Originally posted by: 13thwish
Interesting post! Now I am no lawyer, so I can't say I understood everything you posted, but whatever I did understand alarmed me quite a bit.
Let me use another example from the show to explain why.
Uma (Vividha's mother) loved someone else and was forced to marry Kailash. Now Uma (as a character) was too timid to consider stepping out of that marriage, but hypothetically speaking, let's assume she wanted to. From what you are saying, the law would not be on her side even if she tried.
Obviously someone like Kailash would never consent to a divorce. Does that mean poor Uma would have to wait until he abuses her, just so she would have grounds for divorce? 😲
Frankly, if these are the laws of my country, then I am genuinely afraid both as an Indian citizen and as a woman, because clearly it seems like, the law would do absolutely nothing to protect me until it was too late. Guess I should just feel thankful I'm not Uma then and either pray that I'm never in such a situation or consider moving to another country where I will be protected if I ever am.
Thank you TM for enlightening me. Lost whatever little faith I had in the Indian judicial system after this sadly though.
Very good question. Let me try to clarify your doubts.
In Vividha's case, Vividha did give her consent (please refer to my original post as well as the point on coercion that I previously wrote about). Similarly, in your hypothetical case of Uma, if Uma gave her valid consent, then she cannot apply under Section 5 or Section 12 for a remedy. However, Uma would be able to get divorce on the ground of cruelty [Section 13 (1) (ia), which includes even emotional cruelty as was meted out to her by her husband in the show]. Also,if you read all my posts on this thread thoroughly, you'll see that I used the phrase "at this moment" again and again (regarding Vividha having no locus standi to file a petition for divorce). In future, there may arise legal grounds for Vividha to ask for divorce. Also, for people who are really aggrieved, law considers using the "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" clause (though it's a tedious process and very difficult to prove).
Legally speaking what Vividha should have done was to speak up then and there (at the mandap) or immediately after the moment she heard from her mother that Atharv was doing okay.
We are all educated people (like Vividha). If someone is truly forcing us, we approach the police (lodge a complaint) or protest in public, the moment that coercion ceases to operate.
You realize that in India, there are plenty of youths who think themselves to be in love (not saying that that is the case for Vividha). If the courts allow everyone to break marriages on the ground that he/she thought that he/she was in love with another before marriage, then no one would respect the institution of marriage.
I hope this answers your questions and curbs your apprehension. Law would always protect a woman's rights, not her whims and fancies (remember Vividha, post marriage, at one point, believing Atharv to be happy without her, had decided to move on).
Current Affairs
Health and Fitness
Cricket
Kundali Bhagya
Geet - Hui Sabse Parayee
