Something to consider

@bhima balla.  It is necessary that a woman contribute to the family of her husband after marriage either in terms of household work (if unemployed) or in terms of a money in case she does a job as a compensation for not attending household work.  It is cruel to expect her to do both a job and household work.  So when a woman is a job-holder, whatever extramoney that she earns for her family shall be used to appoint a cook, servant maid to relieve her from household duties. 

Now whether it is the choice of woman to do a job after marriage or that of a her husband depends on their mutual understanding between husband and wife, it cannot be dictated by law.  There may ba case when a woman wants to do a job and husband says no.  There may be a case when a woman wants to attend only household work, but husband wants her to do a job.  There may be a case when a woman neither wants to attend household work, nor wants to do any job.  That is sitting idle. 

It is customary for a woman to go to the household of husband after marriage, not vice-versa.  There may be some stray incidents of Gharjamaai, that is a different issue.  So when a woman goes to the household of husband there is no prior understanding as to how she has to contribute to the family of husband if she is educated but unemployed woman.  If the husband has not demanded her to do a job or asked her to stay at home, such husband cannot claim during judicial proceedings, my wife is educated, so she is not eligible for maintenance because she can get a job.  She is deemed to enjoy status quo with regard to her status with regard to employment prior to dispute with husband. 

Supposing the woman denied the husband's desire to stay at home and went to job, after that when dispute arose she stopped attending work, then husband can claim, she had deliberately stopped working, she had in fact denied my advice not to do a job when we were living together. 

So when it is customary for a woman to stay at husband's household irrespective of what a woman does in terms of household work or not, if the husband's family is rich enough to sustain a servant maid and cook and they in fact had been enjoying such privilege prior to the marriage of husband, then the wife is expected to enjoy the standard of living that husband has been enjoying and also it is wrong to say, she has not given anything, she had contributed in terms of conjugal life with regard to s*x and bearing children.  For that she needs maintenance as damages after dispute arose between her and husband disregard to the fact whether she is employed or not.

But what I find amazing in our law is that husband is also eligible for maintenance if he is not employed and wife is employed.  That should not be there.  He is eligible for maintenance from wife, if he had gone Ghajamaai to the house of wife.  It is not possible for a male to give birth to children, but he should have performed household work.  If he had done all these then only he shall be made eligible for maintenance, otherwise, he is not supposed to receive maintenance, nor allowed by law to claim maintenance.  

And it is not necessary that only when a woman is educated, unemployed she shall get maintenance, depending on facts and circumstances of the case, if the wife enjoyed a standard of living in husband's household which she is not able to enjoy after dispute, even while doing a job, then also she can claim maintenance, so that she enjoys same status as she enjoyed when she was with her husband. Court shall award maintenance assuming she does not have a job, and reduce her salary from it and grant rest of the amount as maintenance from her.

This is the current law Chandrashekarji:

However the current law is not right on various grounds.

Sex is not a woman's favor to a man. Only in a situation of prostitution where a woman's services of s*x is sought and paid for. If women did not enjoy s*x then there wouldn't have been male strippers and gigolos. Women crave for s*x at times. They commit adultery. Just because law does not punish her and treats only men as criminals in India does not change biology that a woman loves s*x as well. So the so called contribution is both ways. Paying maintenance for thiis great favor for the rest of her life is nonsense.

Child bearing.: A wife gets to keep the child not the husband in most circumstances. A woman wants to be a mother. No one need to force her. Biological clocks and a womn's natural instincts wants her to be a mother. She needs a man or his gene to do so. When that is done-woman keeps the result. Man is made to pay for it.

Who said what and when, he said- she said, is too much.That is why premarital conract is necessary in Indian context as well. It lays down the foundation for that marriage. Breech means end of marriage.

Alright, let us take both husbadn and wife are working. Both comes home from work. Husband gets groceries, cuts vegetables, helps children with their homework etc Wife cooks and then cleans it up. Did the husband contribute or is it all wife who is doing 'household chores'? Wife's work is exaggerated and husband's or man's contribution is underrated.Thanks to media and feminism. In the run up to woman's empowerment man is belittled, made fun off and under appreciated-while woman are glorified. There is a reason why there is a man and a woman. Only when they get together is there offsprings.

