|
The Law Commission has
recommended to the Union government to amend the law to
empower a deserted Christian woman to file a petition to
divorce her NRI husband, which otherwise is barred in
the existing Act enacted during the British rule 150
years ago.
In its report, Law Commission chairman A R Laxmanan
said: “The Law Commission has come to the conclusion
that Section 2 of the Divorce Act, 1869, insofar as it
concerns the jurisdictional rule in regard to petitions
for divorce, is not only not in tune with the present
times but is also harsh upon Christian women in India.”
According to the Act enacted by the then British
government, a deserted Christian woman does not have the
right to file a petition before a family court in India
seeking dissolution of her marriage if her husband has
taken the citizenship of another country and also a
domicile of a foreign country. The Indian courts should
also be given the right to decide on the dissolution of
the marriages of Christian couples solemnised abroad,
the Commission said.
In the report submitted to Union law minister Veerappa
Moily, Justice Laxmanan suggested that the law should be
amended in order to entitle the Indian courts to
entertain a petition for dissolution of a Christian
marriage where either of the parties is domiciled in
India at the time of presenting the divorce petition.
The Indian law does not confer jurisdiction on family
courts to dissolve Christian marriages of nondomiciled
couples. Further, in determining the domicile of the
parties in a proceeding for dissolution of a marriage,
it is the domicile of the man alone which is to be
considered since a woman takes the domicile of her
husband upon marriage.
Due to this law, many Christian women in India are
unable to approach the court, despite being deserted by
their husbands living abroad. The Centre had referred
the ruling of the Madras High Court in the Indira Rachel
vs Union of India to the Law Commission for suitable
suggestion, leading to an amendment in the law.
Indira Rachel had filed a petition before the Madras
High Court in 1995 seeking direction to allow her to
file a petition for divorce from her husband Andrew
Solomon Raj, who was then working as assistant
supervisor with the Bank of Kuwait and Middle East in
Kuwait. However, before the court could decide on the
matter, Raj died, making the petition infructous.
In the suggestion to the government, the high court
said: “Therefore, according to us, such provision should
be interpreted to mean that the
courts in India shall be entitled to entertain petition
for dissolution of marriage where either of the parties
has domiciled in India at the time when the petition is
presented.”
|