SC reminds govt about common marriage code

new delhi: if marriages are made in heaven, as they say, there should not be any reason for it to be governed by separate codes in different communities. way back in 1985, the supreme court had recommended that the government ''intervene to provide for a uniform code of marriage and divorce and provide by law a way out of the unhappy situation being faced by certain couples''.sixteen years down the line, the court recalled that judgment( ms jorden diengdeh vs s s chopra), suggesting that a common law of marriage be applicable to ''all people irrespective of religion or caste''. justice r p sethi and justice y k sabharwal (savitri pandey vs prem chandra pandey) wondered over the fact that even when an unhappy couple asserts that their marriage had come to an end, they can still not be divorced or separated by a decree under the prevailing law. the sanctity of marriage cannot be left to the whims of any one of the spouses. irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground by itself to dissolve it, the law says. then, there are ways to overcome this. if a decree of divorce is granted and it is not stayed by the appellate court, the beneficiary of the decree can marry someone though the appeal is pending against the divorce order. would that marriage be null and void? if yes, what would happen to the children born out of that marriage? would the new spouse (husband or wife) who happens to be the mother or father of the children from the post-decree marriage be asked to separate for good? would that serve the social purpose for which certain legislations have been enacted? apparently, the answer is no. it is felt that the period of appeal should be increased to 90 days instead of 30 days. even if the decree is not stayed, the marriage performed by the litigating spouses during pendency of the appeal must be considered null and void. if a builder's plea is rejected, the building would be demolished by a judicial order. courts, however, cannot be expected to become bulldozers of the institution of marriage. ''no party can be permitted to carve out the ground for destroying a family which is the basic unit of society. the foundation of the family rests on the institution of a legal and valid marriage'', said the bench as it counselled courts to aim at preserving the matrimonial home and be reluctant to dissolve marriages on the asking of one of the parties. if that be so, should not the laws leave it to the spouses to decide what is best for them. however, austerity and dowry-less marriages have to be made compulsory through stringent laws.