Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Judges’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA (REPORT NO. 217)

 

 

 Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Another Ground for Divorce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forwarded  to   the  Union   Minister   for   Law   and Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India  by  Dr.  Justice  AR.  Lakshmanan,  Chairman, Law Commission of India, on  the   30th           day  of March, 2009.

 

 

 

The  18th    Law   Commission  was  constituted  for  a period of three years from  1st   September, 2006 by Order  No.  A.45012/1/2006-Admn.III  (LA)  dated  the

16th     October,  2006,  issued  by the  Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi.

 

 

 

 

The Law Commission consists of the Chairman, the Member-Secretary, one full-time Member and seven part-time Members.

 

 

 

 

Chairman

 

 

Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan

 

 

Member-Secretary

 

 

Dr. Brahm A. Agrawal

 

 

Full-time Member

 

 

Prof. Dr. Tahir Mahmood

 

 

Part-time Members

 

 

Dr. (Mrs.) Devinder Kumari Raheja Dr. K. N. Chandrasekharan  Pillai Prof. (Mrs.) Lakshmi Jambholkar Smt. Kirti Singh

Shri Justice I. Venkatanarayana

Shri O.P. Sharma

Dr. (Mrs.) Shyamlha Pappu

 

 

 

The Law Commission is located in ILI Building,

2nd  Floor, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi-110 001

 

 

 

Law Commission Staff

 

 

 

 

Member-Secretary

 

 

Dr. Brahm A. Agrawal

 

 

 

 

Research Staff

 

 

Shri Sushil Kumar         :    Joint    Secretary&    Law

Officer

Ms. Pawan Sharma               : Additional Law Officer

Shri J. T. Sulaxan Rao       : Additional Law Officer

Shri A. K. Upadhyay              : Deputy Law Officer

Dr. V. K. Singh                       :Assistant             Legal

Adviser

Dr. R. S. Shrinet                : Superintendent (Legal)

 

 

 

 

Administrative Staff

 

 

Shri Sushil Kumar         :    Joint    Secretary&    Law

Officer

Shri D. Choudhury        : Under Secretary Shri S. K. Basu                                        : Section Officer Smt. Rajni Sharma                                       : Assistant Library &

Information Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at:

 

The text of this Report is available on the Internet

 

 

http://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

 

 

 

 

 

 

©      Government of India

Law Commission of India

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The    text    in     this    document    (excluding    the Government             Logo) may be      reproduced free               of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context.  The  material       must      be  acknowledged    as Government copyright and the title of the document specified.

 

 

 

 

 

Any  enquiries  relating  to  this  Report  should  be addressed to the Member-Secretary and sent either by post to the Law Commission of India, 2nd   Floor, ILI Building, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi-110001, India or by email to lci-dla@nic.in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D.O. No. 6(3)/155/2009-LC (LS)              30th March, 2009

 

 

 

Dear Dr. Bhardwaj Ji,

 

 

Subject: Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Another Ground for Divorce

 

 

I    am    forwarding     herewith    the    217th      Report    of    the    Law

 

Commission of India on the above subject.

 

 

 

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides grounds for presentation of a petition for divorce.  Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 similarly provides grounds for grant of divorce in the case of a marriage solemnized under the Act.  However, the said Acts  do  not  provide  “irretrievable  breakdown  of  marriage”  as  a ground for divorce. The Law Commission of India in its 71st    Report titled “The Hindu Marriage  Act,  1955 – Irretrievable  Breakdown of Marriage as a Ground of      Divorce”   recommended  amendments in the Hindu Marriage Act to make irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a new ground for granting divorce among the Hindus. Recently, the Supreme Court also in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (AIR 2006 SC

1675) recommended  to  the  Union  of  India  to  seriously  consider bringing  an   amendment   in    the   Hindu   Marriage   Act,  1955   to

 

 

 

incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the

 

grant of divorce.

 

 

 

In view of the above, the Law Commission of India suo motu took  up the  study of  the subject.  The Commission examined  the extant legislations as well as a number of judgments of the Supreme

Court  and  High  Courts  on  the  subject  and  is  of  the  view  that

 

 

“irretrievable  breakdown  of  marriage”  should

 

 

be  incorporated  as

 

 

another   ground  for granting divorce under the provisions of     the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court before granting a  decree for divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down should also examine whether adequate financial arrangements have been made for the parties and children.

 

 

The Commission has accordingly made its recommendations in this Report.

 

 

With warm regards,

 

 

 

Yours sincerely, (Dr. AR. Lakshmanan)

Dr. H. R. Bhardwaj,

Union Minister for Law and Justice, Government of India

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Another Ground for Divorce

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

INTRODUCTION                                            9-

11

 

 

 

 

 

JUDICIAL VIEW/SUGGESTIONS                12-

22

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION                                23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.      INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

 

1.1     Whenever the question of inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce is mooted, the opponents argue that “divorce by mutual consent”  introduced  in the Hindu Marriage Act in 1976 more than covers the situation.      It is important to  note that “mutual consent” requires the consent of both the parties and if one or the other does not cooperate, the said ground is not available. ‘Irretrievable breakdown of marriage’, on the other hand, is a ground which the Court can  examine and if the Court, on the facts of the case,    comes        to               the         conclusion that      the    marriage cannot       be repaired/saved, divorce can be granted.  The grant of divorce is not dependent on the volition of the parties but on the Court coming to the    conclusion, on        the          facts pleaded,     that       the    marriage      has irretrievably broken down.

 

 

1.2        Irretrievable  breakdown  of  marriage-  The foundation  of  a sound marriage is  tolerance, adjustment  and respecting  one another.                Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage.                  Petty  quibbles, trifling differences should not be exaggerated and magnified to destroy  what  is  said  to  have  been  made  in  heaven. All

 

 

 

quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case and always keeping  in  view  the  physical  and  mental  conditions  of  the parties, their character and social status.  A too technical and hypersensitive approach would be counter-productive to the institution of marriage.                          The Courts do not have to deal with ideal husbands and ideal wives.                      It has to deal with particular man and woman before it.1

 

 

1.3     In    Naveen   Kohli    v.    Neelu    Kohli2           the    Supreme     Court recommended to the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment          in         the      Hindu                    Marriage      Act,   1955      to          incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a  ground for divorce in the following words:

“Before  we part  with this  case,  on  the  consideration  of  the

 

totality of facts, this Court would like to recommend the Union of India to seriously  consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu          Marriage       Act,     1955   to              incorporate           irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law

& Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps”3

 

 

1.4     Earlier, in Ms. Jorden Diengdeh v.  S. S. Chopra4  the Supreme

 

Court observed:

 

1     Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage (16th    Ed.) Revised by Justice Ranganath Misra (New

Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2008),  page 292.

2             AIR   2006   SC

1675.

3             Ibid., para

96.

