Saturday, July 21, 2018

Quick Divorce in Chennai within 10 days - Divorce Advocate in Chennai - 9840787702

If a Hindu married couple is separating by mutual consent then they no longer need to wait for six months for getting a separating order from the court.
Supreme Court held that marriage between two Hindus can be legally terminated in just a week as the “cooling off” period can be waived off as it is not mandatory.
The Apex court clarified that if all the efforts to reunite parties and mediation and conciliation also fails between them then the wait for a six-month period can be done away with.
This ruling was passed by the court after a petition was filed by a couple seeking direction to waive off the cooling off period as they have been living separately for 8 years and they had already settled all issues pertaining to child custody and alimony.The couple made a plea before the Supreme Court that delay in divorce would affect their chances to resettle in life.
In the present matter, the court took a stand that delay in proceedings only prolongs subsequent resettlement. Waiving off period can be considered if the parties have been living separately already for a year.
The court said, “The object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of the status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling off period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise the possibility of differences being reconciled.”
The bench comprising of Justice AK Goel and UU Lalit said that the object of the cooling off period is to safeguard against a hurried decision taken by a couple to get separated and to allow them to explore ways to settle their disputes however this could not be made mandatory.
As per Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage if both the parties do not change their pleas for divorce in a time period not less than six months and not later than 18 months, then the court pass the decree to declaring the marriage to be dissolved.
The court observed that the period of six months to 18 months provided in section 13B is an interregnum to give time and opportunity for the couple to reflect on their move. This period can be waived off if conciliation fails and parties have genuinely settled their differences pertaining to alimony, custody of the child or any other issues pending between them.
The bench observed, “The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option.”
The Supreme Court bench after examining all the issues came to the conclusion that Section 13B(2) is mandatory and not a directory. The court held that the cooling off period could be waived off if the court is satisfied that the parties are living separately for more than a year with no chance of reconciliation and a further waiting period would only prolong their agony. The bench held that the parties can file a waiver application just one week after the divorce petition is filed and the court will take a call on the waiving off period. 
The Author K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. is the top Divorce lawyer in Chennai
For Free Legal queries call Daniel & Daniel At 9884883318

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Mutual Consent Divorce Format - 9840787702

  IN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT AT CHENNAI

                                H.M.O.P.No.                of 2007




1. Dhanraj                                                                        1st petitioner
                                                And
2. Ponmalar                                                                       2nd petitioner.
                                                                                                       

PETITION UNDER SECTION 13B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

The petitioners above-named beg to state as follows:

1.The first petitioner is Dhanraj  son of  Mr.R.Ramachandran, Hindu, aged about 29 years, residing at No.144, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai-600026.

2. The second petitioner is Ponmalar daughter of Mr.M.S.Viswanathan, Hindu, , aged about 27 years, residing at No.27 M.M.D.A. Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai-600104

The addresses for service of all notices and process to the petitioners are as stated above.

3. The first petitioner and the second petitioner are husband  and wife respectively having been married at Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, No.75, Razack Garden Main Road, M.M.D.A Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai -106 on 30-10-2005 and the said marriage is still subsisting. The marriage was performed in accordance with Hindu Vedic Rites. A copy of the marriage invitation is filed herewith. Subsequently the petitioners registered their marriage at the Sub-Register office at Perambur and the Marriage Certificate No is 234/2005. Out of their wedlock no children were born to them.

4. The petitioners submit that the second petitioner was married to the first petitioner arranged by her parents against her wishes and will. The first petitioner and the second petitioner after the marriage lived and resided at No.144, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Chennai-600026, whence they separated on 7/12/2005. Soon after the unwilling marriage of the second petitioner owing to  differences in temperament, habits, tastes, thoughts, and increasing incompatibility, the relationship between the first petitioner and the second petitioner deteriorated. The second petitioner left the matrimonial home on 7/12/2005 and thereafter she is residing with her parents. The compromise measures taken by the parents of the petitioners ended in vain. The marriage between the petitioners is not consummated and no conjugal rights were performed by both the petitioners from the date of marriage. Never to return to each other. The petitioners, therefore, separated owing to irreconcilable differences in habits and temperament on the above mentioned date.

