“Situations where the husband may seek divorce” changed to “Situations Where a Husband May Seek Divorce in Nepal” for better title formatting and geographical context.
“”Divorce is the official ending of a marriage between a husband and wife.” remains unchanged; it is correct.
“Since ancient times, divorce has been legal in Nepal.” remains the same, it’s clear.
“Even though prehistoric Nepalis believed in religion, it was also provided for in the National Act of 1910 B.S.” “Believed in religion” is a bit vague; “held strong religious beliefs” is more precise. “It was also provided for” is less formal than “provisions for divorce were included.” “B. S.” is capitalized correctly as “B.S.”
“The aforementioned provision has also been incorporated into the new National Act 2020.” changed to “These provisions were also incorporated into the new National Act of 2020.” “The aforementioned provision” implies a single provision, but the previous sentence mentions “provisions.” “These provisions” is more accurate. Adding “of” before the year is slightly more formal.
Only women could file for divorce in court until 2074, which is ludicrous.” substitution: “Until 2074 B.S., only women could file for divorce in court.” Restructure to improve flow.
“However, with the implementation of the Civil Code in 2074 B.S., husbands could file for divorce.”were also granted the right to file for divorce.” “After” is fine, but “However, with the implementation of” provides a slightly smoother transition and emphasizes the change. “Even husbands could file” is okay, but “husbands were also granted the right to file” is more formal and precise. Capitalized “B.S.”
“When the husband files for divorce in court, the court asks for sufficient of solid evidence.” Shift: “When a husband files for divorce, the court often requires adequate evidence.” “The husband” denotes a specific husband; “a husband” is more broad.”Asks for plenty of solid evidence” is a bit informal; “typically requires substantial evidence” is more formal and accurate.
“”The court can decline to approve a divorce if there is no evidence.” has been modified to read: “Without sufficient evidence, the court may refuse to grant the divorce.” This rephrasing enhances the flow while emphasising the lack of evidence as a reason for refusal.
“A husband has the legal right to divorce his wife.” changed to “A husband possesses the legal right to divorce his wife.” “Possesses” is a slightly stronger and more formal verb in this context.
“The husband may file for divorce on a variety of reasons, pursuant to Article 94 of the Civil Code of 2074, as modified to “According to Article 94 of the Civil Code of 2074, a husband may file for divorce under the following conditions:” Reordering to place the source of the information first, which is a common and clear structure. “”The husband” was altered to “a husband” to be more broad.
Separation due to a legal property division
If the wife has previously filed for the property, received her part, and is already living independently, according to Civil Code 2074. Following that, the husband may petition for divorce.
Even if the wife has taken her lawful property share and is living independently, she continues to pursue her family identity and fulfil all of her family’s obligations. In this case, the husband cannot obtain a divorce.
Following the legal split of property, a situation in which the wife continues to fulfil all of her family responsibilities while living apart cannot be classified as separation. As a result, the husband cannot get a divorce.
There have been countless such cases in Nepali courts. Here’s an example.
Puran Shamsher Ja Ba Ra vs. Kiran Rana, filed under Ne. Ka. Pa. 2075 Ni. Na. 9999, is one such case. IIn this case, wife Kiran Rana legitimately acquired a portion of her property to care for her children and mother-in-law. . However, she stayed separate and kept her family identity while carrying out all of her tasks and responsibilities.
As a result, the husband did not get a divorce. Krishna Sherchan and Padma Kumari Sherchan divorced in another instance.
Padma Kumari Sherchan, the wife in this instance, not only seized her legal property portion from her husband, but she also transferred the property into her name. She did, however, spend 22 years living in her parental house as she pleased.
But she refused to divorce in order to maintain her family’s identity. Under these circumstances, the court gives the husband a divorce. . The court made it clear that claiming that the wife fulfilled her commitments to her husband’s family was incorrect.
She has changed ownership to her own and her husband’s names. She did, however, spend 22 years in her father’s home, as she requested. To preserve her family identity, she refused to divorce.
She has changed ownership to her own and her husband’s names. She did, however, spend 22 years in her father’s home, as she requested. To preserve her family identity, she refused to divorce.
The court grants the husband divorce in certain conditions. The court specifically said that stating that the wife met her commitments to her husband’s family was erroneous.
Furhtermore, case, Ms. Padma Kumari Sherchan obtained a divorce.
In the case of Mr. Padma Kumari Sherchan, the wife in this case, not only took her husband’s legal property, but she also changed the title to her own.. She did, however, spend 22 years in her parental home, as she preferred. However, in order to preserve her career, she refused to get divorced.
She has transferred ownership in both her and her husband’s names. She did, however, spend the necessary 22 years at her father household. She refused to divorce in order to maintain her family identity.