4               AIR  1985 SC 935.

“It    appears     to     be     necessary     to    introduce     irretrievable breakdown  of  marriage  and  mutual  consent  as  grounds  of divorce in all cases.…We suggest that the time has come for the intervention of the legislature in those matters to provide for a uniform code of marriage and divorce and to provide by law for a way out of the unhappy situation in which couples like the

present have found themselves.”5

1.5     It is pertinent to notice that the Law Commission of India has already submitted a very comprehensive 71st   Report on irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce.  The matter had been taken up       by the Commission as a result of a reference made by the Government of India. The Law Commission under the Chairmanship of Shri Justice H. R. Khanna presented its Report on April 7, 1978. The Report considered  the suggestion  and  analyzed the same in extenso. Before embarking upon further action on the suggestion that irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be made as a ground for divorce,  the  Law  Commission  considered  it  appropriate  to  invite views              on         the     matter          by           issuing           a     brief    questionnaire.    The Commission in its 71st   Report have accepted in principle irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce and also examined the question  as to how exactly to incorporate  it into the Act and also further  examined  the question  whether  the introduction  of such  a ground  should  be coupled  with  any safeguards.  The  Commission also in Chapter II of the said Report considered present law under the  Hindu  Marriage  Act, merits  and  demerits    of         the          theory            of irretrievable breakdown of marriage in Chapter IV and retention of

5          Ibid., para

7.

 

other grounds of divorce in Chapter V. In Chapter VI the Commission also considered the  requirement of living apart and also suggested many   safeguards like   welfare        of              children,          hardship       and recommended   amendments  to           Sections  21A,  23(1)(a)  and  also recommended insertion of new sections 13C, 13D and 13E.

 

1.6     In the light of the above, the Law Commission suo motu took up the study on the subject.

 II.      JUDICIAL VIEW/SUGGESTIONS

2.1     A law of divorce based mainly on fault is inadequate to deal with a  broken  marriage.                               Under  the  fault  theory,  guilt  has  to  be proved;  divorce  Courts  are  presented  with  concrete  instances  of human behaviour as bring the institution of marriage into disrepute.6

Once  the  marriage  has  broken  down  beyond  repair,  it  would  be unrealistic for the law not to take notice of that fact, and it would be harmful to society and injurious to the interest of the parties.     Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be  surmised  that  the  matrimonial  bond  is  beyond  repair.                                                          The marriage  becomes  a  fiction,  though  supported  by  a  legal  tie,  by refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties.                           Public  interest  demands  not only  that  the  married  status  should,                             as    long    as    possible,    and whenever possible, be maintained, but where a marriage has been

 6            71st       Report of the Law Commission  of India.

wrecked beyond the hope of salvage, public interest lies in the recognition of that fact.  Since there is no acceptable way in which a spouse can be compelled to resume life with the consort, nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.  Human life has a short span and situations causing misery cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. A halt has to be called at some stage.    Law cannot turn a blind  eye to such situations, nor can it decline to give adequate response to the necessities  arising therefrom.7     The Supreme Court in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli8    recommended  to the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate  irretrievable  breakdown  of  marriage  as  a  ground  for divorce.

2.2     The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce by  itself.        But  while  scrutinizing  the  evidence  on  record  to  determine whether  the  grounds  on  which  divorce  is  sought                                              are  made  out,  the circumstances can be taken into consideration.                                               No divorce can be granted on the  ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the party seeking divorce on this ground is himself or herself at fault.  The decree of divorce on  the  ground  that  the  marriage  has  irretrievably  broken  down  can  be granted in those cases where both the parties have levelled such allegations against each other that the marriage appears to be practically dead and the parties cannot live together.  The power of the Court to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage should be exercised  with

 7             Supra note 1, pages 292 –

293.

8          Supra note

2

much care and caution in exceptional circumstances only in the interest of both the parties.9

2.3     In  Geeta  Mullick  v.  Brojo  Gopal  Mullick10     the Calcutta  High Court held:

“In our considered opinion, the marriage between the parties can not be dissolved by  the trial Court or even by the High Court only on the ground of marriage having been irretrievably broken down, in the absence of one or more grounds as contemplated under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955.”11

 

2.4     The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage cannot be used as magic formula to obtain a decree for divorce where grounds for divorce are not proved.

 

2.5     In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat12  the Supreme Court held : “Irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground for divorce by itself. But while scrutinizing the evidence on record  to  determine  whether  the  ground(s)  alleged  is made out and in determining the relief to be granted, the said circumstance can certainly be borne in mind.”13

9                 Supra note 1, page

293.

10           AIR  2003  Cal.

321.

11       Ibid.,  para

7.

12           AIR  1994  SC

 

 

 

710.

13          Ibid.,  para

23. 

2.6        The Calcutta  High  Court  in  Tapan  Kumar  Chakraborty  v.

Jyotsna Chakraborty14     held that in a petition for divorce on a ground as mentioned in the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, court cannot grant divorce on the mere ground of

irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

 

2.7     In   Kanchan  Devi  v.  Pramod  Kumar  Mittal15,  however,  the

Supreme Court held:

 “…the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has irretrievably broken  down and that there was no possibility of reconciliation, we in exercise of our powers  under Art. 142 of the  Constitution  of  India  hereby  direct  that  the  marriage between   the   appellant   and   the   respondent   shall   stand

dissolved by a decree of divorce.”16

2.8     There  is  no  use  of  keeping  two  persons  tied  by  the  matrimonial relationship when they cannot live peacefully.  Where wedlock has become a deadlock, since parties are living separately, and after marriage the wife has lived only for a few months in the matrimonial home, wife having made allegations of cruelty and desertion against the husband and husband having made counter-allegations against her, the court in  Krishna vs. Som Nath17 held that marriage is irretrievably broken and it is in the interest of justice that decree of divorce be granted so that both the parties can live in peace. When the court finds in facts as well as from talks of resettlement or reconciliation  between  parties  that  there  was  no  possibility  of  reunion

 14           AIR  1997  Cal.

134.

15             AIR   1996   SC

3192.

16        Ibid.,  para

6.

17               (1996)   DMC   667 (P&H).

between  husband  and wife  and  refusal  of decree of divorce would  only prolong  the agonies of the  spouses, it can dissolve the marriage on this ground.18          Where the husband and the wife are living separately from each other for the last 19 years and there is no chance of settlement between the parties                        a  decree  for  divorce  can  be  granted.19               Where  there  was  no consummation  of  marriage,  wife                being  adverse  to  cohabitation,  wife disobeyed instructions of the court to undergo medical examination to prove that marriage had not consummated, there was indecent behaviour of wife to her in-laws reflecting her mental imbalance, and the parties have been living separately  for  a  period  of  16          years  without  any  serious  attempt  for reconciliation, a decree dissolving the marriage would be proper.20

 2.9        The  Supreme  Court    in    Savitri  Pandey   v.    Prem    Chandra Pandey21          held that  marriage  between  the parties  cannot  be dissolved only on the  averments made by one of the parties that as the marriage between them has broken down, no useful purpose would be served to keep it alive.  The legislature, in its wisdom, despite observation of the Supreme Court has not thought it proper to provide for  dissolution of the marriage on such averments.              There may be cases where it is found that as the marriage has become dead on account of contributory acts of commission and omission of the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping such marriage alive. The sanctity of marriage cannot be left at the whims of one of the annoying spouses.