5. The petitioners submit that the first petitioner who is working as an system Anayalst in HCL in Chennai. The above said company has offered the first petitioner to work in M/s.Donald Associates in Canada on deputation.  The measures taken by their parents and friends also ended in vain. So the  efforts and attempts were made by mutual friends and acquaintances to effect a reconciliation and for a resumption of the martial relationship but it has not been possible owing to the vital differences in temperament and total incompatibility giving rise to invincible repugnance which had rendered normal married life impractible and impossible and fraught with dangerous adverse physical and mental consequences.

6. The petitioner submit that after having a deep discussions and deliberations and found they are not compatiable to each other and cannot continue the marriage any more. The petitioners have been living separately for a period of more than one year. The first petitioner is working as a system anyalst for M/s.HCL. and the second petitioner is a Chartered accountant for some companies. and both are earning well and they do not have any liability to mainatain each other and they have no claim or obligation to be performed by any one to the other petitioner. And both of them is resding separately form the date of separation. And the misunderstanding between them and unwillingness to lead a matrimonial home are difficult for the petitioners to rejoin. The second petitioner has never depend on the  financial and moral support from the first  petitioner, since from her marriage. The petitioners further submit that there was no issues born to them by the reason of their non cohabitation .The petitioners further submit that there was no chance of living together and they want to release from the martial relations for the better living of them.

7. The petitioners states that the  first petitioner  and the second petitioner have been separated and living apart for more than one  year and there was no cohabitation before and  after their separation.

8. In the circumstances the first petitioner and the second petitioner have mutually agreed and decided that there is no point for the continuance of the martial relationship and have further agreed upon the dissolution of the marriage tie by a decree of divorce.

9. The petitioners state and submit that in the circumstances aforesaid it is therefore desirable and necessary that the marriage should be dissolved in the mutual interests of the parties, there being no chance of reconciliation.


11. The petitioners therefore file this petition jointly seeking an order of dissolution of marriage that took place between them on30/10/2005 at  Maha Subhalakshmi Kalyana Mandapam, No.75, Razack Garden Main Road, M.M.D.A Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai -106.

12. The petitioner is not filed in collusion or after unnecessary or improper delay in approaching this court. The petitioners or either of them has not approached any other court seeking any matrimonial reliefs.

13.The petitioners submit that there was no force, fraud, coercion, intimidation or undue influence in filing this petition.

14. The petitioners submit that this petition has been filed after one year from the date of marriage and there is no possibility of reunion.

15.The cause of action for this petition arose on the 30/10/2005, when the first and the second petitioner were married and separated on 7/12/2005 at Chennai is ,within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court when the first petitioner and the second petitioner finally agreed to separate with the departure of the second petitioner.

16.A Court –fee of RS.        is paid under               of the     
       .                                                                                                
17. Both the first and the second petitioner state that there is no impediment to the dissolution of the marriage and the decision to separate and apply for a divorce has been arrived at after such consideration and after having given the utmost importance to all aspects of the case.

18.The first and the second petitioner therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
[a]pass a decree declaring the marriage solemnized between the first and the second petitioner under the Hindu Vedic rites on 30/10/2005  be dissolved and
[b] Pass such other order/orders as this  Hon'ble Court may deem fit a proper under the circumstances of the case.
Dated at Chennai on     day  of January, 2007

                                                                             First Petitioner.

                                                                             Second Petitioner.

                                           VERIFICATION
I,Dhanraj and Ponmalar, the petitioners herein do hereby state that what is stated above in paragraphs 1 to 16 are true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief.

          Verified at Chennai on this the    th   day of January 2007.

