What is your opinion on this latest news?

I fully agree with Phil D. The term 'irretrievable' is very vague, this being an adjective meaning that cannot be retrieved, recovered, restored, or recalled, in case of adjudging the extend a matrimonial home is broken that it cannot be retrieved, recovered, restored, or recalled has to be well defined to avoid any confusion in the mind of all.

I fully agree that any married man or woman will walk to the nearest Family court seeking dissolution of the marriage on this ground but unless such a person knows the exact meaning of the irretrievable broken down matrimonial home that will be sufficient for him/her to get any relief from the Family Court, it will be just burdening the Family Courts with more divorce cases.

Legislature in most of the cases use such vague terms but do not specify what all acts or omissions will amount to these, similarly you find the term "Cruelty" ground for divorce but what all amounts to acts of cruelty has not been specified in the Acts.

The Legislature just do not want itself to burden with specifically stating the actual meaning of the terms it use , and this job is left for Judiciary to do.

It has been the Supreme Court of India and other High Courts forming the exact meaning for these terms such as Cruelty and desertion etc. since the time these terms were introduced in the Act by the legislature thus we find so many years to understand what all these terms connotes for getting relief from the courts. I feel same will be even after introduction of this new ground.

Here let me give example of the Singaporean law with regard to divorce as provided in the Women's Charter, there it is stated "Irretrievable breakdown of marriage to be sole ground for divorce" what all amounts to this is further is further stated as " The court hearing any proceedings for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the plaintiff satisfies the court of one or more of the following facts:(a) that the defendant has committed adultery and the plaintiff finds it intolerable to live with the defendant;(b) that the defendant has behaved in such a way that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to live with the defendant;(c) that the defendant has deserted the plaintiff for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ;

(d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ and the defendant consents to a judgment being granted;(e) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 4 years immediately preceding the filing of the writ.

Yes for getting rid of long pending litigation in court this will be right thing to happen, specially where blackmailing by either of the parties happen and large sum of money sought for agreeing to divorce by mutual consent, even one of the Family Judge told me that this provision will help him get all the long pending matters disposed off easily.

But what I personally feel that not every young couple go in for this legal provision to dissolve their marriage, if there exist some misunderstanding between them than try resolve this by mutual discussion and compromise rather going for divorce. This is just a parental advice I will give to all youngsters.

For Saurav: It is not clear how the new ground being introduced in the marriage laws for obtaining divorce will be inserted in the Acts will be one of the ground as available for unilateral divorce as provide in section 13 HMA or section 27 SMA, or will be entirely new section specifying how this will work. It can be possible that this may be extension of the divorce by mutual consent where a joint petition is filed by both parties. As far determining the issue of divorce immediately in divorce by mutual consent without waiting for six months may not be possible as this six month is breathing time given to parties to rethink their initial decision for dissolution of their marriage, everyone has right to change his/her mind but this should be genuine change of mind not coupled with ulterior motives to blackmail the other party. As held in Anil Jain V/s Maya Jain case by S.C.

"In the instant case, the respondent wife has made it very clear that she will not live with the petitioner, but, on the other hand, she is also not agreeable to a mutual divorce. In ordinary circumstances, the petitioner's remedy would lie in filing a separate petition before the Family Court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds available, but in the present case there are certain admitted facts which attract the provisions of Section 13-B thereof. One of the grounds available under Section 13-B is that the couple have been living separately for one year or more and that they have not been able to live together, which is, in fact, the case as far as the parties to these proceedings are concerned. In this case, the parties are living separately for more than seven years. As part of the agreement between the parties the appellant had transferred valuable property rights in favour of the respondent and it was after registration of such transfer of property ..

…rights in favour of the respondent and it was after registration of such transfer of property that she withdrew her consent for divorce. She still continues to enjoy the property and insists on living separately from the husband."

What all weighed in the mind of the Hon'ble Judges in this case that here this wife was determined to trouble the husband even after being fully paid financial compensation, such attitude shows irretrievable broken marriage but since this provision was not available the Court under Article 142 Of the Constitution provided relief to the Husband and dissolved the marriage.