 18         Ashok  v.  Rupa,  1996  (2)  HLR  512 (Guj).

19        Shankar  v. Puspita,  AIR 2005 Jhar.

21    AIR 2002 SC 591

92.

20              Rita   v.   Trilokesh,   AIR   2007

Gau.122.

2.10 In  Vinita  Saxena  v.  Pankaj  Pandit22, the  marriage  between Vinita Saxena and her husband Pankaj Pandit was dissolved by an order  of  the  Supreme  Court.   The  marriage  between  the  parties lasted only for five months.  Both of them were living separately for over 13 years.  Marriage also was not consummated.     Wife filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of physical and mental cruelty and insanity on the part of the husband.                          Trial  court however dismissed  the petition.    High                                                      Court  also  dismissed     the appeal despite the failure of the husband to appear before the court. Allowing  the appeal of the wife,  a division bench of the Supreme Court speaking through Dr.  Justice AR. Lakshmanan ( as he then was ) held that the orders of the courts below had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the wife who had been constrained into living with a dead relationship for over 13 years and that the fact situation clearly showed that the husband  and wife can never ever stay as husband and wife and the wife’s stay with the respondent  husband would be injurious to her health. Accordingly, a          decree               of      divorce was granted in  favour of the wife against the husband. The Court held as follows:

“36.  As  to  what  constitute  the  required  mental  cruelty  for purposes of the said provision, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on  the continuous course of such conduct but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious  effect  of it on  the mental  attitude,  necessary  for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home.

22              JT 2006 (3) SC

587. 

37. If the taunts,  complaints  and reproaches  are of ordinary nature  only, the                        court  perhaps           need  consider  the    further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period of time render, what normally would,  otherwise, not be so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonably conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer.

 

44. Spouses owe rights and duties each to the other and in their relationship they must act reasonably.                            In  every  case where cruelty exists it is possible to say that the spouse at fault has been unreasonable.   The list of cruelty, therefore,  should be reach of the duty to act reasonably, whether in omission or commission,  causing  injury  to  health.      Such    a    list    avoids imputing an intention where in fact none may exist.  Further all such matters are foresight, desires, wishes, intention, motives, perception, obtuseness, persistence and indifference would remain relevant but merely as matter of evidence bearing upon the requirement to act reasonably or as aggravation of the matters charged.

 

49.     Humane aspects which this Court should consider:

 -        The appellant was 24 years of age when she got married.

-         The marriage lasted for four to five months only when she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. The marriage between the parties was not consummated as the respondent was not in a position to fulfil the matrimonial obligation.

–         The parties  have been  living separately since  1993.      13 years have passed they have never seen each other. Both the parties have crossed the point of no return. A workable solution is certainly not possible. Parties at this stage cannot reconcile themselves and live together forgetting their past as a bad dream. Parties  have been fighting  the  legal  battle  from the year 1994.-         The situation between the parties would lead to a irrefutable conclusion that the appellant and the respondent can never ever stay as husband and wife and the wife’s stay with the respondent is injurious to her health. –         The  appellant    has  done  her  Ph.D.         The    respondent, according    to    the    appellant,    is    not    gainfully    employed anywhere.

-         As a matter of fact, after leaving his deposition incomplete during the trial, the respondent till date has neither appeared before the trial court nor before the High Court.

 50. The  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  as well  as all aspects  pertain  to  humanity  and  life  would  give  sufficient cogent reasons for us to allow the appeal and relieve the appellant from shackles and chain of the respondent and let her live her own life, if nothing less but like a human being.”2.11 In Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh23   the Supreme Court referred to the 71st    Report  of the Law Commission of India on “Irretrievable Breakdown  of Marriage” with approval as follows:

 “90. We have examined and referred to the cases from the various countries.  We find strong  basic similarity in adjudication  of cases relating to mental cruelty in matrimonial matters.  Now, we deem it appropriate to deal with the 71st Report of the Law Commission of India on “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage”.

 91. The 71st  Report of the Law Commission of India briefly dealt with the concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. This Report was submitted to the Government on 7th April, 1978. In this Report, it is mentioned that during last 20 years or so, and now it would be around

50 years,  a  very  important  question  has  engaged  the  attention  of lawyers,  social  scientists  and  men  of  affairs,  should  the  grant  of divorce be based on the fault of the party, or should it be based on the breakdown of the marriage? The former is known as the matrimonial offence theory or fault theory. The latter has come to be known as the breakdown                     theory.     It     would     be     relevant     to      recapitulate recommendation of the said Report.

 92. In the Report,  it is mentioned that the germ of the breakdown theory,  so far as  Commonwealth  countries  are concerned,  may be found  in the legislative  and judicial  developments  during  a much earlier period. The (New Zealand) Divorce and Matrimonial  Causes Amendment Act, 1920, included for the first time the provision that a separation  agreement  for  three  years  or  more  was  a  ground  for making a petition to the court for divorce and the court was given a discretion (without guidelines) whether to grant the divorce  or not. The  discretion  conferred  by  this  statute  was  exercised  in  a  case Lodder v. Lodder (1921 New Zealand Law Reports 786). Salmond J., in  a     passage   which       has           now                    become      classic,    enunciated  the breakdown principle in these words:

 23               (2007)  4 SCC

511. ‘The Legislature must, I think, be taken to have intended that separation for three years is to be accepted by this Court, as prima facie a good ground for  divorce. When the  matrimonial  relation  has  for  that  period  ceased  to exist de facto, it should, unless there are special reasons 

to the contrary, cease to exist de jure also.

In general, it

is not in the interests of the parties or in the interest of the public that a man and woman should remain bound together as husband and wife in law when for a lengthy period they have ceased to be such in fact. In the case of such  a  separation  the  essential  purposes  of  marriage have  been  frustrated,  and  its  further  continuance  is  in

general not merely useless but mischievous

 

     

 

.’

 

 

93. In the said Report, it is mentioned that

restricting the ground of

divorce  to  a  particular  offence  or  matrimonial  disability,  causes

injustice in those cases where the situation is such that although none of the parties is at fault, or the fault is of such a nature that the parties to the  marriage do not want to divulge it, yet such a situation has

arisen in which the marriage cannot survive

.

The marriage has all the

external appearances of marriage, but none in reality. As is often put

pithily, the marriage is merely a shell out of which the substance is

gone.

In such circumstances, it is stated, there is hardly any utility in

maintaining the marriage as a facade

, when the

emotional and other

bonds which are of the essence of marriage have disappeared

.

               

94. It is also mentioned in the Report that in case the marriage has ceased  to exist  in  substance  and in reality,  there is no reason  for denying  divorce,  then  the  parties  alone  can  decide  whether  their mutual relationship provides the fulfilment which they seek. Divorce should be seen as a solution and an escape route out of a difficult situation. Such divorce is  unconcerned with the wrongs of the past, but is concerned with bringing the parties and the children to terms with the new situation and developments by working out the most satisfactory basis upon which they may regulate their relationship in the changed circumstances.