                                                                             Petitioner.
DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(1) CPC

1. Election card of  first petitioner
2. Marriage invitation
3. Election card of second petitioner
4. Marriage photo.
                 Dated at Chennai this the     th  day of January 2007

                                                                             Petitioner.

DOCUMENTS FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14(2) CPC

                                    Nil for the present         

                    Dated at Chennai this the   th  day of January 2007

                                                                             Petitioner.
STATEMENT OF ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES FOR SERVICES OF NOTICE UNDER ORDER VI RULE 14A CPC

Name & Address of Petitioner:     Dhanraj 
No.144, Arcot Road,
Vadapalani,
Chennai-600026  
         
Ponmalar
                                                No.27 M.M.D.A. Colony,
Arumbakkam,
Chennai-600104

    
                                         VERIFICATION

I, Dhanraj and Ponmalar, the petitioners herein do hereby state that what is stated above in Address is true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief.
          Verified at Chennai this the   th  day of January 2007.

                                                                                      Petitioner.

     



 Drafted by Daniel & Daniel
Attorneys & Solicitors
Helpline:- 9840787702










                                           


Friday, September 29, 2017

Instant and Immediate Divorce in India

Supreme court in land mark Judgment has waived a 6 months cooling period in the case of Mutual consent divorce. It held Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. It has also said that in conducting such proceedings the Court can also use the medium of video conferencing and also permit genuine representation of the parties through close relations such as parents or siblings where the parties are unable to appear in person for any just and valid reason as may satisfy the Court, to advance the interest of justice. Section 13B(1) relates to jurisdiction of the Court and the petition is maintainable only if the parties are living separately for a period of one year or more and if they have not been able to live together and have agreed that the marriage be dissolved. Section 13B(2) is procedural. He submitted that the discretion to waive the period is a guided discretion by consideration of interest of justice where there is no chance of reconciliation and parties were already separated for a longer period or contesting proceedings for a period longer than the period mentioned in Section 13B(2). Thus, the Court should consider the questions: i) How long parties have been married? ii) How long litigation is pending? iii) How long they have been staying apart? iv) Are there any other proceedings between the parties? v) Have the parties attended mediation/conciliation? vi) Have the parties arrived at genuine settlement which takes care of alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties? The Court must be satisfied that the parties were living separately for more than the statutory period and all efforts at mediation and reconciliation have been tried and have failed and there is no chance of reconciliation and further waiting period will only prolong their agony. On such cases when a party make a petition to dispense the 6 months cooling period, then the court will use its discretionary power to grant mutual consent divorce as early after a week time. 

The Author Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. is the leading divorce lawyer in Chennai. 

Talk to the top divorce lawyer and send your queries to our whattsapp service No.9840802218.



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

Children born out of void marriages are legitimate

Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Centre, challenging the judgment of Madras High Court which correctly held that children though born out of void marriages are still considered legitimate.

This matter pertains to a situation where the son of deceased born out of second marriage was considered for appointment in Southern Railways on compassionate grounds. In the instant matter, the southern railway rejected the claim of appointment as the child was born out of the second wife and the second wife was not entitled to any benefits as per the instructions of the railway board. As per the circular of Railway Board dated 2.1.1992 appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted to children born out of the second wife. 

However, the bench Madras High Court did not agree with the Railways contention and while relying on the judgment of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar given by Supreme Court held that the second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage is though considered illegal but children born out of the second marriage are nevertheless considered legitimate and are lawfully entitled to the estate of the father. As per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, children born out of void marriages are considered as legitimate. 

