Surprising how 15-20 people decide fate of couple: Court
Family court hearing case of Jain couple says separation imposed by the community.
The court was hearing a divorce plea filed in 2012 of a Jain couple living separately since 2011.
It is astonishing that in today’s modern era, 15-20 people sit on behalf of a wife and husband and decide the fate of the couple, a family court recently observed. The court was hearing a divorce plea filed in 2012 of a Jain couple living separately since 2011.
In its order on May 20, Principal Judge Laxmi P Rao said a document filed by the two parties supported her observation.
The document read that the couple “should sit down and if they wish to continue their marital life happily, shall proceed further and if either has no desire/wish to do so, then get separated… neither party shall adopt/initiate any legal proceedings nor claim financial help.”
The court observed that the aspect of divorce had been clubbed with the issue over a shop of the wife’s father given to the husband’s father under a leave and license agreement. The estranged husband, along with his brother-in-law and father used the plot for business purposes, when a dispute arose between them as to who will spend for repairs of the shop.
[related-post]
“It is very astonishing to find out in such a modern era that 15-20 people sit in a meeting on behalf of both parties out of which about 7 people have signed as witnesses to the agreements signed by both the fathers that if either (husband or wife) of them has no desire, they can reside separately and peacefully, return the ornaments of each other. At the same time there will be no financial claim or initiation of a legal proceeding,” the judge said.
“There were a series of meetings between several relatives to decide the petitioner’s father’s demand to the respondent to hand the shop back to him before the agreement period,” the court order read.
The court, on the other hand, noted that disputes raised by the wife and husband appeared “to be ordinary wear and tear of a marriage”. The judge noted that the couple were never given a chance to find out what they want for themselves and divorce has been “apparently imposed upon them by community and family members”.
The court said that before passing an order, several attempts were made by the judge and the marriage counsellors “to make them understand”. The judge observed that they had “failed” as the husband has not budged from his claim for divorce. The wife had claimed restitution of conjugal rights.
Concluding her order, the judge said the community members decided the fate of the estranged couple, which is “unfortunate”.
Share