 95. Once the parties have separated and the separation has continued for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  and  one  of  them  has  presented  a petition for divorce, it can well be presumed that the marriage has broken  down.  The  court, no  doubt,  should  seriously  make  an endeavour  to  reconcile  the  parties;  yet,  if  it  is  found  that  the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences  of  preservation  in  law  of  the  unworkable  marriage which has long ceased to  be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.”

 2.12    Similarly, in  Sanghamitra Ghosh vs Kajal Kumar Ghosh24    the Supreme Court while referring to its earlier decision in  Ashok Hurra v Rupa  Bipin  Zaveri25,  also           reproduced  some         excerpts  from           the

aforesaid 71st Report of the Law Commission.

2.13 As stated earlier, the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli26   fully establishes the need for immediate  amendment  of  the  Hindu  Marriage  Act  to  incorporate

‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as a ground for grant of divorce. The Court in that case  was dealing with a case where the parties were living separately for ten years.   There were, during this period, many             proceedings     between     the      parties,                      mostly            by              the    wife. Allegations  of misconduct were made on  both  sides, maintenance was demanded and paid and the proceedings lingered on causing deep anxiety and frustration to both sides.       The  husband  filed  for divorce on the ground available – cruelty.         The Trial Court granted him relief but the High Court turned down the divorce petition on the ground that the conduct of the wife did not fall within the parameters of ‘cruelty’ as defined in various judgments.                  The husband was bacK to square  one.  On appeal,  the Supreme  Court  granted  him relief. This was a classic case of consent being withheld by a spouse just for harassing the other spouse.                                                           The  Court  recommended  to the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate ‘irretrievable breakdown of

marriage’ as a ground for grant of divorce.

 2.14 It  would  also  be  in  the  fitness  of  things  that  the  Special

Marriage  Act,  1954,  which  deals  with  the  civil marriages,  is  also considered for an amendment on similar lines.

III.     RECOMMENDATION

 3.1    It is, therefore, suggested that  immediate action be taken to introduce an amendment  in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for inclusion of  ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as another ground for grant of divorce.

3.2    The  amendment   may  also  provide  that  the   court  before granting a decree for divorce on the ground that the marriage has irretrievably broken down should also examine whether adequate financial arrangements have been made for the parties and children.

 3.3     We recommend accordingly.

 

(Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan) Chairman

 (Prof. Dr. Tahir Mahmood)                      (Dr. Brahm A. Agrawal) Member                                                                Member-Secretary

The final document in your divorce is the decree. If you and your spouse have reached an agreement, the decree normally would just recite and approve its terms. This is to say that whatever your terms were would be written out, and the judge would just sign your agreement without taking evidence or having a hearing. If you haven’t reached settlement, the decree contains the judge’s decisions regarding your debts, property and children.

Officially, nothing is final until the judge says it is. Even if you and your spouse have reached agreement, the decree has no effect until the judge approves your terms. Generally, the judge will do this. State statutes and just plain logic encourage the judge to be as efficient as he / she can. It doesn’t make sense for him / her to force two people to take up more court time if they don’t need it.

However, if the decree has terms that are “against public policy” the judge can refuse to sign it. Examples of this would be a provision that agrees that child support will never be paid, or that child custody could not be modified under any circumstances. Such provisions would deprive the court of jurisdiction in the future. The judge cannot give that up, even if he / she wants to. Circumstances could change. The judge has to be able to modify the decree to allow for those changes when it comes to the care and safety of children.

If one member of the couple threatens the other, and it comes to the judge’s attention, he / she can refuse to sign the decree. A judge can always force the parties to appear in court if he / she thinks it is necessary. In such a situation, the court might be inclined to satisfy him / herself that the agreement was made freely and voluntarily. This rarely happens. Unless an extreme situation is brought to the judge’s attention, he /she will assume that an agreement between two adults is valid, even if it favors one of them over the other.

If the couple have not reached settlement, the judge has to hear evidence regarding their case. Witnesses and exhibits are presented in court. Each side is given an opportunity to explain what they think was proven, and the judge decides who was right. He / she issues his / her conclusions in a written document called “the decree”.

Once the decree is entered, the parties are obliged to do what the judge has ordered. The custody of the children or payment of child support are decided until there is good reason to change them. Division of debts and property are finalized, and can never be changed. If the couple is unhappy with the judge’s final order, their only recourse is an appeal. If you take that route, save up your pennies.

Incoming search terms:

divorce decree (1)

The Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reforms is all set to recommend a new procedure for the appointment of judges of the superior judiciary in line with the Charter of Democracy (CoD) when it meets next week.

Sources in the committee said that the present constitutional procedure for the appointment of judges in high courts and the Supreme Court will be replaced by a better system, which is being practised in some developed countries, including the United States.

Interestingly, the judges’ appointment system is being reviewed by the parliamentary committee at a time when the country has just witnessed a serious controversy over the judges appointment with the executive trying to over-step its limits to have its choice judges in the superior judiciary.

The proposed system as is reflected in the CoD would involve the judiciary, the executive and the legislature to appoint judges in the superior judiciary in a transparent manner, ensuring that no individual has arbitrary powers in this regard.

Although the committee would give final shape to these recommendations, a source said that draft recommendations prepared by Senator Raza Rabbani, who is also head of the constitutional reform committee, in line with the CoD in 2008 is the most serious work done so far on the issue. The source said that these draft recommendations suggest that the chief justice of Pakistan would be appointed by the president after consultation with the commission to be constituted under the Constitution while judges of the Supreme Court, high courts and the Federal Shariat Court would be appointed by the president in consultation with the chief justice and the commission. Consultation with the commission shall be binding on the president.

The commission, as referred above, would be called the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and would consist of the chief justice (chairman), two next most senior judges of the SC, four chief justices of the high courts, a member of the Pakistan Bar Council, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association in matter related to the SC, four president of the high court bar associations at the principal seats of the high courts in matters related to their respective high court, a MNA nominated by the prime minister, a MNA nominated by the opposition leader and four members of the Senate (one from each province to be nominated by the chairman Senate in consultation with the leader of the house and the leader of the opposition).

The commission shall forward a panel of three names in each vacancy (of a judge) to the prime minister, who shall forward one name to the joint parliamentary committee for confirmation of the nomination through a transparent public hearing.

The joint parliamentary committee shall comprise of 50 per cent members from the treasury benches and the remaining 50 per cent from the opposition parties based on their strength in parliament, to be nominated by respective parliamentary leaders.

After the appointment of the judges and their taking oath under the Constitution, taking of another oath subsequently (for example PCO) will automatically terminate the incumbent from the office of the chief justice or any other judge for such office as the case may be.

No change in the age of the Supreme Court or the high courts is expected. However, age for the appointment of high court judge would possibly be recommended to reduce from 45 to 40.

