Get subscribed to our newsletter
Get interesting updates to your email inbox.
While dissolving a marriage, the Delhi High Court has observed that an essential aspect of marriage is being present in each other's life, physically and emotionally adding that a marriage where there is neither sharing of emotions, nor of dreams, joys, sorrows, memories -- happy or sad, is merely a legal bond.
"It is not to say that every marriage, where the couple stays apart from each other for work or other obligations consensually, is a broken one," the bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh noted in the order dated December 3.
The objective of the institution of marriage is to bring two souls together, who embark on the adventurous journey called life. They share experiences, smiles, sorrows, achievements and struggles. They uplift and support each other in all situations with their emotional, mental and physical presence. On this journey of life, they create personal, social and spiritual bonds, everlasting memories, future plans, through which they co-exist in the society, the court said.
An essential aspect of marriage is being present in each other's life, physically and emotionally. It is not to say that every marriage, where the couple stays apart from each other for work or other obligations consensually, is a broken one. However, a marriage where there is neither sharing of emotions, nor of dreams, joys, sorrows, memories (happy or sad), is merely a legal bond, the court order read.
Where there is neither sharing of emotions, nor of dreams, joys, sorrows, memories -- happy or sad, is merely a legal bond.Photo by Wikimedia Common
In the present case, the couple -- husband working in Canada and the woman living in India have never lived together for any significant length of time during the entire 11 years of their marriage. It appears that the husband treated his partner as 'overseas wife,' only to use her as a temporary companion, and to have someone to serve him when he came to India on short visits after yearly gaps, the court noted on the divorce petition of a 34-year-old woman, an MNC professional.
The woman's present appeal was against an earlier Family Court order which dismissed her application for divorce from the husband on the grounds of cruelty.
The couple got married in 2010 at Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir in Bhagpat, Uttar Pradesh according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated but no child was born out of their wedlock. (IANS/JB)
(Keywords: Indian Marriages, Delhi High Court, Marriages, Bond, Wedlock, Hinduism, Hindu)
By Jaison Wilson
As the legality of same-sex marriage gets approval in Latin America's Chile, the 31st such country in the world, the stand of a diverse country like India is still not clear as the long-pending subject is lying in court while the LGBTQ community says that the country is still following the Victorian law introduced by the British which they themselves took away.
A batch of petitions filed by the persons belonging to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ+) community seeking a declaration of recognising same-sex marriages under the special, Hindu and foreign marriage laws, is pending before the Delhi High Court.
Follow NewsGram on Facebook to stay updated.
This includes the plea of a queer couple -- an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), and a foreigner -- seeking recognition of same-sex marriage under the Foreign Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act and another was on live-streaming of same-sex marriage proceedings in the country.
All these pleas seeking favour of same-sex marriage will be taken up by the High Court on February 3, 2022, as the court will also hear a plea opposing the registration of these marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act and seeking its registration either religion-neutral or under secular law.
The apex Indian court, in 2018, in a case filed by dancer Navtej Singh Johar among other petitioners passed the landmark decision to scrap section 377 of the IPC, which decriminalised homosexuality. However, the latest reply of the government on the issue before the Delhi High Court was not in favour of Same-Sex marriages in the country.
The Centre, on October 25, submitted before the court that "marriage" is a term associated with heterosexual couples and "spouse" means husband and wife, as it contended that there is "some misconception" regarding the order in Navtej Singh Johar case which decriminalised homosexual sex but does not talk about marriage.
It was argued that Navtej Singh Johar's case does not talk about marriage, adding that marriage is permissible between a biological man and a biological woman.
The Court's submission came in a petition for legal recognition of all same-sex, queer, or non-heterosexual marriages under secular legislation for marriage such as the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and the Special Marriage Act 1954.
Countries that allowed Same-Sex marriage
Two decades ago, marriage equality for same-sex couples was first legally acknowledged in the Netherlands on April 1, 2001. Same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized--nationwide or in some parts -- in 31 countries. They are -- Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Realm of Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, metropolitan Netherlands, metropolitan New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay.
In Switzerland and in Chile, same-sex marriage will be performed from 2022.
Same-sex marriage in the United States expanded from one state in 2004 to all fifty states in 2015 through various state court rulings, state legislation, direct popular votes, and federal court rulings. The fifty states each have separate marriage laws, which must adhere to rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States that recognise marriage as a fundamental right that is guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as first established in the 1967 landmark civil rights case of Loving v. Virginia.
Chile is the ninth country in the Americas to pass marriage equality legislation, joining Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, the United States, Colombia, Ecuador, and Costa Rica.Indianexpress/wikipedia
Also read: Hijras - a vibrant and misunderstood
Chile is the ninth country in the Americas to pass marriage equality legislation, joining Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, the United States, Colombia, Ecuador, and Costa Rica.
