A bizarre divorce case in India recently established an unsettling precedent for members of a marriage who refuse to have sex, according to a recent report from INB Live, an international subsidiary of CNN.

Sources indicate that Justice Kailash Gambhir, a member of the Delhi High Court, recently ruled that the willful denial of sex, including denial that occurs on the first night after wedding, but either spouse amounts to “cruelty” and can provide the other spouse with a valid reason for divorce.

The ruling came in response to the claims of an Indian man who claimed to have a “sex-starved marriage” because his wife refused to have sex with him on their wedding night and also refused to have sex for the next five months.

Because of this lack of recreation, the man reportedly left his home and asked the judge to dissolve his marriage.

As readers might suspect, India’s divorce laws are much more conservative than those in America. In the United States, for example, many states have so-called “no fault” divorces, in which couples need not prove who is at fault for the dissolution of the marriage.

In addition, many marriages end due to vague-sounding reasons like “irreconcilable differences.” In simpler terms, American judges are typically much less interested in the sordid details of why a couple chooses to separate.

The Indian divorce process, by contrast, seems to be a bit more intense, particularly when it comes to the issue of sex. The judges also appear willing to use colorful language in their divorce decisions.

In the recent case, Justice Gambhir cited testimony by the husband that “the wife was never responsive and was like a dead wood when he had sexual intercourse with her remained unrebutted (sic).”

The judge also noted that the wife’s refusal to have sex for the first five months of marriage amounted to a “cruel act,” although the Delhi High Court went on to observe that the frequency of sex cannot be the sole barometer of the success of a marriage.

Nevertheless, the High Court placed a high emphasis on sex within marriage, saying that “sex is the foundation of marriage and marriage without sex is an anathema.”

So, the court seemed to take a somewhat contradictory stance: marriage without sex is not marriage, but a lack of sex does not necessarily render a marriage invalid.

In the meantime, American couples can take solace in knowing that our courts are not usually concerned with proving a lack of sex within a relationship before agreeing to dissolve the marriage.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

The divorce-seeking wife of Dmitry Rybolovlev, who, at last count, was the 100th richest man in the world, is accusing her husband of hiding assets from her as she is seeking a divorce, according to a recent report from Forbes.

This week, Elena Rybolovlev, who has been married to her husband for 24 years, filed papers in Manhattan Supreme Court claiming that her billionaire husband purchased an $88 million apartment for the couple’s 22-year-old daughter in order to hide assets from his wife.

In her lawsuit, Elena claims that her husband, who has made an estimated $9 billion through the sale of agricultural fertilizer, has displayed the “specific intent of hiding and diverting his personal interest in the property.”

The wildly expensive apartment purchase made national headlines last December because the purchase made the apartment the most expensive residential apartment in New York, according to sources.

Dmitry claims that the apartment would serve as a residence for his daughter while she goes to college, which would make the apartment perhaps the nicest dorm room in the history of higher education.

In response, however, Elena claims that her daughter doesn’t even attend school in New York, although she does plan on staying in the apartment when she visits the city.

Elena initially filed for divorce back in 2009, but the divorce process has dragged on for months due to the complexity of the couple’s estate.

Since her initial filing, Elena’s divorce attorney claims that Dmitry has been on a wild “spending spree,” which has included the purchase of a Monaco football club, Donald Trump’s mansion in Palm Beach, and penthouse “home base” in Monaco worth roughly $300 million.

The Russian billionaire reportedly made $65 billion in 2010 after selling his controlling stake in Uralkali, the remarkably successful fertilizer company that Dmitry started from scratch.

In her divorce filing, Elena claims that she is entitled to receive half of the property the couple acquired during their marriage, which would lead to a divorce settlement worth billions of dollars. But her husband is unwilling to let so much of his wealth go.

In an effort to keep assets from his wife, Dmitry is allegedly throwing money into various interests to keep it out of Elena’s hands.

