Hindu daughters’ right on fathers self-acquired property?

Since its history, India has been the land of discrimination for women against its male counterparts. Daughter's parents should be forced to pay huge amounts to marry their daughters or they want to kill them by Brahmin pandits who want to snatch away all the property left by her husband.

If nothing is there, then we should thank the British for helping us reduce the fate of the daughters of our country by removing the bad practice of 'Sati'. However, after several years of our constitution, that talks about equality and discrimination on the basis of gender; Laws of inheritance in our country still discriminate with the rights of the daughter of their father's property against their brothers.

In Hinduism, among the other sects, the following two groups are extremely important

1. Mitakshara

2. Daybhaga

Mittakshara law has been more discriminatory of daughter's property rights against Daybhaga School.

With his son, his father and his two descendants are considered as 'coparceners' of joint family property. But, according to the Daybhaga law, sons do not take any such interest from birth. Their rights are questioned only for the first time on the death of their father. At the death of his father, he takes such property as if he has been released by him, even if he or she is an ancestor in the form of heirs, not surviving. Since sons do not take any interest in their ancestral property during their father's life, therefore there can be no transcript in the strict sense between father and son.

In Mithakshara school, daughters did not have the right to be coparceners (until 2005). Their right was limited to 'maintenance' until they were unmarried, and the 'wedding expenses' from the property of the joint family was to be completed. They had no rights in the property and therefore could not demand a division. Coparcenary was a concept for the male heir. There were also Karta of the male subject (who were the first coparceners) and also the Karta of the property of the joint family. His position did not make him eligible for any major advantage compared to the other three rivals; Each of the four linear descendants (coparcener) had equal rights.

However, Dayabhaga law was a little sympathetic to the daughters. There was no fundamental difference between a female or a man; That is, there was no coparcenary in full sense to say. In this form of school, no one had the right to property. It will be clear with the following example. If X (father) dies to leave his widow and his son; Both will get equal rights on the property. Now if the widow dies, leaving her son and son's daughter, the two assets will be collected together with the property. Son's daughter has the same right to ask for a partition as a son.

When the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was passed, in reality, there was no real change in the way of succession in the past. It rejected the Constitutional mandate under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Section 6 of the Non-Amended Act states that "When a Hindu man dies after the commencement of this Act, at the time of his death, he is interested in the property of Mittakshara, his interest in property remains alive. ... '. There was no mention of the rights of women's property.

Fortunately, with the amendment of Section 6 in 2005, the rights of daughters were finally accepted. Now it is as follows: From the beginning of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and in a joint Hindu family ruled by the Mitakshara law, the daughter of an opponent, -

(a) by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son;

(b) have the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son;

(c) be subject to the same liabilities in respect of the said coparcenary property as that of a son, and any reference to a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter of a coparcener.

So, a lot of things have changed.

It is a doctrine that whoever does not have a coparcenary cannot become a Karta of the family; But post this amendment, because the daughter has the right to be an opponent, so she has the right to be the manager of the family and is subject to the same rights and obligations of the son.

In the case of Radha Ammal v. IT Commissioner, it was believed that the right to become a coparcener depends on the fundamental fact that the person on whom the right is a coparcener. It was believed that the rights were given to the male members of the family because female members were not considered as a coparcener. But, now, with the amendment in 2005, after reading the above situation organized by the court, a daughter, who may now be a coparcener (according to Section 6), can also be the Karta or manager.

There are some questions that need to be answered. They are as follows: -

1. What happens when a daughter is born at the time of partition but is born after that?

2. After the partition, the daughter was born and what happens when it is born?

The answer to question number 1

Yekemian V. AgniswarianIn this case, the situation in relation to the son born at the time of partition but after this, if no share was kept for him at the time of partition, then he had the right to reopen the partition and it was a stock allotted. Now, because daughters have the right to property, therefore their treatment will be the same; That is as if he was born as a son. Therefore, when he was in his mother's womb, no one was allotted it, then he could ask to open the partition again.

