The proposal to implement a mandatory 'cool off' period of three months before divorce proceedings can begin is a perfectly good idea. It's based on the valid insight that people may rush into decisions in the heat of anger. If couples are just given enough time to re-examine their situations, they may reconsider divorce as an option.
Divorce in England and Wales is currently granted on the basis of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, on one of five grounds adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, two years' separation with consent, or five years' separation without consent.
Several of these grounds also apply to divorce in India. Nowadays we hear about people getting divorced for the most ridiculous of reasons. They may have been able to work out the issues between them had they been given enough time to understand the enormity of their actions.
In recent times, divorce rates across the world have increased alarmingly, thus threatening the family unit on which human civilisation is predicated. Children, usually innocent bystanders in case of fights between couples, may suffer the most. It is, therefore, quite acceptable for the state to intervene and create laws that would discourage people from divorcing. Divorce should be the last option for a couple, something they consider in the worst-case scenario. It shouldn't be an easy way out when things get a little tough. Marriage is hard work and requires compromise from both parties. But a couple is unlikely to work on their relationship if they know that they can get a quick and easy divorce at the first sign of trouble.
This proposed three-month period would offer feuding couples a chance to take time off. They could re-evaluate their decision and consider the impact it would have on their children, if any. It is important that the state give every encouragement to the traditional family unit that has proven to be the building block of society. If we allow it to fall by the wayside for the sake of convenience, we will be looking at a vastly different future than the one envisaged for later generations.
View: Whose marriage is it anyway?