Such actions are not uncommon in a divorce, but filers should know that hiding assets during a divorce is usually unethical and often illegal. Before moving assets during a divorce, filers may wish to first consult with a divorce attorney.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Dating during a divorce can be a tricky proposition, which is why a divorce lawyer recently some offered advice through a column in the Huffington Post to people going through a divorce who are still looking for romance.

In the column, the attorney’s first piece of advice is that divorcees should think with their heads, not with their hearts. During a divorce, both men and women can be emotionally vulnerable and may not be ready for a new romantic relationship.

In addition, the article in the Huffington Post observes that second marriages have a higher rate of divorce than first marriages. Thus, just because people end one marriage does not mean that they have learned to create a lasting union.

Some therapists observe that second marriages get off to rocky starts because the partners have not fully recovered from the emotional effects of their first divorce. Thus, people going through a divorce may want to wait a while before leaping back into the dating pool.

Of course, this does not mean that dating during a divorce is always a terrible idea. It just requires some clear thinking and the use of common sense.

If parents are concerned about winning a child custody battle, a court may not be sympathetic towards parents who are actively dating during a divorce. This may reveal some unfair cultural biases, but judges are humans with their own prejudices, too.

Divorcing parents should be sensitive to how judges may perceive their actions during a divorce.

In addition, many child psychologists claim that it can be detrimental to children’s health for their parents to bring new adults into their lives during a divorce. Children, too, are sensitive to the presence of new romantic interests for their parents.

Moreover, divorcing couples should consider how the creating of a new relationship during a divorce could affect the proceedings.

If dating during the divorce could cause tension with your spouse, then it may be best to wait to date until after the process is completed. There is no sense in adding extra emotional fuel to an already difficult time.

Of course, if you and your spouse are comfortable with dating during the divorce process, and your actions won’t cause any extra tension, then you may be able to be more open about your new relationship.

The key, it seems, is for divorcing parents to honestly evaluate how their new relationship will affect their spouse, their children, and the divorce process itself. Dating during divorce isn’t forbidden, but it should be handled with caution.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Peter Facinelli, star of the movie version of the “Twilight” vampire thrillers, is filing for divorce from his wife, Jennie Garth, a talented actress in her own right who used to star in “90210,” according to a report from Reuters.

Facinelli, who plays Dr. Carlisle Cullen, the adoptive father of vampire Edward Cullen in the wildly popular series of vampire movies, is looking to separate from Garth after eleven years of marriage, which is almost a lifetime when weighed against the length of other Hollywood marriages.

According to a joint statement released by the Huffington Post, Facinelli and Garth said that, “while we have decided to end our marriage, we both share the same deep love and devotion to our children.”

The couple have three daughters, ages 5, 9, and 14, and their mutually supportive public statement suggests that the two may reach an amicable agreement on issues such as child custody and child support.

Sources indicate that the 38-year-old Facinelli and his 39-year-old wife were married back in 2001 after they met on the set of a made-for-television movie.

Rumors of trouble within the marriage have been circling since last summer, according to the celebrity gossip website TMZ. And, despite the fact that neither member of the marriage has officially filed divorce papers, sources anticipate that this formality will occur relatively soon.

Like many other celebrities, Facinelli and Garth will probably look to settle their divorce outside of court in private negotiations, rather than go to divorce court, where the details of their settlement could become public knowledge.

Sources say that Facinelli and Garth live in California, which is a community property state. In community property states, each spouse in a marriage is usually entitled to receive half of the assets that were gained by the couple during the course of their marriage.

There are some exceptions to this rule, but they rarely come into effect. One of the most common exceptions comes in the form of a prenuptial agreement, which can limit potential collection of assets in a divorce if both parties agree to the pact.

However, sources do not know whether Facinelli and Garth signed a prenuptial agreement before tying the knot. If they did not sign a prenuptial agreement, it is likely that the celebrity couple will split their assets evenly.

Other states have different laws regarding the split of assets during a divorce, but there are many other community property states besides California.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Determining how retirement plans are to be divided in a divorce can be tricky enough when both parties are civilians, but filing for divorce when one spouse is a member of the military poses all sorts of unique financial challenges.