Divorce Without Mutual Consent
In many countries, including India, there are provisions for divorce even without the mutual consent of both spouses. Generally, if one spouse lives separately from the other for a continuous period of three years or more, it can serve as grounds for divorce.
In India, Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 specifies that if one spouse has been living apart without reasonable grounds, without The offended spouse may file for divorce based on the other spouse’s decision.
Desertion, as described on page 243 of the third edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England, is the wilful, permanent departure of one spouse by the other without permission or reasonable cause.
Therefore, actions such as leaving the house without the spouse’s consent, staying away from home for no justifiable reason, and failing to Making a real effort to return is legal grounds for the husband to petition for divorce.
According to Subsection Ka of the Civil Code 2074 of Nepal, a husband can divorce his wife if they have been separated for three years or more without his consent.
Divorce in Nepal: Increasingly, Nepali citizens are seeking employment abroad. When a wife goes abroad for work, she cannot stay outside or live alone without her husband’s permission. This situation can also be considered under the provisions of the law.
An example illustrating this is the case of Kiran Rana and Puran Shamsher Ja Ba Ra. In this case, Puran Shamsher, the husband, has left the house and is now living alone, while his wife, Kiran Rana, has been caring for the family at her in-laws’ home
In Nepal, it is the legal and societal responsibility of husbands to ensure the welfare of their women. The husband’s social rank determines his responsibility to his wife, which is based on Hindu ceremonies and customs.
The husband’s responsibility to support his wife is regarded as both an imperative duty and a solemn commitment. In Nepal’s patriarchal society, this duty is critical.
If the husband is unable to work or care for the family due to illness or disability, the woman becomes the sole earner, emphasising the significance of this support. In contrast, if the wife abandons her husband in a state of poverty, misery, or starvation, she has seriously violated her marital vows.
Physical and Psychological Torture
Physical or mental hardship, including torture, is recognised as a primary reason for divorce in many nations, including Nepal.experienced However, the Civil Code 2074 makes no mention of the types or severity of physical and mental suffering, injuries, or torture that can be grounds for divorce.
In such cases, it is important to consider foreign law for guidance. For instance, in the UK case of La Brocq v., mental pain was precisely stated.(1964) 3 All ER 464; and in Indian law, such as the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bhagat (AIR 1994 SC 710) and Distane v. Distane (AIR 1975 SC 1534). As a result, courts typically use legal principles evolved in the United Kingdom and India.
The High Court of Karnataka, India, also ruled in Shreekant B. B. Manchand AIR 1980 Karnataka 8 that a person’s socioeconomic status impacts the degree of mental suffering they experience.
The husband’s personality, way of life, status, conventions, and traditions all influence whether the wife’s attitude towards him is viewed as a source of mental stress and suffering.
The case of Bhagat vs. D Bhagat provides a strong reason for the issue’s emotional distress. The term “mental distress” was broadly defined as conduct or mental suffering that prevents a person from living with others.
Mental distress must be severe enough to preclude the parties from living together.
The circumstances must be such that the victim cannot be expected to tolerate such behaviour while still living with the source of the misery.
When reaching such a conclusion, examine the sufferer’s social standing, educational level, family setting, as well as the sufferer’s source.
The verdict is rendered when the court is absolutely confident that the source of the suffering is to blame.
Before making a decision, there must be a circumstance in which both husband and wife are unable to live together owing to mental discomfort. Even if the individual inflicting the mental pain want to remarry as husband and wife, the request is denied.
Before granting a divorce, the court must take into account their socioeconomic condition and living situation. And the emotional suffering should be the motivating cause for the divorce. No matter how many times one of the spouses has been wounded by the other’s actions. Suffering once is sufficient grounds for divorce. Even if the husband has just felt mental discomfort from his wife once,
Adultery
Adultery was a punishable offence in past. If the wife has sexual and physical contact with someone other than her husband, the husband may petition for divorce in Nepal and other countries around the world. For a divorce to be granted, the wife must have made voluntary physical contact with another individual.
In court, the husband should be able to provide both direct and circumstantial evidence against his wife. If the husband can establish that his wife engaged in adultery with other men, he has the right to divorce her.
Conclusion
In Nepal, the husband’s legal options for divorce are limited. Given the standards described above, he should be able to provide adequate evidence in court. If you are a true victim of your wife’s abuse, the organisation can help you. We can guide you through the legal procedures you need to take to avoid more suffering and emotional distress.
Please call us if you have any questions about the divorce process from the husband’s perspective. Contact us at +977-9745374671.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at +977-9847691209
Ms. Advocate Alpana Bhandari is the CEO of Divorce Lawyer Nepal. She focuses her practice on all elements of family law, including divorce, custody, and property division. She advises prospective clients on, among other things, foreign direct investment (FDI), planned investments, joint ventures, and corporate and individual legal counsel on business establishment, business purchase, sales, contract review, contract drafting, share transfer, and company agreements.