NLIU LAW REVIEW

FEEDBACK FORM

Manuscript Code: <264(L)>

Area of Law: <Family law>
General Comments:

<Rejected. While the author demonstrates competence in grammar and language,

Grammar/Language
[Does the author use correct grammar? Is the author’s language clear and compelling? Does the
author avoid making use of sentences that are difficult to follow?]

The author's use of grammar and language is generally clear and compelling. The text is well-written
and easy to follow. However, there are a few instances where the author could improve sentence
structures for a smoother reading experience. For example, in the section discussing pets as family
members, the sentence "In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of animal welfare and
the need for legal protection of pets" could be revised for greater clarity and conciseness, such as:
"Recent years have witnessed a growing awareness of pet welfare, demanding enhanced legal
protection."

Structure/Logical Coherence
[Does the author outline the structure of his work and proceed systematically? Is the author’s
approach the correct approach to the research question? Has the author been able to link different
parts of his/her argument together logically?]

The paper outlines its structure effectively and proceeds systematically. It logically links different
parts of the argument, making it easy for the reader to follow the author's train of thought.
However, there's room for improvement in terms of providing a clear roadmap at the beginning of
the paper. While the structure is well-maintained throughout the text, a brief introductory section
that outlines the paper's main points would enhance the reader's understanding from the outset.

Contribution to Existing Literature

[What is the author’s contribution to the subject? Has the author built on the existing literature on
the subject in such a way as to contribute something new? Has the author explained something in a
novel way?]

The paper makes an attempt to contribute to the subject by exploring the evolving definition of
family in Indian family law. However, it falls short of providing substantial, unique insights into the
changing landscape of family law in India. It merely skims the surface of the topic without offering a
comprehensive analysis or innovative perspectives. The absence of critical insights or fresh
viewpoints means that the paper largely reiterates existing knowledge without adding substantial
value.

Contemporary Relevance
[Does the subject matter relate to an issue in the past year? Has the subject matter been linked to
the present day in any way if it is not of contemporary significance?]

While the subject matter has the potential to provide critical insights into evolving family law in
India, the author fails to adequately link the topic to present-day concerns. There is a conspicuous
absence of recent examples or data that would demonstrate the subject's immediate importance.
This lack of contemporary relevance undermines the paper's potential impact and its ability to
engage readers in current debates.

Referencing and research

[How well-researched is the article? Has the author used references to support his/her arguments in
the right places? Has the author avoided redundant referencing? What is the quality of the
references?]

While references are used, the quality of many of these sources is questionable. Several key
references are outdated, which is particularly problematic when discussing legal and societal
developments in a rapidly changing landscape. This not only raises doubts about the paper's
credibility but also reveals a lack of diligence in sourcing accurate and current information.
Moreover, there is a failure to cite pivotal and influential studies or cases in the field.