This issue affects millions of couples with military members. The largest asset owned by many of these couples is a military pension, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

And the pensions are often substantial enough to warrant sparring between couples over who gets access to the money. Sources indicate, for example, that a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force who has served for 30 years earns a pension of $72,288 per year.

While these pensions are not distributed in a lump sum, the pension of a career officer often surpasses the $1 million mark.

Another reason why military pensions are so valuable is that they do not have a minimum age retirement. So, in some circumstances, former service members as young as 38 can retire from the military and receive a healthy pension for several decades.

The tricky part of splitting these valuable pensions in a divorce is that, in many cases, a former spouse of a military veteran is entitled to receive one-half of the amount that accrued during a marriage.

For example, if a Navy officer earned a pension worth $400,000 over 20 years of service, and his spouse was married to him during the entire service period, that spouse would be entitled to receive $200,000 in a divorce settlement.

This equation, however, becomes more complicated when the couple has not been married for the entire duration of one spouse’s military service.

And further complications arise when the spouses live in different states, as is common amongst military families. If one spouse is serving in South Carolina, and the other spouse lives in Virginia with the children, it can be difficult to determine which state’s divorce laws apply.

In addition, military pension plans are governed by an odd mix of both federal and state rules, which often make it difficult for an ex-spouse to collect these benefits, even after a court order in his or her favor.

Unfortunately, these tricky issues arise often, as divorce rates for people in the military are significantly higher than the divorce rates for civilians. And the military divorce rate is rising quickly.

According to sources, 3.7 percent of military veterans filed for divorce in 2011, which represents a steep increase over the 2.6 percent of military members who filed for divorce in 2001.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Most researchers agree that divorce among older Americans is on the rise, but few people understand the risk factors that lead some older people to have higher rates of divorce.

In response to this knowledge void, some researchers from Bowling Green University recently tried to collect data on what factors make seniors more susceptible to divorce, according to a report from the Wall Street Journal.

Surprisingly, these researchers discovered that one of the most important factors in determining a person’s risk of divorce is the number of divorces or she has already had.

Sociologists Susan Brown and I-Fen Lin, who co-authored the pending paper, “The Gray Divorce Revolution,” recently discovered that second and third marriages have a 150 percent greater chance of ending in divorce than do first marriages.

Thus, it seems that people who see their first marriage end in divorce do not necessarily learn marriage secrets that allow them to stay connected with their spouse for longer periods of time.

Another risk factor identified by the researchers is whether a couple was married relatively recently. In the study, almost 50 percent of people who divorced in 2009 had been married fewer than 20 years.

Of the couples who stayed together, almost 60 percent had been married for more than 30 years, which suggests that marriages that occurred decades ago stand a better chance of surviving than more recent marriages.

The researchers also discovered that black Americans were 75 percent more likely than whites to divorce after they turn 50, and Hispanics were 21 percent more likely to do the same.

In addition to these racial disparities, the study also concluded that people with a college degree were 17 percent less likely to get a divorce than people who did not receive any education beyond the high-school level.

And, not surprisingly, infidelity also raised couples’ risk of divorce. The study found that 27 percent of failed marriages among older Americans were at least partially attributable to one spouse’s cheating behavior.

These statistics were somewhat complicated by the fact that the Census Bureau does not ask questions about filing for divorce. So, researchers instead used data collected by the AARP in 2003, which surveyed 1,148 Americans who had filed for divorce between the ages of 40 and 69.

This relatively weak data source raised some criticism of the study, as a few observers noted that later-life divorce is a relatively new phenomenon, so researchers are working with a very limited data set.

Nevertheless, it is uncontestable that divorce among older Americans is on the rise, so it is worth examining the risk factors behind these marital splits.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

The celebrity divorce between Kris Humphries and Kim Kardashian is truly the gift that keeps on giving, as various news outlets have begun feverishly reporting the divorce demands of both parties in their pending negotiations.

