I see quite often on this forum there is allegation that laws are women biased. To dispel such misconceptions, I reproduce some parts of the judgment in Varsha Kapoor Vs. Union of India.
Below are the arguments of the advocate representing the mother-in-law in Varsha Kapoor Vs. Union of India case before the Division Bench. He himself avers that women are subjected to utmost cruelty.
" The learned counsel highlighted in this behalf that violence constitutes a major form and process of oppression of women. An understanding of gender reality over the years reveals how violence has always been used as a means to subjugate women and keep them in a position of subordination. Gender based violence may take many different forms and there may be distinctive patterns or manifestations of gender violence associated with particular communities, cultures or regions and historical epochs. Gender violence is present in all societies; it is a structural phenomenon embedded in the context of culture, socio-economic and emotional dependency, the property of some male protector. Societies organized around gendered, hierarchical power relation give legitimacy to violence against women. Violence against women, like all other historical manifestation of violence, is embedded in the socio-economic and political context of power relations. It is produced within class, caste and patriarchal social relations in which male power dominates. A narrow definition of violence may define it as an act of criminal use of physical force. But this is an incomplete definition. Violence also includes exploitation, discrimination, upholding of unequal economic and social structures, the creation of an atmosphere of terror, threat, or reprisal and forms of religio-culture."
There are several traditions originated from religion and culture have oppressive nature in respect of women. Earlier to enactment of Hindu Marriage Act, even in Hindu males, polygamy was prevailing which was oppressive. At the same time, this very religion had not permitted the women to have polyandry. Once HMA came into effect, the liberty of men to philander has come to halt and you see, some members on this forum always criticise HMA as women biased law.
Other tradition is in respect of matrimonial home. By tradition and culture, in patriarchial system, husband's house is treated as matrimonial home. No where law defined only the husband's house as matrimonial home and not the wife's house as matrimonial home. By default, court treats husband's house as matrimonial home. Even then, men always say HMA is a biased law and courts are biased towards women.
By virtue of tradition, women, howmuch they are educated, qualified, rich and capable, they have to resign their jobs (if jobs are not transferrable) of pre-marriage, leave parental home and friends of past and start a fresh life in matrimonial home. The courts expect that women should do all these things. Resistence on the part of woman to leave the job is cruelty for husband. Resistence not to cook food (As if cooking food is the sole job of women, even though they are working women) is cruelty towards husband. Not serving the husband's parents is cruelty towards the husband. Husband goes to far flung area with a title of NRI and wife has to stay at his parents' home, do job, cook food and serve them, otherwise it is cruelty.
On the other hand, if husband does not share half of the domestic work, even in the case of working woman, it is not cruelty towards wife. Illtreating the parents of the wife with snide remarks is not cruelty towards women.
The tradition is heavily loaded towards men. The law, in democratic social fabric, wanted to undo the injustice done to the women to a little extent and that is not digestable to the male protaganists. So, they always abuse the matrimonial laws as women biased and the courts, which are trying to implement these laws as women biased. When the courts follow the traditions and culturres favouring the men on some aspects, such as matrimonial home, women's role in kitchen (where the law is silent), they have no objection.
women are exploited. When I say women, women whole as a class. They can be mothers, mother-in-laws, daughters and daughter-in-laws. The cruelty is not just physical violence. It takes different shapes in different societies. It may be physical abuse, psychological abuse, economic abuse and social abuse etc. Women are not felt safe on the streets and workplace. It is most unfortunate, if they are not felt safe in their own homes, either they may be parental or matrimonial.
We see on this forum, men and boys attack their spouses on several grounds. Some cases are genuine. But most of the cases are not genuine and they really perpetrate cruelties and if their women resort to legal remedies, those women are attacked with vituperative language and the courts trying to protect them are also abused. But they do not spell out not a single word against their mothers. Why? Are their mothers not exploited? Yes, they are exploited, but their subjugation has been completed and they became totally submissive and accepted the male domination is the nature of the society. Now their mothers also joined the gang of exploiters to exploit the wife, forgetting that she also faced the same miseries what her daughter-in-law is facing right now.
Till recently, women were not given property rights in parental property. Had you heard any protest from male protaganists against this injustice perpetrated by our society against the women? Had they ever criticised the Hindu property laws as male biased? No.
Now, the law and courts are trying to bring equality in matrimonial and property rights between the genders, you hear a lot of voice about biased laws.
var addthis_config = {
services_compact: 'orkut,facebook,twitter,linkedin,yahoomail,gmail,hotmail,google,googlebuzz,more'
}