For the appointment of the acting chief justice, the senior most judge would be appointed as such. The ad hoc judges of the Supreme Court and additional judges of the high court would be appointed for a period not more than one year. The president’s power to transfer a high court judge from one high court to the other is also likely to be deleted.

The commission besides being involved in the appointment of judges, would also recommended to inquire into the conduct of a judge: a) If upon any matter inquired into by the commission there is a difference of opinion amongst its members, the opinion of the majority shall prevail and the report of the commission to the president would be expressed in terms of the view of the majority. b) If, on information received from any source, the chairman of the commission may or on the requisition of not less than one-fourth of the total membership of the commission, the chairman, shall direct the Inquiry Committee of the Commission to enquire into the capacity and conduct of a judge of the Supreme Court of high court as to whether he may be incapable of properly performing the duties of his office by reason of physical or mental incapacity or may have been guilty of misconduct.

On receipt of the report of inquiry committee the commission would consider the matter and make appropriate recommendations to the president. On receipt of the recommendation from the Commission to the effect that the Judge is incapable of performing the duties of his office or has been guilty of misconduct the President shall remove the judge from the office. A judge of the Supreme Court and high court shall not be removed from the office except as provided under this Article.

The commission shall issue a code of conduct to be observed by the Judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. Although the CoD also reflects on the setting up of a constitutional court, this proposal is not expected to get through the parliamentary committee owing to the changed situation following the restoration of the judiciary and because of the fact that the system of constitutional court is not practiced by most of the countries including the most developed nations.

Beds Factory one stop for quality beds, mattress and Mattresses.

Introduction

Motive may be defined as the reason behind a given course of action. Motive is an explanation as to why a given party will form the intent to break law or commit crime. In criminal law, one will not get punished if it has been proven that they have the motive to commit a crime. But it increases the strength of the defence lawyer’s argument by verifying that the accused had a motive to commit a crime. An example of motive is when a husband dies and leaving behind a million pounds worth of property where his next of kin was his wife. The prosecutor can argue that his wife had the motive even though he may not have evidence to prove the case.

Intent may be defined as acts that go before the actual crime and these acts then merge with the crime. Mohan (1975) defines intent as ‘decision to bring about despite the fact that the accused wanted the consequence of his actions or not’. Intent can occur at the same time as the act or it can occur suddenly before the crime. A good example of intent is possession of a pistol by an accused in the case that he/she is facing violence with robbery charges. Possession of this weapon shows that this person had the intent of committing robbery with violence.

Presence of evidence

Motive cannot be seen in the commission of the crime while intent can. When a criminal act has been committed, then it can be presumed that the person had the intention of committing the act. Take an example of someone who was seen carrying a firearm and pointing it to another, it can be said that this person had the intention of committing the crime because the most natural result of this action would be a crime. However, defendants can deny this by claiming that the accused thought that the weapon was a toy and did not intend on committing a crime. (Smith, 1998)

Conviction of crimes

Motive alone is not sufficient to convict while intent may be sufficient to cause conviction. Motive comes in handy when a given case does not have concrete evidence. This means that a judge may not have any other issue to fall back on except motive and may consequently pronounce an accused guilty or innocent depending on the which side can prove presence of motive. R v. Cunningham [1957 ER 863] it was held that the defendant was not guilty because the defendant was not aware of the effect of his actions and therefore did not have motive.

However, intent is an element that must be proved in most crimes before judgement is passed. This means that the prosecutor must show that the person accused had the knowledge that he/she was committing a crime. These kinds of crimes are called general intent crimes. Some examples of such crimes include false imprisonment, rape, battery and kidnapping. In R v. Windle [1952 2 QB 826] A person was accused of murder after he gave his wife a hundred tablet of aspirin. However, the accused suffered from a mental disease and was not aware of the consequence of his actions. But this same person later told police that he knew they were going to hang him or it. The accused was found guilty because he understood what he was doing and therefore had intent.

There are also other cases that require the defence team to prove that intent was specific. This means that there must be evidence independent from the commission of the act that shows that the person had the intention of committing crime. Some examples of crimes that require defence to prove specific intent are embezzlement, burglary, assault, forgery, conspiracy, false pretence, solicitation and first degree murder that were pre meditated. DPP vs. Majewski [1977 AC 433] Majewski was accused of causing bodily harm to members of a pub. This same person was drank and defence could not prove specific intent. It was held that he was not guilty.

To every rule, there must be an exception. There are some crimes that fall under strict liability laws. These crimes do not require intent for conviction. These laws stipulate that the act is criminal whether or not the person who committed the crime had the intention of committing the crime. Some examples of crimes that fall under this category include statutory rape and alcohol sale.

Sometimes a person may get convicted when intent has been transferred to another party. One such example is if one has been accused of committing arson. Then by mistake, this person burns up the house of the wrong person. Such a person still had intent but it was transferred. Examples of crimes that can have transferred intent include arson, battery and homicide. First degree murder is a classic case of transferred intent if for example one intended on destroying a rivals business premises and in the process of doing so, inflicted harm on a third party who was residing in that property, then such a person will be presumed guilty of murder under a felony statute.

‘But for’ scenario

Let’s examine two cases. The first case is that Mary intends on killing Tim who happens to be her next door neighbour. But as Mary gets near to Tim’s house, even before she knocks the door, Tim falls down and looses his life from a heart attack. Then the second scenario would be that Mary intends in killing Tim and Tim may or may not be aware of this fact. As she heads towards his housed, Tim glances at Mary and suddenly drops dead. The big question here is in which case is Mary guilty of murder?

Hall, (1949) holds that harmful results must be attributable and hence liable to the accused party. This was not the case for Mary; Mary intended on killing Tim, but she had no idea that her own sight would be the cause of Tim’s death. There are numerous people who may intend on committing murder but have not been successful. So Mary is therefore not guilty of the offence even without the intent of so doing. It is easy to establish causation (murdering intentionally) but it quite a daunting task to prove intent.

Another case is something that occurred in the year 1903. The case is about Sherlock Homes. Sherlock Homes believed that there was going to be an attempt on his life. To prove this, he decided to make a dummy of himself. He did this with the assistance of his landlady Mrs. Watson. At night, he placed the image of himself on a chair and drew the curtain down so that a seeming shadow of himself could appear to any observer watching his window. To make the scenario more believable, he asked his servant to serve him food and to move the dummy time and time again while hiding. This was to make the target – Colonel Moran think that he was really Mr. Sherlock.

Later that night, Colonel Moran made an appearance and he shot the figure which he thought was Homes on the forehead. The police were called and the Colonel was arrested for attempted murder. But when the case was taken forward to court, it was found that the Colonel was not guilty of attempted murder but was instead guilty of a crime that he had committed some time ago.

This issue was the subject of great controversy among analysts. As was previously stated, it is very difficult to determine criminal intent. Judges and other legal authorities have claimed that it was difficult to determine whether the Colonel was aware that was Sherlock Homes. He may have had the intention of murder but it could not be proved that the person he wanted was Homes. The accusation of attempted murder could have been concrete if the person accused saw the intended victim and failed in his attempt to kill the victim. There was reasonable doubt in this regard thus forming the basis upon which the decision to declare the Colonel innocent of the crime of attempted murder. Evidence was only present in the second case. (Ormerod, 2005)

Simultaneous versus non coinciding cases of motives and intentions

There are times when judges have stipulated that the presence of a guilty mind and the presence of a guilty act be present concurrently otherwise any other scenario is not viable.

