JOIN USThe High Court of Karnataka on Monday dismissed a petition challenging Section 13(A) and 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which provides for divorce.
The petitioner, B A Vani, an advocate, had approached the Court seeking to quash the said provisions terming them “unconstitutional and arbitrary.” She had contended that Hindu culture considers marriage as a union of two families and not of just two individuals, and the provision for divorce had diluted the sanctity of Hindu marriages.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice B V Nagarathna observed that culture and civilisation were dynamic and society had changed to a large extent over years.
“If a person is not happy and is not compatible to live with the spouse, he/she is liable to seek divorce to have a better life ahead,” the bench said.
The Court said the provision for divorce was introduced in the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955 and there was no such concept in the earlier law. Divorce with mutual consent was included in the Act in 1976. The bench further said that nowadays marriage was not just between a man and woman, but also between members of the same sex. The courts have recognised live-in relationships and children born out of such relationships.
“ The courtroom is not the place to debate on the subject and the petitioner should put forth her suggestions before Parliament,” the bench said while dismissing the petition. Directions sought to ECI
A petition has been filed in the High Court seeking directions to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to include the details of educational and medical institutions, trade and commerce establishments in which the candidates and their family members are involved, in the affidavit to be filed while submitting nomination papers.
K S Periyaswamy, an advocate, has said in his petition that contestants and their family members own assets in different names the details of which are kept secret.
He had sought directions to the ECI to include the interest of the candidate and his or her family in the institutions registered under the Societies Registration Act, Indian Trusts Acts, Indian Partnership Act and Companies Act. The matter is yet to come up before the court.