On 28th Sep, 2010, chairman of Karnataka Law Commission has recommended to State Govt. to amend S. 125 CrPC among other changes. The significant recommendations are:
1. Live in woman to get same status as wife under CrPC 125
2. Husband to declare assets under CrPC 125
3. Read following links for more details available so far:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Law-commission-offers-divorcees-hope/articleshow/6639186.cms
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/100242/panel-changes-dowry-law.html
I noticed in LCI Forum there are genuine members from Karnataka State and they have in recent past asked very genuine Law questions, hence, if they feel that below protest / recommendation Letter may help making gender neutral maintenance Laws in their State to begin with then they are requested to simply copy and paste the Letter and post them to three respected Public Figures marked there.
---------------------------------------
From: write your name and fill in other details
Name:
Address:
Email:
Date:
To,
Justice Shri V Malimath,
Chairman,
Law Commission of Karnataka,
Dear Sir,
Sub: Recommendations by law commission on proposed law amendments
I would like to draw your attention in the matter of recently submitted 12 recommendations by Honourable Chairman of Karnataka Law Commission Mr Malimath to the Karnataka State Government.
Going by the newspaper reports on the recommendations, we would like to give my feedback on these important issues of changes to CrPC 125 as given below:
General process of law making in a democracy
1. The citizens of
2. I would recommend that the law commission involve the citizens in further proposed law changes. The legal drafting can be left to legal experts, but the common citizens cannot be denied their representation on the excuse that they do not have the legal expertise. Just as not knowing the law is not an excuse for a citizen, so drafting a law without involving citizens should also not be any excuse for lawmakers.
Loopholes and dangers of proposed amendments to CrPC 125
1. It is mentioned that law commission has proposed these recommendations, but no details are available on the statistics, studies, or research conducted to arrive at the recommendations. The courts in India are burdened with work and do not even provide statistics of court cases in RTI replies based on same reason of lack of resources, so it is a foregone conclusion that no study of CrPC 125 cases settled or pending in courts was done in making these recommendations. It is highly desirable that any recommendations to a particular law like CrPC 125 which has voluminous statistics in terms of court cases past and pending, must be made after careful analysis of such statistics.
2. Daughters under Hindu Succession Laws are entitled to parent’s property. So there is no legal bias against married Hindu women when it comes to inheriting properties from parents. If a married woman is deserted, then she has legal recourse to parents' property if she has no other source of income left. If that is not considered legally acceptable, then the law commission is effectively creating a presumption that a married woman loses right to parents' property after marriage! So the property of wife's parents must also be declared if the current proposal to declare husband's assets is passed.
3. The proposal to amend CrPC 125 to make a husband declare assets smacks of bias against men and disempowerment of women; as if women are not owners of assets and property! If this proposal is implemented, then a wife must also be liable to declare assets to be able to institute proceedings under CrPC 125. Otherwise it will create one more bias and presumption in law that a man may want to hide assets to escape maintenance, but a woman will not hide assets to claim unjust maintenance. Kindly note that current provisions of CrPC 125 do not give maintenance to woman if she has deserted her husband without a just cause. The underlying rationale of not creating fissures in family structure on account of small marital issues must not be disturbed by any new changes to CrPC 125.
4. If a husband is to declare assets, then he should be made to declare liabilities too. It is not just that a husband may have to pay maintenance from assets when he has liabilities to take care of. For example, if a man buys a house on loan then the loan and interest repayment must be deducted to arrive at net assets or liability figure.
5. Such changes to law could actually worsen women's position in society. Even after Dowry Prohibition Act was passed in 1961, and IPC 498a was passed in 1983, the 'evil' of dowry has not been eliminated. Indeed it is reported by sociologists that dowry has become common in communities where it was not a prevalent custom before. With women being given entitlement on husband's assets, and not enforcing their right on parent's assets, they will be considered even more of a 'burden' by parents, who would wish them to be married off so they can be entitled to husband's property and disentitled (not legally but socially) from parents' property. It would then increase the practice of dowry since the practice of giving daughter's share of parents' wealth as 'dowry' will have one more supporting argument from husband's side to safeguard themselves from any future liability if the wife separates and institutes proceedings for maintenance under CrPC 125.
6. The practice of declaring and signing list of gifts given during marriage under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has never been followed in practice. Has the law commission considered how this particular change in law is proposed to be enforced in practice? Has the law commission considered the total cost of changing law in terms of law enforcement, as proposed by Honourable Law Minister Mr Veerappa Moily recently?
7. It is a wrong presumption that a proposed law change will only be used in its positive intentions, and will not be misused. The cases of misuse of laws in Indian courts are plenty, and a weak or non-existent enforcing of provisions of perjury and false evidence incentivizes such misuse. As an example in point, the number of arrests made in
Feedback for any change to maintenance laws including current proposed changes to CrPC 125
1. There are plethora of laws which give maintenance to women from husbands. They include CrPC 125, PWDVA, HMA Sec 24/25, HAMA Sec 18 and so on. It is not clear why the law makers are only interested in creating more legal provisions and complexity, and not ensuring that existing laws are enforced properly in a timely manner.
2. If the wife is to benefit from the assets of the husband then wife also must be made to pay for husband’s liabilities. A wife cannot choose to cherry pick on the assets and benefit from the same. The essence of the Hindu Marriage rites is that the wife is an equal partner of the husband in good times as well as in bad times. The legal system has no right to make the wife into a parasite who lives off the assists of her host, but has no responsibilities if the host has liabilities. This is against the principles of Natural Justice.
3. By following legal laws and practice in other nations, only property acquired after marriage must be considered for any such proposed asset/liability declaration by husband and wife in any of the maintenance laws. It has simple rationale that it creates incentive for couples to stay in marriage and a disincentive against using marriage as a spring board to acquiring un-earned property in a short time. The principle of moral hazard must be taken care of in all maintenance laws.
4. The law does not create any incentive to create marriages, and it must not create any incentives for any party to break marriage and family, especially keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, and interests of children in mind.
5. Marriages with duration less than 10 years should not entitle woman or man to maintenance under any proposed changes. Such a position has been adopted in maintenance laws of other countries, e.g. in
Yours sincerely,
<tajobsindia>
(Signature)
CC.:
1. Hon’ble Law Minster, Mr. V. Moily, Min. of Law and Justice,
2. Honourable Law Minister, Shri S Suresh