The answer to question number 2

In this case, if the father had reserved a portion for himself at the time of division with his other sons and daughters, then his property would be consumed on his daughter.

It is indeed surprising that how long the Center was implementing this amendment in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - some states have already got justice for the daughters of their respective states - Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra Had taken himself for and in each of the states, in Karnataka, for the purpose of removing the discriminatory characteristics of the Act, each passed law was passed.

Section 3 of the Kerala Act State removed the 'right by birth' section. Any person, whether a woman or a man can make the right claim in the property by the example of his birth. Not so far away from discrimination that daughters had been subjected for years; Because it was entirely probable and fails to provide rights to daughters in existing collective properties.

On the other hand, the Andhra Pradesh legislature gave birth rights to those daughters who are unmarried on that date when applicable to the Act.

Thus, classical mitakshara coparcenary could no longer work in these states before the central amendment. In states after mercy law; Like West Bengal, Orissa (excluding areas in southern Orissa), Assam and Tripura, the situation was not as bad, because Dayabhaga treats women and men on the same pedestal. In the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, however, mitakshara kept the skeleton of the law, but by giving quality to daughters (unmarried), its discriminatory facilities were largely removed.

These amendments bounce and force daughters status in the joint family. Not only does she continue to be a coparcener after her marriage, but she also becomes part of her husband's joint family.

However, nothing gets better without problems. The researcher wants to discuss the following problems: -

1. What is the difference between daughter's right if she is married on her right, she was a Spinster?

If the daughter was born in Karnataka and married before 1990, then she will not be given any rights over her father's property. However, after the central revision of 2005, the difference between married and unmarried daughters is no longer recognized.

The court said that the lower appellate court was giving more error in reducing the part of the appellant and on the basis of the Karnataka Amendment Act of 1990, there was an opponent from the birth of a daughter, and hence the property of the police on the partition of the joint Hindu family was given to daughter. To allocate, it should be divided so much, the same part which is allocated to the son.

It was further presented that the Amendment Act was passed before the lower appeal court during the negligence of the appeal and therefore the lower appellate court had the duty to pay attention to the changes made in the law.

However, another submission was made, though the applicant's marriage was prior to 1990, still on the basis of amendment in the Principal Act by the Central Government through the Hindu Succession Act (Amendment) 2005, which distinguishes between marriage The removed daughter and the unmarried person, the appellant is treated as a competitor and therefore the lower appeal was taken by the lower court to reduce the appellant's share. The idea cannot be kept in the law.

2. Is S6 (1) (c) of Hindu Succession (Amendment Act, 2005), 1956 valid?

Other problems discussed in this matter were regarding the validity of the S6 (1) (c) of the 2005 Act; Questioning any segregation of property that occurred before 20.12.2004 prohibits the authority of the daughter of co-parceners, The problem quoted by the legislature was that if they gave the daughter the right to question any segregation of the reimbursable property before 20.12.2004, then those cases would become the cause of wave and chaos of tired cases against the door of the judiciary. To bother those who had already been decided and disposed of. However, in a certain case the court was held, that if this was a mandate, then the same rule should be applied to the son's power to question such isolation; Despite the petitioner's gender, the problem quoted by him will be the same.

In accordance with the self-acquired properties of the deceased, after the year of 1956, the law of succession provides equal rights to girls/daughters in succession cases. It further provides that all self-acquired properties of a Hindu dying in gestating (i.e. Will) will rely on its class I legal heirs, including daughters in the same classes. Self-acquired properties of female Hindus who die of intestines (i.e. without desire) will first be dissolved in equal shares on their sons, daughters, and husbands.

While the sons had complete control over their father's property, daughters enjoyed this right till they got married. After marriage, a daughter had to be a part of her husband's family.

Daughters' rights in Hindu Succession Act, 2005

Earlier, once a girl got married, she became a part of her father's HUF many folks saw it as some way to scale back the property rights of ladies. However, on September 9, 2005, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, that controls the division of property between Hindus, as amended. In keeping with the Hindu Succession change Act, 2005, each girl, whether or not married or single, is taken into account to be a member of her father's HUF and may be appointed because of the 'Karta' (also managed) of her HUF property. Amendments currently grant donations to daughters to equal rights, duties, liabilities, and disabilities, that were restricted to earlier sons.