According to a recent report from TMZ, Kris Humphries is looking to secure a $7 million payout from Kim Kardashian as part of their divorce agreement.

And, if Kardashian doesn’t pay up, Humphries is allegedly threatening to transform their private proceedings into a public trial. Of course, one wonders how much more information a public trial would reveal, given the amount of news distributed every day about the couple’s divorce.

According to confidential sources, the cash demand was made through Humphries’ Minnesota divorce attorney, and was quickly rejected by Kardashian’s large legal team.

Oddly, Humphries also recently filed legal documents in a Los Angeles court that would allow him to appoint himself as his own attorney in case his divorce lawyer from Minnesota was not allowed to practice in a California court.

Self-representation is rarely a good idea in a divorce involving as much money as this affair, so it may be safe to assume that Humphries will have plenty of outside legal help if he does decide to represent himself in court.

Humphries, however, may have to serve as his own attorney if he insists on sticking with his Minnesota-based lawyer. Sources indicate that California divorce laws require out-of-state attorneys to be accompanied by a local lawyer in court.

Because of this law, Humphries will likely try to find a California attorney to help with his case. The stakes in his lawyer hunt are high, as Kardashian has secured a high-priced legal team.

Sources say that Laura Wasser, who is one of Hollywood’s most famous divorce attorneys, will be representing Kardashian in her divorce. Wasser has previously represented notable stars like Angelina Jolie, Britney Spears, Jennifer Aniston, and Maria Shriver.

The bizarre and contentious divorce proceedings are the final chapter in a bizarre, and sometimes contentious, relationship between Kardashian and Humphries.

The two were married last August in an incredibly opulent ceremony that was broadcast on cable television and reportedly drew more than 10 million viewers.

Despite this initial success, Kardashian filed for divorce less than three months after the couple tied the knot, claiming that the pair was plagued by “irreconcilable differences.”

Interestingly, Humphries is looking for an annulment to their marriage, rather than a divorce. The next few weeks of negotiations may determine the fate of this request.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

After two failed attempts at marriage, actor Dennis Quaid seems to have struck out again, as his third wife has reportedly decided to file for divorce from her famous husband.

Kimberley Buffington Quaid, Dennis Quaid’s third wife, is looking to end the couple’s seven year marriage, according to a report in the Albany Times Union. In her divorce petition, Buffington Quaid claims that her marriage has “become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities.”

In her petition, which she filed in Travis County, Texas, Buffington Quaid referred to herself and her husband using only their initials, though the addresses used in the filings match those listed as residences in Austin for Buffington Quaid.

In addition to these clues, the divorce papers also refer to two children who were born in 2007, which was the same year in which the couple’s young twins, Zoe and Thomas, were born. Not surprisingly, the initial scoop on the divorce was gathered by the crack celebrity-following website, TMZ.

And the two soon-to-be-ex-spouses are not denying their intentions. According to WTK Public Relations, which represents Quaid, the actor’s wife has filed for divorce, but “both parties” are apparently working on a “satisfactory settlement.”

The couple would undoubtedly prefer to solve their separation during private negotiations, rather than be subject to the media scrutiny that would inevitably plague a divorce trial for the celebrity couple.

According to court documents, Buffington Quaid is looking for her husband to pay spousal support and cover her attorney fees during the divorce proceedings.

The Quaids experienced a very traumatic health battle when their twins were born in 2007. While the twins were at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, doctors accidentally gave them an overdose of heparin, a blood thinner.

As Quaid told the Associated Press in 2010, “[t]here were 41 hours where their lives were in the balance.” The actor also said that the event left both him and his wife in “shock, anger and confusion.”

The twins’ health scare became national news, and Quaid responded to the harrowing ordeal by producing and narrating a documentary about medical mishaps called “Chasing Zero: Winning the War on Healthcare Harm.”

Sources indicate that the Quaids won a $500,000 settlement with the hospital after they had filed a medical malpractice lawsuit.