An example is R v. Church [1996] 1 QB 59. The case involved Church who had been accused of murder. This was after having a fight with her and rendering her unconscious. He tried helping her out by giving her mouth to mouth resuscitation and other types of assistance but this did not help as she still remained unconscious. Mr. Church thought that this lady had died and decided to place her body in the river. Little did he know that she was still alive but upon being placed in a river near them, she passed away. It was held that Church was not guilty of murder because he lacked the motive to kill his wife. But he was found guilty of manslaughter. This decision was reached after the judge saw that the intent and act did not coincide immediately but they coincided later. He had the desire of battering her and also damping her in the river. Both these actions lead to her subsequent death.

Conclusion

Judges differentiate between motive ant intent in a number of ways; the first being that intent requires presentation of evidence while motive can be present without evidence or when the evidence is mostly circumstantial. Also intent is enough to convict an accused member while motive isn’t. Motive simply substantiates claims.  However, it should be noted that there are times when the intent may exist but the actual cause of the crime is different thus showing that intent is not the whole story. This is the ‘but for’ scenario. All in all, motive provides an insight into actions while intent is the action before and alongside criminal activity. These definitions are guides during court proceedings and for the basis upon which judge differentiate between these two concepts.

References

Hall, J. (1949): Cases and readings on criminal law and procedures; Bobbs-Merrill

Beale, J. (1903): Discussion of criminal attempts; Harvard Press

R v. Mohan [1975] 2All ER 193; definition of intention

Ormerod, D. (2005): Smith and Hogan: Criminal Law; Oxford University Press

Smith, M. (1998): Lawyers, Legislators and Theorists: Developments in English Criminal Jurisprudence; Clarendon Press

Tips To Get You Through The American Idol Auditions

The Fox networks television show is an Americanized version of the U.K. show called Pop Idol. American Idol is produced by Ken Warwick and Simon Fuller, the very same U.K. producers of Pop Idol. The American Idol TV show made its U.S. debut on June 11, 2002. America Idol’s first television season was enthusiastically received by record television viewers from across America. By way of doing a nationwide search for talented singers, the TV show aims to discover the best unknown singing talent in the country. The American Idol contestants are selected from the American Idol auditions which are usually held in six to seven U.S. cities every season.

As everyone in the entire world knows by now, the hit TV show American Idol is about talented and not so talented singers making it through the American Idol tryouts by impressing the American Idol judges and then competing against other American Idol contestants in order to be given the coveted title of American Idol winner. Here are some helpful tips to help you advance through the American Idol auditions and rounds.

From American Idol Auditions To The Finals

During these American Idol tryouts, the American Idol contestants are culled from thousands of singers into a few hundred. The American Idol judges will whittle down the remaining contestants even further still during the Hollywood round. In the end, from the thousands of hopeful singers who signed up for the American Idol tryouts with dreams of being acclaimed the American Idol winner, only 24 contestants, 12 males and 12 females, go to the semifinals.

The survivors of the semifinal round, 12 American Idol contestants in all, will then go on to give it their all in the final round. To make it all the way from the American Idol tryouts into the final round takes a great deal of talent. In the final rounds, one singer will be eliminated from the bottom three contestants each week until the American Idol’s final episode of the season where there are only two singers remaining from which the American Idol winner and runner up are then selected. Too bad the name is already being used by another popular TV show because American Idol should be more aptly named “Survivor”.

What It Takes To Become An American Idol Winner

Getting a break on the American Idol TV show is what many novice singers can only dream about. They hope that some day the American Idol results will have their name as the winner. After seeing the successful careers of past American Idol contestants, many singers are also trying very hard to get an American Idol tryout. While some contestants fail and some come out on top, we need to realize that there can be only winner at the end of each season and not every singer performing on the show can wear the American Idol crown. Singing talent alone is not enough to make you a winner. A beautiful voice may get you through the American Idol tryouts, but you also need to have a special personality to have a chance at winning the competition. I is important to have the rhythm and command over different tunes in addition to having a beautiful singing voice. Knowing how to dance along with your singing is a talent that is sure to give you a huge advantage over other competitors who can’t dance a lick.

The American Idol Official Website

If you are planning to tryout for an American Idol audition you need to be prepared. It’s a good idea to head over to Fox television’s official American Idol website and read and memorize all of the helpful information provided there. You will find plenty of frequently asked questions and answers on their website. If you have any misconceptions about trying out for the American Idol auditions and/or competition, you can clear many of them up by reading the information provided. A couple of the eligibility requirements to get into the competition are: You should be a citizen or permanent resident of the U.S. and You should be between the ages of 16 and 29.

Tips To Make You An American Idol Winner

Some helpful advice for aspiring contestants from previous winners of the American Idol are:

1) It is imperative that you rehearse the songs you choose over and over again until you’ve got it perfect. Then, make sure you sing that same song in front of the American Idol judges with full confidence. If you do it right, you will capture their attention and imagination and leave them wanting to hear more form you.

2) You really need to put everything you can into the song you are singing.

3) You should feel the lyrics when you are singing a song. When you do it right, the expressions should show on your face.

4) Remember to focus all of your attention on getting though the American Idol audition or current round. Each time you make it into next round you have an extra chance to show your talent and you are that much closer to the crown.

5) Always treat the American Idol judges with respect. Be completely honest and truthful at all times.

6) American Idol judges often like contestants who dedicate songs to their family members and friends.

7) If you are asked about your role models, try to come up with at least two or three names. When you describe them, you need to fine tune your verbiage and if at all possible try to come up with some interesting words to describe those personalities, but only if you are comfortable doing so. If you feel uncomfortable doing so, then do not use it because you could only end up getting embarrassed.

8) Be prepared to tell about yourself succinctly. Make sure that you dress well. It’s important to dress fashionable, but never be under dressed or too overdressed.

9) It never hurts to train. By taking a few voice-training classes you will greatly increases your chances of making it past American Idol tryouts.

Are You The Next American Idol Winner?

By following the tips discussed above you can only enhance your chances of making it past the American Idol audition. Who knows, with your talent and my tips there should be no stopping you. I look forward to seeing you on the next American Idol TV show. Heck, who knows, the next American Idol results may have as the next American Idol champion!

Incoming search terms:

www thetexascriminallawattorneys com (11)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/index html (4)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-attorney (4)getting past the second round of american idol (3)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-dui-lawyers (3)tips to getting past the first round of american idol (2)getting through american idol auditions (2)Second round auditions for American Idol (1)tips for getting through american idol auditions (1)tips on getting on American Idol show (1)

Many people do not know Allah. This series of This is Allah (1- 53) is an attempt to help them in order to know and acknowledge their Creator. Verses 7:87-89 of the Noble Quran talk about: 1) The productive debate between the Prophet Shuayb and the Leaders of Madyan, 2) Allah is the best of deciders, the best of adjudicators, 3) Allah’s knowledge embraces all things; He knows everything, 4) The believers could not convert unless Allah takes away the knowledge from their hearts and 5) Allah is the best of judges, the fairest of them.

