Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is a biased law where hindu women cannot file lawsuit on legal grounds and need to be filed jointly, hindu women can also be kept away from financial support and the case can drag on for years if the hindu male does'nt take part in the plaintiff proceedings.
This is the entire Hindu Marriage Act. Please show me where it is written that lawsuit has to be filed jointly.
http://bokakhat.gov.in/pdf/The_hindu_marriage_act.pdf
Infact the word "Lawsuit" does not exist in the act
The word "Jointly" is there 2 times in the act
Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.
In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.
Hindu succession Act 1956 where hindu women have little onr no rights to inherit property, they were being amended in 2010 but the Lok Sabha failed to pass.
Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
[1] females are granted ownership of all property acquired either before or after the signing of the Act, abolishing their “limited owner" status. However, it was not until the 2005 Amendment that daughters were allowed equal receipt of property as with sons. This invariably grants females property rights.
The property of a Hindu female dying intestate, or without a will, shall devolve in the following order:
- upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband,
- upon the heirs of the husband.
- upon the father and mother
- upon the heirs of the father, and
- upon the heirs of the mother.
Sons and daughters have been granted equal inhetitance rights in 2005
To get divorce as per Hindu Marriage law is the most difficult harassing arduous process for a woman
How is it difficult please tell
Any marriage can be voidable and may be annulled on the following grounds: the marriage has not been consummated due to impotency, contravention of the valid consent mental illness condition specified in Section 5, or that the respondent at the time of the marriage was pregnant by someone other than the petitioner. Divorce can be sought by husband or wife on certain grounds, including: continuous period of desertion for two or more years, conversion to a religion other than Hindu, mental abnormality, venereal disease, and leprosy. A wife can also present a petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of if the husband marries again after the commencement of his first marriage or if the husband has been guilty of rape, sodomy, or bestiality. Newly married couples cannot file a petition for divorce within one year of marriage.
Supreme Court ruling in 2012[edit]
The Supreme Court of India exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and ruled in August 2012 that marriages can be ended by mutual consent before expiry of the cooling period of six months stipulated in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for the couple seeking divorce through mutual consent to wait for a period of six months after making first joint application for divorce. It is only after the expiry of the six months that the couple can move second application for the dissolution of their marriage.
[14]
Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Altamas Kabir said: "It is no doubt true that the legislature had in its wisdom stipulated a cooling period of six months from the date of filing of a petition for mutual divorce till such divorce is actually granted, with the intention that it would save the institution of marriage. But there may be occasions when in order to do complete justice to the parties it becomes necessary for this court to invoke its powers under Article 142 in an irreconcilable situation (between the couple). When it has not been possible for the parties to live together and to discharge their marital obligations towards each other for more than one year, we see no reason to continue the agony of the parties for another two months."
You mean they even don't go to a court when they want to divorce?
