partners agree to the terms of getting mutual separation, then they file a plea for divorce by mutual consent. Say, a couple has filed a divorce petition under Sec. 13B(1) (divorce by mutual consent) or a motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act or both, but then 1 of them decides to change their mind in view of the option to renege/reconsider their decision of taking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13 B(2) of the Act”. the question is whether they should be held liable for contempt? It was raised before the single Bench of the Delhi High Court recently. The Apex Court, and Benches of Mumbai High Court and Delhi High Court earlier have given differing judgments on finality of agreement in the divorce mediations. In one case, the wife had refused to file the 2nd motion through mutual consent for divorce, after receiving part payment of the alimony, as she had “changed her mind” about the terms of custody for her child. The High Court had said that the “erring spouse” can’t be allowed to “take any advantage” of the option allowed in the cases of divorce by mutual consent. Citing many “contradicting judgments”, Justice Manmohan expounded that since Apex Court has held that the “consent” for divorce must “continue till date of the decree”, the right of parties to change their minds cannot be taken away. By Team Daniel & Daniel 9884883318