Revision as of 18:32, 3 August 2017

Registration

UP makes marriage registration mandatory

UP makes marriage registration must, August 2, 2017: The Times of India

The state cabinet approved the UP marriage registration rules 2017, making it mandatory for couples from all religions to get their marriages registered.

The cabinet nod comes in wake of a 2006 Supreme Court verdict which had asked the Centre and state governments to draft rules making registration of marriages compulsory , irrespective of religion and caste.

Since then, marriage registration rules have been implemented across the country barring two states, Uttar Pradesh and Nagaland. Government spokespersons Shrikant Sharma and Siddharth Nath Singh said the rules are expected to be notified in the next few days. After the notification, all marriages taking place in the state will have to be registered.

Previous state governments had desisted from making marriage registration mandatory , mainly because of apprehensions among the Muslim community . Many Muslims have objected to marriage registration on the ground that the nikahnama should not have photographs of the couple.Couples found to have not registered their marriage will be liable to pay a penalty.

Kicking daughter-in law not punishable under Section 498A, IPC

Bhaskar Lal Sharma and daughter-in-law Monica case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to review its own 2009 verdict in the case between Bhaskar Lal Sharma and his daughter-in-law Monica after the NCW, through counsel Aparna Bhat, moved a curative petition requesting reconsideration. Curative petitions normally have a 99% failure rate in the apex court.

A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices S H Kapadia, Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph entertained NCW’s curative petition and issued notice to both parties — Sharma and Monica. This means the curative petition will now be heard in open court for the parties to point out the anamoly in the July 27 ruling and suggest corrective measures. NCW had reflected the views of CPM leader Brinda Karat who had said the apex court’s decision — that a mother-in-law who kicks her daughter-in law or repeatedly threatens her with divorce attracts no punishment for cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC — would only “further deepen the miseries of women and undo the effect of various legislations passed for the emancipation of women”.

“Such a judicial understanding of cruelty will be a licence for domestic violence. It may also encourage wife-beaters. It will undo the positive steps taken by government to provide a just legal framework to address domestic violence,” Karat had written.