So the idea that woman need to contribute in one are either work or household is not valid. It is the choice to keep cook, servants etc. A wife who is earning could do that. It needs to come out of common household expenses. In those circumstances if she quits work she eeds to do the housework. there are women who do nothing. They neither do anything here nor there.

Today's Indian laws is such that a woman who stayed with husband (reluctantly) for a week is allowed maintenance for life! Is that sane? She needs 'compensation' for s*x she had once or twice or half during that time?

Educated and capable woman can and should take care of herself. Even uneducated capable woman should take care of themselves. The era of men being sole bread winners is gone. These arguments of man maintaining a woman was valid then -not now! Infact uneducate ones are more than likely and more than capable of taking care of themselves. It is the educated-capable yet lazy, greedy and woman unwilling to work that is the problem. Laws must change.

Chandrashekarji,

Adults who are capable should take care of themselves It doesn't matter if it is man or woman. Women are not bearing children for the pleasure of men. Men are not getting to keep the children-woman does. Man has to fight even for  visitation! Yet he is mad eto maintain them! He gets the responsibility but not the pleasure of being with his children.The current laws are ridiculous. The entire marriage laws needs to be debated threadbare and changed.

The so called womna' rights and 'empowerment has muddied waters so much that the society will pay a very heavy price. Man is made a scapegoat in all this.

"Sex is not a woman's favor to a man. Only in a situation of prostitution where a woman's services of s*x is sought and paid for. If women did not enjoy s*x then there wouldn't have been male strippers and gigolos. Women crave for s*x at times. They commit adultery. Just because law does not punish her and treats only men as criminals in India does not change biology that a woman loves s*x as well. So the so called contribution is both ways. Paying maintenance for thiis great favor for the rest of her life is nonsense."

How many male strippers and gigolos are there in India for every 1000 prostitutes?  You go to a prostitute and enjoy her and tell her as you have equally enjoyed me, I will not pay money. 

We are not saying that a woman needs to be paid for serving a husband in terms of s*x to husband.  We are saying it damages a woman more than it damages a man to have s*x with someone and be left by him.  There is no stigma attached to a man, but there is always stigma attached to a woman who is s*xually enjoyed by a man and left by him.  It hurts a woman more than a man if husband leaves a wife, or wife leaves a husband.  So damages are needed for that.  If the process of taking divorce from wife and paying maintenance do not act as a deterrant then men will marry one woman for every six months. 

Secondly, in terms of s*x, the responsibility of woman is more than a man.  Mother nature had given the responsibility of child bearing to a woman, not to a man.  So s*x means only a pleasure for a man, but for a woman it is both pleasure as well as responsibility.  For that reason also, a woman is eligible to be paid money not only because she needs but also to ensure there is a deterrance on the part of men to think it is some kind of child's play to marry a woman, have s*x with her and leave her. 

Women do not crave for s*x as much as men crave.  There are some women now a days who are brought up in elite families who say "vaav" when Salman Khan or Aamir khan removes shirt.  Very few, perhaps they constitute not even 0.25% of the total population of women in India.  All other women do not think much about it.  If it is true that women crave for s*x, then in the films the body exposure by men would be at par with women.

You see balla, I see scores of destitute young women (in teens) bearing a child in hands begging in streets.  It is a very common sight in cities and towns.  Nobody pays attention to it, and questions within, how such a small child became a mother in teens itself.  If it is not for the irresponsible nature of men how women gave birth to child and became mothers in teens?  They were just enjoyed by some street smart fellow for some meagre amount of money of by way of forced rape which was eventually accepted by that woman as a pleasure and forgotten that.  She does not even know, that a child will be born.

She gives birth and starts begging showing that child near railways stations, bus stands and other busy public places.  If men can be so irresponsible that they can do this to women even without marrying, why law should not be stringent against them?