————

In the previous article This is Allah (52), the Prophet Shuayb said unto the people of Madyan (Midian):O my people, worship Allah! you have no god other than Him, give full measure and weight and do not diminish the value of people’s goods, and do not work corruption in the earth, Do not Lurk on every road that people use to threaten, scare and take the clothes of strangers, and to turn away the believers from Allah’s path. And remember when you were but few, and then Allah multiplied you. And behold what was the end of the agents of corruption, before you, for denying their messengers, that is, behold how destruction was the conclusion of their affair.

Then, Shuayb said unto them:

————

The meaning of verse 7:87

And if there is a party of you who believe in that with which I have been sent, and a party who do not believe, in it, then have patience and wait until Allah judges between us and you, by delivering the affirmer of this truth and destroying the denier of it. Allah is the best of judges, the fairest of them.

The meaning of verse 7:88

The chieftains of Madyan, who were scornful and disdainful towards believing said: ‘Surely we will expel you, O Shuayb, and those who believe with you, from our township, unless you return to embrace our creed, our religion (herein, the plural person predominates over the singular in their address [to Shuayb] because Shuayb was never part of their religious community; and so in the same [plural] way Shuayb responded. Shuayb said: ‘What, should we return to it, even though we are averse, to it? Even though we hate it?) would you force us to do this even though we hate it? (the interrogative herein is meant as a disavowal).

The meaning of verse 7:89

Shuayb continued:

We would be forging a lie against Allah if we were to return to your creed after Allah has delivered us from it. We should have invented a falsehood against Allah if we returned to your religion after Allah has rescued us from it It is not, right, for us to return to it, unless Allah our Lord wills that [it be so] and forsakes us. In other words, it is not permissible for us to embrace your religion: associating others with Allah unless Allah takes away the knowledge from our hearts. Our Lord embraces all things through His knowledge, that is to say, His knowledge embraces all things, including my situation and yours. In Allah we have put our trust.

Then Shuayb prayed:

Our Lord, decide with truth, adjudicate with justice, between us and our people, for You are the best of deciders’, adjudicators; for You are the best of those who make decision, the best of judges.

============

Verses 7: 7:87-89 in different English translations of the meanings of Arabic Quran:

Verse 7: 87

QARIB: if there are some among you who believe in that which i have been sent and others who disbelieve it, be patient until Allah shall judge between us. he is the best of judges. ‘

SHAKIR: and if there is a party of you who believe in that with which am sent, and another party who do not believe, then wait patiently until Allah judges between us; and he is the best of the judges

PICKTHAL: and if there is a party of you which believeth in that wherewith i have been sent, and there is a party which believeth not, then have patience until Allah judge between us. he is the best of all who deal in judgment.

YUSUFALI: “and if there is a party among you who believes in the message with which i have been sent, and a party which does not believe, hold yourselves in patience until Allah doth decide between us: for he is the best to decide.

Verse 7: 88

QARIB: the proud assembly of his nation said: ‘we will expel you shu’aib and those who believe with you from our village unless you return to our creed. ‘ he replied: ‘even though we hate it?

SHAKIR: the chiefs, those who were proud from among his people said: we will most certainly turn you out, o shu’aib, and (also; those who believe with you, from our town, or you shall come back to our faith. he said: what! though we dislike (it)?

PICKTHAL: the chieftains of his people, who were scornful, said: surely we will drive thee out, o shu’eyb, and those who believe with thee, from our township, unless ye return to our religion. he said: even though we hate it?

YUSUFALI: the leaders, the arrogant party among his people, said: “o shu’aib! we shall certainly drive thee out of our city – (thee) and those who believe with thee; or else ye (thou and they) shall have to return to our ways and religion.” he said: “what! even though we do detest (them)?

Verse 7: 89

QARIB: we would have invented lies about Allah if we returned to your creed from which Allah has saved us, it is not for us that we return into it again except if Allah, our lord wills. for our lord has embraced everything with knowledge, and in Allah we have put our trust. our lord, open between us and our nation with truth, you are the best of openers. ‘

SHAKIR: indeed we shall have forged a lie against Allah if we go back to your religion after Allah has delivered us from it, and it befits us not that we should go back to it, except if Allah our lord please: our lord comprehends all things :n his knowledge; in Allah do we trust: our lord! decide between us and our people with truth; and thou art the best of deciders

PICKTHAL: we should have invented a lie against Allah if we returned to your religion after Allah hath rescued us from it. it is not for us to return to it unless Allah our lord should (so) will. our lord comprehendeth all things in knowledge. in Allah do we put our trust. our lord! decide with truth between us and our folk, for thou art the best of those who make decision.

YUSUFALI: “we should indeed invent a lie against Allah, if we returned to your ways after Allah hath rescued us therefrom; nor could we by any manner of means return thereto unless it be as in the will and plan of Allah, our lord. our lord can reach out to the utmost recesses of things by his knowledge. in the Allah is our trust. our lord! decide thou between us and our people in truth, for thou art the best to decide.”

Incoming search terms:

www thetexascriminallawattorneys com (8)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-attorney (3)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-lawyers (3)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/index html (3)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-dui-lawyers (2)allah is the best of judges (1)

You receive your contest entry back. You are so excited! You look at your total score: 20/100. How is that possible? You want to throttle a couple of the judges. Here is a few of their comments:

* Have you ever read a book in your life!!

* Your characters are TSTL (too stupid to live).

* Is there a lower score than 0 for Manuscript Mechanics? I’d give it to you if I could.

I mean, you only have three published books, a Master’s degree in English, and a job editing making $90.00 per hour. You sit in front of your computer screen, blinking at your returned critique, your eyes still frozen on those four little letters TSTL.

Suddenly you take a deep breath, push back your chair, and head for that box of Rocky Road (how appropriate) ice cream to comfort that bruised ego. Then it hits you. Just who judged this entry anyway? You return to your computer and find it was an unpublished/trained critiquer. You give a huge sigh of relief. Whew! Who cares what they think. But then you realize that this critiquer is still a reader. Oh, no. Your shoulders sag.

Who Make the Best Judges?

I’m sure we all agree it is not the grudge judge—another author with a vendetta against contest judges. STAB! STAB! STAB! It is also not the author who knows nothing about writing and wants to gain all their experience by reading someone else’s work. (All comments left blank.) Maybe you’re saying to yourself you would like every judge to be either an editor or a multi-published author. That may not be the right answer either. Surprised?

Many published authors and editors lead very busy lives. They don’t have the time to provide a lot of critique. It’s hard to get exactly what a critiquer is telling you with a 3/5 score unless they leave a comment because only then can you learn.

The best judges tend to be those who take the time to point out their reasoning for their scoring with kind explanations (notice I said kind). They also point out positive strengths about your work.