However, a girl will profit of the advantages given by the change solely on the death of her father once on September 9, 2005, Additionally, the girl is eligible to be co-operative on September 9, 2005, solely once the father and girl survive, 2005.

Equal right to be coparceners

A group member consists of the largest member and three generations of the family. This may include first, for example, a son, a father, a grandfather, and a great-grandfather. Now, the women of the family can also be an opponent.

• Under coparcenary, coparceners receive authority over the property from birth. Interest and stake of policemen in the property continues to fluctuate on the basis of the number of members according to the birth and death of members.

• Both the father and self-acquired property can be a collective property. In the case of father property, it is shared equally by all the members of the colony, in the case of a volunteer, the person is free to manage the property according to his wishes.

• A member of the police can sell his share to a third party in the participant. However, such sales are subject to pre-emission rights to the remaining members of the coparcenary. The remaining members, however, have the " right of first refusal " on the property to prevent the entry of an outsider.

• A coparcener (no member) can enter a suit demand split for a property demand but not a member. Thus, the daughter, as an opponent, can now demand the division of her father's property.

In case of father's self-acquired property, he has the full right to give the property through any will. Daughter does not have legal authority over the property's self-acquired property.

When it comes to father wealth, then the case is different. Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 clearly states that daughters are given equal rights given to the son and they can become rival by birth.

Generally, there are three generations of the largest members and family in a colony. By 2005, for example, a son, a father, a grandfather, and a great-grandfather, but the women of the family were not involved. However, after the changes in Hindu Personal Laws, women of the family can also be an opponent.

In the case of ancestral property, it is shared equally by all the members of coparcenary. Apart from this, daughter, as an opponent, can now demand the division of her father's property. It is also appropriate to note, however, that a woman's copy is also subject to liabilities similar to her brothers or sons.

In addition, the Supreme Court has said that the rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 apply to the surviving daughters of the rivals living on September 9, 2005 (those who share the legacy of undivided property), even though he was born on September 9, 2005

Apart from this, any division of patriarch made before December 20, 2004, will be unaffected by the 2005 revision. After the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2015, the 2005 Act was repealed, but it does not affect the rights of the females from birth to being rivals.

Now Hindu women can claim their share in the father's estate even after getting married and they have the right to settle the property as per their wishes.

Under the Hindu succession, a daughter can make a right claim in a coparcener property. Both the ancestral and self-acquired property can be a collective property. In the case of father property, it is shared equally by all the members of the colony, in the case of a volunteer, the person is free to manage the property according to his wishes. Depending on the equipment used for the transfer, your mother can make the right claim in that property. If it is according to desire or gift, then there will be no validity for your claim.

According to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, a daughter is equally valid heir as a son's property. If your grandfather gave his mother's sister a rule through a rule or another person cannot claim such property because it has already been decided.

But if it is an open system where no desire has been made by your grandfather but the plots have been transferred only verbally, then the claim of the other legal heirs of each class is legal. In case of a close will system where the decision about the transfer of property has already been deposited by the tester in the pen and paper, in that case, no one can claim the property, which has inherited the property. Heritage relates to him or her completely. If it is an open desire, then legal heirs have every chance to claim property.

Right of married daughter:-

After the arrival of change to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the parent of the married girl has equal rights within the property, that was effective from September 9, 2005.

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, originally gave daughters not equal rights to father wealth. This difference was removed by a change applied on September 9, 2005.

This issue came ahead of the bench of justice Mohit Shah of Iran, once the judges MS Sankelecha and MS Sonak, a choose and a division bench once controversial views on separate matters.

A Division Bench had aforesaid that amendments were applied to the daughters born on or once September 9, 2005.

