French Legal System in Puducherry vis-a-vis the Hindu law in India: Impact on Women and Children
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.7.7Abstract
The French acquired the territory of Puducherry in 1963 and since then a major quantum of the Puducherry legal system derives influence from the legal system of France. Post-independence, the citizens of this union territory were given an option to choose to be governed by either the French Law or the Indian Law. A few striking differences exist between these two legal systems with respect to adoption, marriage and divorce caused due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The French law defines 18 as the minimum age of marriage irrespective of sex, while Indian law provides for a minimum age of 18 and 21 for woman and man respectively. Additionally aspects such as consent in marriages and declaring marriage null and void are very different as per the jurisprudence of both systems. The Hindu Law does not provide for irretrievable breakdown of marriage, though recommendations have been made by the 217th Law Commission in 2009. These recommendations seem to be more feasible compared to the French Laws. Unlike the French law on adoption, earlier under Hindu law a woman could not adopt a child without relating the child to her husband. In such conditions divorced women faced difficulties during the process of adoption. Despite being a more progressive society, application of a few French Laws may not be consistent with the social conditions of our nation. It shall not be incorrect to conclude that it is extremely essential to mould these foreign laws to fit into the Indian society and survive therein.References
J.A.S Cordeno, Legal Cultural and Legal Transplants, 2010, International Academy of Comparative Law,Report to the XVIIIth Conference of Comparative Law, available at: http://isaidat.di.unito.it/index.php/isaidat/article/viewFile/41/47 (last visited on Jul. 10, 2014).
Id.
Supra note 1.
(By virtue of an agreement between Government of India and Government of France , the Central Government had jurisdiction in relation to French Establishments in India).
Supra note 1.
K. DESAI, INDIAN LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE 123 (Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 6th edn. , 2011).
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 7. (In A.N. Mukherjee v. State, it was held that marriages not performed according to ceremonial rituals as mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act will not be considered as a marriage at all).
D. ANNOUSSAMY, THE FRENCH LEGAL SYSTEM 244 (2nd edn,. 2011).
(The Hindu marriage Act does not have any clause specifying any bar on age for marriages).
D. Annoussamy, supra note 8, at 246.
K. DESAI, supra note 7, at 117.
D.F. MULLA, HINDU LAW 864 (Lexis Nexis, 21st edn.,2013).
D. ANNOUSSAMY, supra note 9, at 248.
(The minimum age for marriage for both the spouses is 18. D. Annoussamy, supra note 9, at 244).
(A void marriage is not a marriage, it is a marriage that does not exist since the beginning). P. DIWAN, LAW OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE 225 (Universal Law Publishing, 6th edn., 2011).
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, § 12(1)(c).
(A voidable marriage is the one that will be regarded by every court as a valid subsisting marriage until a decree annulling it has been passed by one of the competent jurisdictions). P. DIWAN, supra note 16, at 226.
th Law Commission Report, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage-Another Ground for Divorce, p. 10, (2009).
B. McKenna, Divorce by Consent and Divorce by Breakdown of Marriage, 30(2) WILEY: THE MODERN LAW REVIEW 121, (1967).
st Report of the Law Commission of India, Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage as a Ground for Divorce, p.14, (1978). (It is called a no fault divorce since ajority of the divorces are granted on the basis of matrimonial fault.Such as adultery, bigamy, cheating etc.)
D. ANNOUSSAMY, supra note 9, at 256.
Id..
Id. at 257.
Supra note 20. (A marriage shall be irretrievably broken down when the parties have lived separately for a period of 3 years before the petition is initiated. The term ‘living separately’ shall include only conditions when they have not been living in the same household. Though there shall be caveat that if the court believed that this shall result in great financial hardship to the other spouse then the divorce shall not be granted. Also, it was proposed that 23(1)(a) shall not affect the given section whatsoever).
Geeta Mullick v. Brojo Gopal Mullick, A.I.R. 2003 Cal. 321.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, §13(1-A).
P. DIWAN, supra note 16 at 500.
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, A.I.R. 2006, S.C. 1675.
Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2218.
(In addition though women can claim maintenance there is no provision for a share in the husband’s property. This is one major reason for the opposition of irretrievable breakdown of marriage by women’s organisations).
C.S. Natarajan Pillai v. C.S. Subbaraya Chettair, A.I.R. 1949 P.C. 34.
(Madras was then under British rule and hence British law applied).
(Lex loci res sitae is latin for the law of the place where the property is situated).
J.D.M Jurrett, Private International Law Adoption, 20(1) WILEY THE MODERN LAW REVIEW, 65, 67 (1957).
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, §8.
S.E. Thomas, Gender and Hindu Adoption law in India in Essays in family law in memory of B N Sampath Vol. II : Gender, Human Rights and Law, 19, 25, (S.E. Thomas ed.,2013).
G.V.C.S RAO, FAMILY LAW IN INDIA 248 (Narender Gogia & Company, 10th edn., 2011).
Id.