Still following Victorian law, says LGBT community
Talking to IANS, noted transgender activist Kalki Subramaniam said the Centre's stand seems India still follows the century-old Victorian law when it comes to same-sex marriage.
Consensual sex between the same gender was earlier a crime, but not anymore, however, when it comes to marriage the views of the government are not favourable for the LGBT community, she said.
Now more people are coming out and revealing their identity bravely in their workplaces, homes. The Government has to look into it more humanely as the togetherness between two persons and not just as two genders. Marriage is not just for reproduction, it is much more, she said, adding we are not just animals just to produce babies year after year and generation after generation.
"We are a civilised society and we have the right to fall in love with the person who will take care and support each other and nourish a healthy relationship to a healthy society. The government and judiciary have to look into this aspect as simple as it is," she said.
The government cannot decide who can fall in love with whom and it is nobody's business.
"It's my own right and my own decision... it should be in that way... but the views of the authorities are unfortunate and we are going backward", she said.
When asked if the same-sex marriage is really necessary, she said: "Personally, I do not believe in the institution of marriage. But my friends and other transgenders do. I will stand for their rights," she added. (IANS/PR)
(keywords: same sex marriage, LGBTQ, Delhi High court)
Delhi High Court waiting for reply from Delhi government on a petition regarding Special Marriage Act
The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the Delhi government's reply on a petition for setting aside the system of 30 days advance public notice to register a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Noting that no counsel has appeared for the Delhi government in the matter, a bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has given one more chance to the government by listing the plea on December 24 for further hearing.
As per the plea filed by an interfaith couple, the procedure of issuance of public notice for 30 days is inviting objections to the inter-faith marriage being registered under the Special Marriage Act.
Demanding to set aside the impugned procedure, the plea, filed through advocates Utkarsh Singh, Md Tauheed and Mohd Humaid, sought direction from authorities concerned to register the marriage of the petitioners with immediate effect.
The petition has also sought to declare Sections 6 and 7 of the Special Marriage Act as null and void by holding it as illegal, ultra vires, and unconstitutional to the Constitution.
It has also sought direction from respondents to decide the objections on the basis of undertaking and certificates issued by government hospitals or any other prescribed authority, submitted by the petitioners.
The petitioners said that they are directly affected and aggrieved by the impugned procedure for applying for registration of marriages under Sections 6 and 7 of the Special Marriage Act, wherein public notice is issued inviting objections, mentioned in Section 4, to the marriage, for next 30 days.
The petitioner submitted that objection under Section 4 (a) is based on a presumption and bias running against the inter-religious marriages and the same conditionality (neither party has a living spouse) can well arise in other religious marriages also but they are exempted from 30 days' notice period, thus depriving petitioners of their life and liberty. (IANS/JB)
Keywords: India, Delhi, Delhi High Court, Special Marriage Act, Justice.
The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a response from the AAP government and others over a petition against an order for felling of 315 trees for redevelopment of Ayur Vigyan Nagar in the national capital.
A Division Bench of the high court presided over by Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan issued notice over the petition filed by Abhishek Dutt through advocate Varun Chopra and slated the matter for further hearing on December 11.
Follow NewsGram on Instagram to keep yourself updated.
During the course of the hearing, Advocate Varun Chopra argued before the bench that about 315 trees were being cut or transplanted in order to develop Ayur Vigyan Nagar, which is near the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and is the home to a large number of Corona warriors, besides patients.
“While the Covid-19 pandemic is underway and the air quality is already very poor, the taking away of these 315 trees is almost like taking away 315 lungs and ultimately deteriorating the air quality which is already severe,” said Chopra.
Follow NewsGram on Twitter to stay updated about the World news.
He also said that there are various studies that suggest that transplantation of trees is not a very successful process and hence, the said order passed by the Delhi government shall stay immediately.
The plea sought quashing of the Order dated 14.09.2020 issued by Dy. Commissioner of Forests (South) for felling/transplantation of 315 trees for redevelopment of Ayur Vigyan Nagar.
Want to read more in Hindi? Checkout: जम्मू-कश्मीर में भ्रष्टाचार कम करने के लिए पहली बार बना कानून : मोदी
The said order has allowed large-scale destruction of the vegetation and tree cover of New Delhi for the purposes of Government redevelopment, wholly ignoring the air pollution and serious environmental concerns that affect the health of the citizens of the capital, the plea said.
“News reports on Transplanting of Trees show that the process is not a very effective or a successful one, especially in India. In fact, the rate of failure is too high. In the context of New Delhi and the surrounding areas, that failure can be irreparably damaging to the environment and to the inhabitants of the NCT of Delhi and around,” the plea said.
ALSO READ: World War Against The Oppressed Yemenis
“No amount of landscaping and tree planting can properly compensate for the loss of precious green cover. Even planting saplings for each tree which is felled is not enough considering the large size, the ecological impact of larger trees, and poor survival rate of saplings,” the plea added. (IANS)