The bench's final word:

The full bench, disagree with the fact that despite the date of the date of birth of the daughters, the father will be equal share within the property."The revised section applies before or after June 17, 1956 (daughters born between June 17, 1956, and 8 September 2005) provided they survived on November 2005, an After coming to the Bar Amendment Act 2005, the force, "the judges took halfway in seventy-two pages in their order.Now in the first case, your mother and alternate brother cannot claim this half because your grandfather gave away gifts throughout his time. However, unlike all the young people of your grandfather (i.e. your mother and three sisters and a brother), the house and the plot have equal rights on the land.

                                    

The gift of his son to his son is not part of the ancestral property, because the son is not the heir of the property on the death of the grandfather, or the grandfather is not received by division during his tenure. The right to property to sons and daughters is square measure on those qualities, square measurement is suppressed with his father and has become a patriarchal property at the hands of his father.  

HOW TO FILE FOR A DIVORCE

According to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there are three speculations under which the divorce can be obtained. These theories in particular are given below,

·         Fault theory,

·         Mutual consent theory, &

·         Irretrievable breakdown of marriage theory.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 initially, based divorce in light of the fault theory, and revered nine fault grounds in Section 13(1) on which either the husband or wife could sue for separation. The section 13(2) portrays two fault grounds on which the wife alone could file for the divorce.

Section-13 of The Hindu Marriage Act,1955

Divorce. —

1.      Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—

                                i.            has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or

a)      has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; or

b)      has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or

                              ii.            has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

                            iii.            has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.

Explanation .—In this clause,

a)      the expression “mental disorder” means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia;

b)      the expression “psychopathic disorder” means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or

                            iv.             has been suffering from a virulent and incurable form of leprosy; or

                              v.            has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form; or

                            vi.            has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or

                             ^vii.            has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive;

 [Explanation. —In this sub-section, the expression “desertion” means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.] 

(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground—

        i.            that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or

      ii.            that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.]

(2) A wife may also present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground,

        i.            in the case of any marriage solemnized before the commencement of this Act, that the husband had married again before such commencement or that any other wife of the husband married before such commencement was alive at the time of the solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner: Provided that in either case the other wife is alive at the time of the presentation of the petition; or

      ii.            that the husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or (bestiality; or)

    iii.            that in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), or in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) [or under the corresponding section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)], a decree or order, as the case may be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards; or

    iv.            that her marriage (whether consummated or not) was solemnized before she attained the age of fifteen years and she has repudiated the marriage after attaining that age but before attaining the age of eighteen years.]

Explanation. This clause applies whether the marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976)*.] State Amendment Uttar Pradesh: In its application to Hindus domiciled in Uttar Pradesh and also when either party to the marriage was not at the time of marriage a Hindu domiciled in Uttar Pradesh, in section 13—

        i.            in sub-section (1), after clause (i) insert (and shall be deemed always to have been inserted) the following clause, namely:(1a) has persistently or repeatedly treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party; or”, and “(viii) has not resumed cohabitation after the passing of a decree for judicial separation against that party and—

a)      a period of two years has elapsed since the passing of such decree, or

b)      the case is one of exceptional hardship to the petitioner or of exceptional depravity on the part of other party; or

      ii.            for clause (viii) (since repealed in the principal Act) substitute (and shall be deemed to have been substituted) following clause, namely:

[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 13 of 1962, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 7-11-1962)].

        i.            Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society, to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of the spouse it is established or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty; Maya Devi vs. Jagdish Prasad, AIR 2007 SC 1426.

      ii.            Making false allegations against husband of having illicit relationship and extramarital affairs by wife in her written statement constitute mental cruelty of such nature that husband can, not be reasonably asked to live with wife. Husband is entitled to decree of divorce; Sadhana Srivastava vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, AIR 2006 All 7.

    iii.            The expression “Cruelty” as envisaged under section 13 of the Act clearly admits in its ambit and scope such acts which may even cause mental agony to aggrieved party. Intention to be cruel is not an essential element of cruelty as envisaged under section 13 (1) (ia) of the Act. It is sufficient that if the cruelty is of such type that it becomes impossible for spouses to live together; Neelu Kohli vs. Naveen Kohli, AIR 2004.

