Discussion on the Hindu Code after return of the Bill from the Select Committee (11th February 1949 to 14th December 1950) - Page 645

630 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

legislative intervention is apparent, this Assembly in undertaking any legislation of this kind cannot altogether ignore certain rooted conceptions in regard to marriage, family law and rights of succession. Change is

inevitable and is part of the organic law of society, but change does not mean striking at the roots or foundations of society.

Bearing all these aspects of law reform in mind, I should like this House

to approach the consideration of this Bill. There is no subject in which every man and woman in this country is interested more than the Bill now under consideration by the House. That makes it all the more incumbent upon each one of us, however highly circumstanced or lowly circumstanced, to tolerate difference of views and to bring to bear a cool and dispassionate

judgment in the larger interests of the wellbeing of the people of this country. In that sense and to that extent this cannot be treated purely as a Party measure or as a matter of confidence.

First, with your leave, Sir, I shall take the Chapter relating to marriage

and divorce. While dealing with this Chapter, it is well to remember that already great inroads have been made into the marriage law by the various Acts of the Indian Legislature. The latest of such Acts was the Hindu Marriage (Disabilities Removal) Act of 1946 (Act XXVIII of 1946) by which it has been enacted that a marriage shall not be invalid by reason only

of the fact that the parties thereto belong to the same Gotra or Pravara or belong to different castes or subdivisions of castes. The Madras Legislature has recently made monogamy compulsory and some of the Provincial Legislatures have already made provisions for divorce. A change has also been made in regard to the law relating to the age of consent to marriage.

If we approach the consideration of the Bill from this point of view, the changes effected in the Bill are by no means so revolutionary as they may seem as first sight. The substantial changes in the provisions of the original Bill as pointed out by some Members of the Select Committee relate to the incorporation of certain provisions relating to restitution of conjugal rights,

judicial separation, alimony, custody of children, jurisdiction and procedure of Courts.

While on the provisions of the Bill, I should like to mention one

important point. The distinction sought to be made between sacramental marriage and civil marriage is more apparent than real. It is difficult to follow the provisions of the Bill in this respect, because I find that in regard to divorce, in regard to restitution of conjugal rights,