Today, though, the couple has decided to split, ending a seven-year marriage, and causing Quaid’s third divorce. Quaid divorced his first wife, actress P.J. Soles in 1983, and divorced his second wife, actress Meg Ryan, in 2001.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

A major obstacle for many couples looking for divorce is determining who will have custody of the couple’s children. This issue occupies most of the negotiations of many divorces, especially if the children are young.

A new issue for divorce courts, however, is the rising number of custody cases involving pets, according to a recent report from The Spokesman-Review in Spokane, Washington.

According to a recent survey from the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (yes, this group is as fun as it sounds), 25 percent of the study’s respondents said they had seen a noticeable increase in the number of pet custody cases in the past decade.

And, according to AAML President Ken Altshuler, a divorce attorney from Portland , Maine, the number of pet custody cases have continued to grow steadily in the past few years.

Typically, when both a child and a pet are involved in a divorce, many judges prefer to keep the pet with the child, and thus the pet goes to whomever obtains primary custody of the child. More difficulties arise, however, when the pet is the couple’s child.

In every American state, pets are considered to be just another type of property. So, for many years, pets in divorces have been divided amongst couples like furniture or cash. But this trend may be changing.

In Altshuler’s view, judges are increasingly seeing pets as more similar to “children than dining room sets.” This, he claims, is a product of many judges’ recognition that people develop strong emotional attachments to their animals that makes these creatures different than, say, a dining room chair.

And changes to divorce laws in several states have begun to recognize that pets should be protected from violence, just like humans.

As a result of this change in viewpoint, several states, including Maine, New York, Illinois, and California, now allow people to protect pets from angry spouses through domestic violence restraining orders. Such a tactic was impossible just a few years ago.

These laws are not intended solely to protect pets; they are also aimed at preventing abusive adults from using the prospect of pet violence to threaten victims.

And Altshuler predict that, eventually, many states will begin enacting detailed statutes that set forth clear guidelines about how courts should determine pet custody within a divorce.

In the absence of such statutes, though, people who are seeking a divorce may continue to see inconsistent court decisions from judges who hold varying views about how pets should be treated in a divorce.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.

Facebook has opened up vast range of possibilities for people looking to maintain contact with their friends and families, but it has also given angry people an easily accessible forum to post things they later regret.

One Ohio man engaged in a bitter divorce dispute recently learned this lesson the hard way, and could face serious consequences in divorce court for his controversial Facebook posts, according to a report from USA Today.

Sources indicate that Mark Byron used his personal Facebook page to publish scathing remarks about his soon-to-be-ex-wife while the two were battling over contentious child custody issues during their divorce proceedings.

During their dispute, Byron posted a diatribe on Facebook that included this angry nugget: “… if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband’s life and take your son’s father away from him completely — all you need to do is say that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner.”

Even though her husband had blocked her from viewing his Facebook page, Elizabeth Byron eventually heard about the post and believed that it violated a protective order she had obtained against her husband.

Under the terms of the protective order, Mark Byron was forbidden from performing any act that would cause his wife “to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.”

The protective order was made necessary by Byron’s actions in 2010, when he allegedly verbally abused his wife and made threatening remarks towards her, including an alleged threat to end her life.

In light of Byron’s actions, a Hamilton County judge sympathized with Elizabeth Byron, and in a recent ruling, gave Mark Byron an interesting choice: in order to avoid a jail sentence, Byron would have to post a public apology for his remarks on his Facebook page.

Byron wisely accepted the judge’s challenge, and has been posting daily apologies on his Facebook page for the last week.

The judge’s actions, however, have irked several attorneys who believe that punishing Mark Byron for his Facebook postings infringes on his right to free speech.

Supporters of the decision, though, observe that Byron’s words might not have resulted in a threat of a jail sentence if he did not already have a history of verbal abuse towards his wife.

In addition, the judge’s supporters claim that Byron violated the terms of the protective order, and should face some punishment for his threatening words, even if they were not immediately available for his wife to read.

Copyright © 2010 TotalDivorce, LLC. (as licensee). All rights reserved.