Why Judge a Contest?

You can learn a great deal about writing from reading. (I’m sure you’ve heard that one before.) A good place to do it is reading contest entries. We all know how important those first few pages are, and boy is it easy to spot someone else’s mistakes. The more you are willing to help others see their mistakes, the easier it will become to spot them in your own writing.

What Makes a Good Judge?

Of course it is someone who will put a little time and thought into it, but here are more specifics:

* Critique doesn’t mean to criticize. The definition of critique is, “an instance or the process of formal criticism”. But come on. Do we really do that to each other when we are face-to-face in our critique groups discussing our own work? What I think any writer is looking for is good honest help—constructive criticism.

* In one of my entries a judge was so critical of my characters that she said the heroine was an air-head and the hero was a moron. I had given the heroine the character flaw of being spoiled by a rich, over-protective father and the hero an unknown diagnosis of ADD which both characters overcome by the end of the book. It is also a light-hearted comedy. Did the judge take into account that I said my hero was an expert in his field? Hmmmm. Did the judge take into account that the heroine was escaping a controlling father, starting a new business, and had bought a run-down home that needs restoring? Not sure.

* There again, you as the writer need to determine whether to take a judge’s comments with a grain of salt or decide whether you haven’t done your job telling your story.

The Dos and Don’ts of Judging

1. What’s in a point? A numbering system is a great way of scoring, but what does it really tell us? Sure the contest coordinator has assigned general comments to each number like a score of 5 means, “READY FOR SUBMISSION” and 1 means, “CHUCK THAT SUCKER IN THE GARBAGE”. Something like that.

Don’t plan on judging if you can’t back up that number with a reason for it. It needs to be valid writing criteria—something specific. If you can’t identify to the writer what is wrong, how are they going to learn from it? And if you can’t identify what is wrong, how are you going to learn?

2. Don’t get a bighead. You are on a roll, marking up that manuscript left and right. You want to help this writer become the next best-selling author. The fact is, you still haven’t considered you may not know everything there is about writing yourself. Think humility. Sure you want to point out what you know but try not to come off like Mr./Ms. Perfection. Remember to make your comments, but realize they are your suggestions to the writer–not the Ten Commandments.

3. Have a heart. A writer can learn from what they’re doing right, not just what they’re doing wrong. It never hurts to point out what a writer is doing well. It can only make them better, and it makes you both feel good.

You are not going to be happy with every judge who scrutinizes your work. Being unhappy with their critique doesn’t mean you can’t learn from them. If you receive two low scores and one high on dialogue, don’t be so conceited that you assume the high score is accurate. It’s not hard to figure out that your dialogue needs work. Sifting out important information is what we do as writers. If the judge criticizes your characters, you need to figure out why they felt that way.

After years of writing romantic suspense with serious subjects of murder, abuse, etc., I decided to write a much more light-hearted, humorous book where the villain wouldn’t go so far as to kill and the characters are a little less serious about the situation. Because it still has a protagonist and the heroine’s life is in danger, I submitted my entry under romantic suspense. The judge criticized my villian as weak and my hero and heroine as being dim-witted.

Should I throw the book away? On the contrary. Instead I analyzed the bigger picture of what was being said. I realized I was targeting the wrong genre.

Now you can head to the freezer for that box of ice cream but this time to celebrate. You’ve learned that even the raunchiest critique can benefit you if you look for the positive in it. On the other hand, if it is really malicious and you just can’t figure out anything positive the judge could have been trying to tell you, then print it off, rip it to shreds, stomp on it, and then set it on fire. That should help.

Incoming search terms:

www thetexascriminallawattorneys com (7)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/index html (3)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-attorney (2)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-criminal-lawyers (2)www thetexascriminallawattorneys com/houston-dui-lawyers (2)

The surge of reality tv shows has brought about a new species – the reality tv judge. Reality judges can vary from the very nice and helpful to the brutally harsh and cutting. No show highlights the range of reality judges’ personalities any better than “American Idol.” Some may even say that it was the “American Idol” judges that set the tone for all other reality shows.

When “American Idol” began in 2002, Americans were shocked by judge Simon Cowell’s bluntness that was to the point of being unkind at times. However, Cowell was coming into the show with previous judging experience. He had already served one year on the British series “Pop Idol.” Having spent many years in the recording industry may have also given him the ability to quickly judge between the good and the bad singers. As seasons of “American Idol” progressed however, fans went from booing Cowell’s frank comments to respecting and even admiring him as a reality tv judge.

”American Idol” also set the bar for the nice judge in singer Paula Abdul. Abdul herself has been a recording artist for over 20 years, so she may be more sensitive to what it takes to be a successful artist and how much encouragement one needs to make his or her dreams come true. However, Paula is often criticized for being too nice and not offering contestants constructive comments for fear of hurting their feelings.

Somewhere in the middle lies musician/record producer Randy Jackson. He seems to meld the executive world of Simon Cowell with the artist world of Paula Abdul, having personally experienced both of them. Sometimes he can seem overly critical of contestants, but he often offers them encouragement as well.

The judge standards of “American Idol” set the tone for many other reality shows. On “America’s Got Talent,” you can find the often critical Piers Morgan, the sometimes overly sympathetic Sharon Osbourne, and the middle of the road David Hasselhoff. The same is true of “So You Think You Can Dance” to a certain extent with British judge Nigel Lythgoe often being booed by the crowd for his candid opinions about the dancers. On “Dancing with the Stars,” British judge Len Goodman often plays the heavy. Although Carrie Ann Inaba is the lone female judge on “Dancing with the Stars,” she too can be critical of the celebrities. Bruno Tonioli can be tough at times, but is usually known for his enthusiastic shouting of “Ten!” with a punch in the air when giving a celebrity and their professional partner a perfect score.

Of course, not all shows have the good judge/bad judge quality. “Project Runway,” like “So You Think You Can Dance” has regular judges in designer Michael Kors, Elle fashion director Nina Garcia, and model Heidi Klum as well as a guest judge each week. While Michael, Nina, and Heidi can at time all be critical, it seems that Nina is often seen as being the harshest judge. The “Top Chef” judging is helmed by chef Tom Colicchio, who walks a fine line of being fair and judgmental of the contestants. Also serving as “Top Chef” judges are food author Padma Lakshmi, food critic Gail Simmons, and food author Ted Allen.

One reality show that truly rotates it judges each week is “Iron Chef America.” While former Queer Eye for the Straight Guy Ted Allen and Vogue food columnist Jeffrey Steingarten often appear on the show, there are times where neither of them is on the judging panel. The panel is usually made up of food professionals, such as personal chef Art Smith, food author Akiko Katayama, or restaurateur Donatella Arpaia. However, sometimes “Iron Chef America” goes with a judge who is not a professional in the food industry, including pop singer Jewel and actress Julie White.

While a reality tv judge may seem hard on your favorites, in the end, most all are fair and usually offer the contestants some encouragement to stick with their craft as well as constructive criticism to help them improve.