    iv.            The leveling of false allegation by one spouse about the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside wedlock amounted to mental cruelty; Jai Dayal vs. Shakuntala Devi, AIR 2004 Del 39.

      v.            Mental disorder for relief under section 13 (1) (iii) should be of such a degree that it is impossible to lead normal marital life or it is unreasonable to expect a person to put up with a spouse with such condition; B.N. Panduranga Shet vs. S.N. Vijayalaxmi, AIR 2003 Karn 357.

    vi.            Due to the criminal complaint filed by the wife, the husband remained in jail for 63 days and also his father and brother for 20 to 25 days. Therefore, even though the case of cruelty may not have been proved but as the facts emerging from the record clearly indicate that the living of the two as husband and wife would not only be difficult but impossible, the court has no alternative but to grant a decree of divorce; Poonam Gupta vs. Ghanshyam Gupta, AIR 2003 All 51.

  vii.            Unless the entire genesis of the quarrels in the course of which, one of the spouses holds out a threat to take his or her life is placed before the court, the very fact that some threat in the course of a quarrel is held out, cannot be viewed in isolation or construed as mental cruelty to the other spouse; Nalini Sunder vs. G.V. Sundar, AIR 2003 Kar 86.

viii.            A husband cannot ask his wife that he does not like her company, but she can or should stay with other members of the family in matrimonial home. Such an attitude is cruelty in itself on the part of the husband; Yudhishter Singh vs. Sarita, AIR 2002 Raj 382.

    ix.            Removal of mangalsutra by wife at the instance of her husband does not amount to mental cruelty; S. Hanumantha Rao vs. S. Ramani, AIR 1999 SC 1318.

      x.            A threat to commit suicide by the wife amounts to infliction of mental cruelty on the husband but it should not be uttered in a domestic tiff; Pushpa Rani vs. Vijay Pal Singh, AIR 1994 All 220.

    xi.            Solitary instance of cruelty would not constitute cruelty so as to grant a decree for divorce rather the behavior of the other party has to be persistently and repeatedly treating the other spouse with such cruelty so as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the husband/wife that it will be harmful or injurious for him or her to live with the other party. The expression persistently” means continue firmly or obstinately and the expression repeatedly means to say or do over again; Vimlesh vs. Prakash Chand Sharma, AIR 1992 All 261.

In 1964, by an amendment, certain provisions of Section 13(1) were amended as Section 13(1A), in this manner perceiving two grounds of breakdown of the marriage. The 1976 Amendment Act embedded two extra fault grounds of divorce for wife and another section 13(B) for divorce by mutual consent.

Section- 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 states that neither the husband nor the wife should have a living spouse at the time of marriage.

Bigamy is an offence under section 494 of The Indian Penal Code (IPC) even if the second marriage is performed with the permission of the first wife and thus punishable with the imprisonment of not less than 7 years.

SECTION-13(A) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

(1A) Either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act, may also present a petition for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground—

·         That there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or

·         That there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of [one year] or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.

SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954:

The special marriage act, 1954 replaced the old act III 1872. The new enactment has three major objectives-

·         to provide a special form of marriage in certain cases,

·         to provide for registration of marriage in certain cases,

·         to provide for divorce.

The purpose of the act is to provide the people of India and all the Indian Nationals residing in foreign countries, irrespective of the caste, religion, or faith followed by either party.

What is the Process of Divorce in India?

To start with the divorce procedure firstly, one has to be sure that they want to go ahead with the decision of divorce as it is a life altering decision. Once you are content that you want to initiate the divorce process in India then consult the best divorce lawyer who will help, guide and assist you in the entire divorce procedure right from the filing of divorce petition till the pronouncement of the final order for dissolution of marriage. Thus, to start with the divorce process step by step in India, the first thing is to prepare yourself to go ahead with the divorce process.

