There is a lot of controversy about the (proposed) Christian Marriage Bill, 2000 ... Suspicions about the bona fides of the Bill arose because it is being introduced without enough time for deliberations and it seeks to legislate in areas where there have been no demands for legislation,

The root cause of the controversy is in the clubbing of the law of marriage with divorce. The Indian Divorce Act of 1869, applicable to Christians throughout the country, is undoubtedly an outdated legislation. Section 10 of the Act, providing grounds for divorce, is the most criticised of all its sections on the ground of being discriminatory against women. Different high courts and the Law Commission have found the section, providing for adultery as the sole ground on which a man can seek divorce but requiring a woman to prove desertion or cruelty besides adultery, discriminatory against women. There is unanimity among all concerned about removing the gender bias of the section. Likewise, all concerned agree on removing the existing requirement of a decrce of divorce passed by a district court, to be confirmed by a full Bench of the High Court, as a time-consuming process of harassment.

The Act does not provide for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent ...

The three changes on which unanimity exists could be brought to the statute book by merely amending the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 leaving the Christian Marriage Act of 1872 untouched. This is what the Law Commission, in its 164th report, has recommended ...

However, the government has opted for the Christian Marriage Bill, 2000, which, of course, contains the welcome changes in the divorce law as well ... There is much resentment about the introduction of a marriage law (and) any substitution of their customary law based on canon law ... There is no need to impose such a law on them as there has been no demand for it from within the affected community.

The Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church ... and many other churches have exhaustive customary laws providing for marriage and even dissolution of marriage. The ecclesiastical courts and tribunals with original and appellate forums ... have been working exceedingly well. But the trouble arose when courts took the view that their decrees had no force of law. It is a travesty of justice that, while courts recognise a marriage solemnised by the church, it does not recognise a decree of nullity granted by it ... It cannot be insisted that everyone should accept the decree of ecclesiastical courts ... But when both the husband and the wife on their own free will prefer an ecclesiastical tribunal to a civil court, there is no reason why they should be denied their choice. When amending the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the government should also provide for recognising the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts simultaneously with that of civil courts. (Source: The Indian Express, 12 June, 2000)