Church view sought in divorce case

The High Court on Friday directed that the Church of South India and the Archbishop of Bangalore be impleaded in connection with a petition challenging the provision of the Indian Divorce Act, which provides for a two-year gestation period before filing a divorce suit.

Hearing a petition seeking reduction in the gestation period, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had brought down the gestation period to one year.

The counsel, citing the Kerala High Court order, said that the existing Indian Divorce Act offended the mandate of equality and right to life under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

During the hearing, the Bench, however, refused to buy the argument and wondered how the matter was allowed. “Too many people are saying instant divorce. It is not in the interest of people. The gestation period is there so that there might be reconciliation,” said Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen.

“Earlier, people used to say ‘jat pat shaadi’; now it has become ‘jat pat’ divorce,” added Justice Nagarthna.

When the counsel pointed out that it applied to Christian marriage and cited the judgement of the Kerala High Court, the Bench directed that the Church of South India and the Bangalore Archbishop be impleaded in the case, and adjourned the matter.

Appointment of Lokayukta

The High Court on Friday adjourned the hearing of a petition seeking the early appointment of the Lokayukta after the State government filed a memo seeking adjournment of the matter.

During the hearing of a petition filed by Neelakantappa, a resident of Tarikere and party in person seeking to appoint Lokayukta, government counsel R Devdas filed a memo which included a Supreme Court direction granting liberty to the State to seek an adjournment.

The counsel said that the matter was partly heard in Supreme Court and sought time. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice B V Nagarathna adjourned the matter. The Bench, however, recorded the objections of the petitioner pointing to the Advocate General’s submission that the process to appoint the Lokayukta was on.