The Centre filed an appeal against this judgment of the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition filed by the Centre and termed it as unnecessary litigation. 
The Author Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. is the leading Child custody lawyer
For Free Legal quires call Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218

Divorced Daughter is eligible for appointment compassionate grounds

The Calcutta High Court held that a divorced daughter comes within the definition “unmarried daughter” and is eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Chief Justice Nishita Mhatre, Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Dipankar Datta, “The beneficent scheme underlying the settlement would be thrown out of gear in the event, a restrictive meaning is applied and benefits are not extended to a divorcee daughter, who returns back to her father’s family after divorce and cessation of her relationship with her husband. Such interpretation cannot be construed to be an instance of misplaced sympathy or to be based upon a pretentious pulpit of morality.”
In the present matter, an appeal was filed challenging the order passed by a single judge in which appellants were denied relief by holding that a divorced daughter of an employee is not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment/ monetary compensation.
The respondents contended that daughter ceases to be a member of the family once she is married. After getting divorced her status does not change back to daughter. Also, the respondent relied on National Coal Wages Agreement which does not list divorced daughter as a dependent, hence, making her ineligible for appointment on compassionate grounds.
The court observed, “There could hardly be and, in fact, there is no dichotomy of lexicographic opinion that the word ‘unmarried’ does not only mean ‘never having been married’ but, if the circumstances do permit and warrant, it may also mean ‘not married on the relevant.”
“In construing the words “unmarried daughter”, such construction that sub-serves common good and not the reverse ought to be adopted; and the words “unmarried daughter”, as noticed earlier, are wide enough to take within its fold one who does not have a husband on the material date. There is no earthly reason as to why bearing in mind the purpose or object of the scheme for providing employment opportunity or monetary compensation to a dependent of a deceased worker, the court should cut down the amplitude of the word ‘unmarried’, which is intelligible and can be given full meaning in the context where it is used.”
Therefore, in the present matter, the Court granted a month’s time to the respondent to calculate the Appellant’s financial benefits in terms of para 9.5.0(ii) of the NCWA, which gives an option to the female dependent to either accept monthly monetary compensation or employment. Arrears were to be disbursed to her within 2 months.
The Author Mr.K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. is the leading Family Court Advocate in Chennai
For Free legal queries to Daniel & Daniel @ 9840802218

Six-months wait for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act waived off by SC

If a Hindu married couple is separating by mutual consent then they no longer need to wait for six months for getting a separating order from the court.
On Tuesday Supreme Court held that marriage between two Hindus can be legally terminated in just a week as the “cooling off” period can be waived off as it is not mandatory.
The Apex court clarified that if all the efforts to reunite parties and mediation and conciliation also fails between them then the wait for a six-month period can be done away with.
This ruling was passed by the court after a petition was filed by a couple seeking direction to waive off the cooling off period as they have been living separately for 8 years and they had already settled all issues pertaining to child custody and alimony.The couple made a plea before the Supreme Court that delay in divorce would affect their chances to resettle in life.
In the present matter, the court took a stand that delay in proceedings only prolongs subsequent resettlement. Waiving off period can be considered if the parties have been living separately already for a year.
The court said, “The object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of the status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling off period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise the possibility of differences being reconciled.”
The bench comprising of Justice AK Goel and UU Lalit said that the object of the cooling off period is to safeguard against a hurried decision taken by a couple to get separated and to allow them to explore ways to settle their disputes however this could not be made mandatory.
As per Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage if both the parties do not change their pleas for divorce in a time period not less than six months and not later than 18 months, then the court pass the decree to declaring the marriage to be dissolved.
The court observed that the period of six months to 18 months provided in section 13B is an interregnum to give time and opportunity for the couple to reflect on their move. This period can be waived off if conciliation fails and parties have genuinely settled their differences pertaining to alimony, custody of the child or any other issues pending between them.
The bench observed, “The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option.”
The Supreme Court bench after examining all the issues came to the conclusion that Section 13B(2) is mandatory and not a directory. The court held that the cooling off period could be waived off if the court is satisfied that the parties are living separately for more than a year with no chance of reconciliation and a further waiting period would only prolong their agony. The bench held that the parties can file a waiver application just one week after the divorce petition is filed and the court will take a call on the waiving off period. 
The Author K.P.Satish Kumar M.L. is the top Divorce lawyer in Chennai
For Free Legal queries call Daniel & Daniel At 9840802218