New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday supports the need for a uniform civil code (UCC) and requested the center to take the steps needed in this matter.
The court observed that Indian youth belonging to various communities, tribes, caste or religion that featured their marriage should not be forced to fight with problems arising because of conflict in various personal laws, especially in relation to marriage and divorce.
“In modern Indian society, which gradually becomes homogeneous, traditional obstacles of religion, the community and caste slowly disappeared,” said the Prathra M justice reserve said.
“The hope was revealed in Article 44 of the Constitution that the State will secure the uniform citizens, civil code should not remain a hope,” said the judge, added that the need for uniform civil code as imagined by article 44, has been repeated from time to time by the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court has been, in 1985 it directed that the assessment at MS Jordon Diengdeh (Supra) was placed in the presence of the Ministry of Law to take the right steps.
However, more than three decades have passed since then and it is unclear about what steps have been taken inside This is today.
Thus, let the current assessment copy communicated to the Secretary, the Ministry of Law & Justice, the Government of India, for the necessary actions as appropriate, “said the court.
The judge said that the court has been repeatedly faced with conflicts that arise in the Personal Law, and people possessed by various communities, caste and religion, which establish marriage bonds, struggling with such conflicts.
He quoted that the top court in the 1985 assessment said “It was also a matter of regret that Article 44 of our Constitution remained dead letter”.
This article provides “the country will strive to secure residents with civil code uniforms in the entire Indian region”.
The observation of the court came while hearing a request that was seeking the application of Hindu marriage laws, 1955, in connection with the parties included in the Meana community considering the exception below Section 2 (2) from HMA, 1955.
The couple got married on June 24, 2012.
Petition Who was looking for divorce under section 13-1 (he) from HMA, 1955 was submitted by a man on December 2, 2015.
The woman prayed for the rejection of the divorce petition, for the reason the provision.
From HMA, 1955 does not apply to the parties concerned because they are scheduled tribal members who are notified in Rajasthan, and hma, 1955 will not apply to the case of those parties considering part 2 (2) from section 2 (2) From HMA, 1955.
This application was decided by a family court and divorce petition was dismissed by holding that the provisions of HMA, 1955 did not expand to the Meena community, which was the scheduled tribe that was notified.
The man challenged the court order of the trial dated November 28, 2020 in the High Court.
The High Court allows its appeal to challenging the trial court order and set aside court court decisions.
“Appeal is permissible.
The judgment that was revealed was unsustainable and set aside.
The court court was directed to continue with the adjudication of the petition below 13-1 (a) from HMA, 1955 concerning excess and made a decision in it six months,” said the High Court.