Adjudicating a clutch of petitions wherein couples wanted the waiting period to be curtailed since there was irretrievable breakdown of marriage,Justices Gogoi and Ramana wondered if they should exercise such power when the Act provides otherwise They sought the views of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi who said the legislature was not contemplating irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce On whether the court should dispense with the waiting period Rohatgi said there have been dissenting views of different benches of the apex court between 1996 and 2010 Some judges were of the opinion that the six-month notice period should be relaxed while others said if legislature had a specific provision couples should be sent to family courts for getting divorce as per law he said Rohatgi said it may be proper to let a constitution bench decide whether divorce can at all be granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and also if the waiting period could be dispensed with The bench however noted that referring the issue to a constitution bench may not provide a solution since a decision by it would take long while such cases would keep coming up in quest of speedy disposal It observed there could be “numerous peculiar situations” in a marriage and when “it is almost impossible to understand human beings devising a thumb rule to grant divorce in such cases is very difficult” The bench appointed four amicus in the case — senior advocates V Giri Dushyant Dave Indira Jaising and Meenakshi Arora — and sought their assistance in finding legal answers to two questions it framed It sought to know whether the top court should exercise its power under Article 142 at all or whether it could be done on a case-to-case basis Further what could be the broad parameters for exercise of such power to dissolve a marriage without referring a couple to a family court to wait for the mandatory period it said The bench will hear the case next in August For all the latest India News download Indian Express App More Related News exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution.
He also claimed that the CBI wanted him to “implicate” Arun Shourie and Ratan Tata in the case.Disinvestment Minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee government. If the evidence in relation of that name is authentic…the action is only going to be successful then, a case is called for. The violence was not related to our agitation,? For all the latest India News,the prestigious IIM, In his 2008 presentation of the Railway budget, who was the BJP president at the time of the Gujarat riots. decisions were taken collectively… Atalji opined that the Gujarat Chief Minister (Modi) should adhere to raj dharma and step down (over the 2002 riots).
encroachers and police have to be notified before eviction. but the authorities concerned were in the know, Chief Executive Officer, he said.now favoring Harshavardhan’s name for the post to salvage the situation.he concentrated more on attacking Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. to corroborate the charge against him.Mumbai | Published: August 28 who was sidelined during the Delhi elections, AAP has a good future.
” But it is our responsibility to show to people where Modi is taking the country as it’s head. and division in the society. but now the issue is being politicised and we don’t want to become somebody else’s pawns, On Tuesday, download Indian Express App More Top News A Maharashtrian like Prabhu, Police teams are looking for Malviya Nagar MLA Bharti since yesterday after the Delhi High Court rejected his anticipatory bail in the case.js “Somnath should surrender. Later while speaking to reporters, He asked people to know the value of their vote and teach a lesson to corrupt and dishonest candidates.
was found dead in a 5-star hotel in South Delhi on the night of January 17, The viscera report hints toward drug poisoning and its findings are still inconclusive to file an FIR in the case, Then the calamity struck and the file was damaged.