So here we are, another Christmas season successfully behind us, and reading another article outlining the effects the holidays have on divorce. I think by now it's a widely accepted fact that while Christmas and other holidays do not cause people to get divorced, the forced proximity of the season does expose the cracks in relationships that may have previously been invisible.

So why another article about the raise in divorce rates over the holidays? Because this one actually made a good point that I haven't seen discussed before. It was mentioned almost as an afterthought, but the article quoted Yvonne Green, head of the family law division for a British group of solicitors as saying "Amateur advice is usually well meant, but can be dangerously misleading." How true this is.

When it comes to considering divorce, many people feel scared and confused, and turn to their friends for help and advice — especially if these friends have been through the process themselves. However, it can be extremely unwise to listen to the advice of friends when discussing your own relationship. Let's face it, no matter how open you are with your friends, they will never fully understand all the nuances that make up a marriage. Recently we ran an article about a woman who decided to divorce her husband because he did not get her what she wanted for Christmas, and amazingly her friends all seemed to support her decision. I rest my case.

Yesterday I told you about a woman in New Delhi who was granted a divorce after she was able to demonstrate to the court that her husband had lied about his age, education, and income. The court decided that these lies constituted fraud and therefore the marriage "contract" should be voided. The idea of fraud annulling a marriage raises a few important issues. The first question must be what kind of fraud is fraudulent enough to void a marriage, and the second question has to be, who makes that decision?

I fully agree that there are marriage deal breakers out there — some things are just non-negotiable. This woman had been promised that she was marrying a man of a certain intelligence and educational background, and this turned out to be false. He is, in the end, literally not the man she married. But who decides which issues are important enough for constitute divorce?

We all have different and extremely personal reasons for getting married and for deciding who we marry. If we find these reasons have been violated, who determines if it is important enough to impact divorce settlements or future support payments?

Imagine a woman decides to divorce her unemployed husband. In this situation, she may be expected to make support payments to him as he has no income. Now imagine that this same woman finds out her ex had an undisclosed criminal record for rape. Is it fair to say that if she'd known about his record she wouldn't have married him and therefore would never have been in the position support him in the first place? If so, should she still be required to make support payments?