Divorce in India can be either mutual consent or contested. The divorce procedure for both the mutual consent and contested divorce however some steps of the divorce process in India remains the constant. The step-wise divorce procedure in India in every divorce case is as follows:

• Filing of Divorce Petition - The first step in the divorce process in India is filing of divorce petition before the appropriate family court. The courts in which the step by step divorce process can be initiated by filing of divorce petition are either of the following :

1. In jurisdiction of which both the parties have been residing in their matrimonial home,
2. Where the wife is presently living, or
3. Where the husband is presently living.

The party who wants to seek the divorce from other has to file the petition or if the parties mutually agree to divorce each other then a joint divorce petition is required to be filed before the appropriate court to initiate the divorce procedure. The petition of divorce must mention the grounds of divorce. A top divorce lawyer will help you in drafting the divorce petition and in the step by step divorce process.

• Service of Summons - After filing of divorce petition the next step in the divorce procedure is the service of summons on to the other party to inform them that the divorce process has been initiated against them by their spouse. After receiving the summons the party has to appear before the court on the date mentioned in the summons.
• Response - The next stage in the divorce procedure is to document a reaction to the divorce petition. The response should mention the points on which the other party wants to contest the divorce and also accept or reject the points mentioned in the divorce petition. If the party does not appear before the court for filing the response then the divorce procedure will end there and then and the court will pass an ex parte order of divorce thus putting an end to the divorce process.
• Trial - The next step of divorce procedure is conducting of trial. When both the parties have submitted their petitions to the divorce then the court will hear both sides of the divorce along with their evidences and witnesses. This step of the divorce process in India also include the examination and cross examination of parties as well as witnesses. This is to a great extent is the most crucial stage of divorce process.
• Interim Orders - The next step of the divorce procedure in India is interim orders. In this step of the divorce process the court passes temporary orders related to maintenance and child custody etc. Interim orders are passed during the subsistence of the divorce procedure and remain in force till the final decision of the court i.e., till the last stage of the divorce process in India.
• Final Order - The last step in a divorce procedure is the pronouncement of the final order of the divorce. As soon as all the preceding stages of the divorce process are completed the court will pass a final order which will dissolve the marriage entirely. With the court’s final order the divorce procedure in India will come to an end

What is the Divorce Procedure of Mutual Consent Divorce?

The divorce procedure for the mutual consent divorce in India is less time taking. The parties can opt to follow the divorce process of mutual consent divorce in India when both the parties amicably agree to put an end to a troubled marriage. In the divorce procedure of the mutual consent divorce the parties to the divorce should decide all the issues of the divorce such as maintenance, child custody and distribution of assets etc among themselves before filing the divorce petition. 

Joint divorce petition by husband and wife  is submitted before the appropriate court with the help of good divorce lawyer. The court will give a cooling off period of 6-18 months to the parties if the court believes that there are chances of reconciliation between the husband and wife. After this cooling off period cames to an end the parties will file the divorce petition of second motion if the issues between them did not reconcile. As soon as the petition for second motion is filed the divorce becomes final and the divorce process cames to an end. 

The divorce procedure for the mutual consent divorce also provides that if the parties wish to withdraw the petition altogether or if any one party wishes to withdraw their consent under the divorce procedure followed for mutual consent they can do so. The divorce process in India further states that if both the parties withdraw their consent then the divorce process of the mutual consent divorce will come to an end. However, if only one party withdraws the consent from the divorce process of mutual consent divorce them it will get connected to the divorce procedure of the Contested divorce. The divorce process in India for the contested divorce has already been explained above.

Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act: Under the Muslim personal divorce laws, muslim men have been given an edge to give divorce to their wife without going to court but if a muslim women wants to initiate the divorce procedure then she either has to take permission from his husband to give him divorce or can file a divorce petition under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act on the basis of grounds given in the act. The grounds provided in the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act to initiate the divorce procedure are -

·         Whereabouts of husband not known for at least four years, 

·         No maintenance has been provided by the husband for the period of two years,

·         Husband has been imprisoned for a term of seven years or more,

·         Failure to fulfil the marital obligation by the husband for the period of at least three years,

·         For the period of two years husband has been insane or suffering from leprosy,

·         Impotency of the husband from the time of marriage.