@Balla.  One needs to have a judge inside to see things without geing colored by personal experiences.  People who are colored by personal experiences cannot see the truth properly.  See what a sweeping statement this is -  Her ego, bad attitude, laziness, incompetency is contributing to breakdown in marriage. Man is not solely responsible for making marraige work. He need not have to put up with a bad woman. But he is the one facing difficulties! 

You are just saying all men in the world are good and all women are bad you should not take sides and be colored in your perceptions if you want to see the truth. 

That is not a valid argument. Women are prostitutes because they need money to get fed, clothed etc She 'sells' s*x. A man pays her because he wants what she sells. Would you pay a prostitute 'maintenance' for life since you had s*x with her that time? How is that comparable?

Hence prostitution is a 'profession'. As women earns and can pay so will there be a gigolo 'profession'. 

You are not understanding the point here.  I am saying, there are female prostitutes in the country and no male prostitutes in the country because, it reflects the truth that men are not trustworthy they seek pleasures outside conjugal relationship.  There is no market for male prostitutes because women are trustworthy, they do not seek pleasures outside conjugal relationship.  The other point also you have not understood.  There is market for exposure of female bodies so the heroines expose more in films than men.  The reason is there is no market for male exposure.  Women don't care male exposure, they don't pay for it, but men pay for female exposure.  That also shows men are not trustworthy, and they are hungry of s*x.  These two examples are sufficient to say that men crave for s*x, they are hungry of s*x that is why they shall be made to pay for it.  Even if you deny, market dynamics will make him pay. 

This has nothing to do with marriages. Has nothing to do with educated and capable women. In fact getting them educated and making them self dependent may help such 'destitute' women. The NGOS are doing just that! It argues in favor of getting educated and capable woman to be self dependent.

BTW how do we know it was a man? It could be another street urchin in teens who impregnated her!

Law does not distinguish between educated men and street urchins.  It also does not distinguish between educated women and uneducated women and women begging in streets.  Law thinks of the interests of majority.  So when I say "If men can be so irresponsible that they can do this to women even without marrying, why law should not be stringent against them?" the word 'men' also includes street urchins in its ambit.  Street urchins are not males or men?

The educated men who you want to defend are 10.  Agreed they are responsible men, they are victimized by women.  You only know about them, and you only remember them when you think of word "men".  You cannot think of any other class of men.  I am talking about remainging 90% men who are untrustworthy who can exploit, who have a tendency to purchase s*x, who treats woman as an object of pleasure.  Law is made for them.  When I say deterrance is needed it is for that 90% men. 
 

Through generous and liberal  'maintenance' one is taking away that 'responsibility' a woman is supposed to exercise. Else she would have thought hard whether she can raise a child by herself if need be, before getting pregnant!

How a woman can think of raising a child herself (if need be(?)) before getting pregnant?  Child is joint responsibility of a man and woman.  Do you mean to say, a woman not thinking of raising the child who is born to her and her husband, on her own with her own expenses is an irresponsible woman? I think you will appreciate a woman who marries someone, remains at her parent's house goes to husband's house every night to have s*x with him (because it is also her need to have pleasure), comes back to parental home, gives birth to children, works in office by being part of parental house, raises children at her parent's house on her own expense without giving any burden to man.

It also means to say that with an eye on "maintenance" a woman becomes lazy and irresponsible and even gets ready to part with husband.  You think very cheaply about women my dear.  No woman spoils her marriage for the sake of "maintenance".  Most of the women do not even know that they can get maintenance until their marriage is spoiled by disputes.

Sure-then the question is was the woman responsible enough? Unless there is rape-woman has control on s*x as much as a man. There is contraception to help a woman control when or whether or not to bear a child. As you said if woman was more responsible- should a man be held responsible for her irresponsibility?
 

Whether to bear a child or not, again is not an individual decision for a married woman.  How many women can say no to her husband and in laws whey they press for having a child and she does not want it?  You see there can be three situations in which a woman bears a child.  1) A woman wants a child, husband and in laws do not want  2) A woman does not want a child, husband and in laws want 3) Woman as well as the husband and her in laws wanting a child.

In the first situation it is the right of a woman to have a child if she wants.  No one should deny the pleasure of motherhood that nature bestows on her by force.  If she decides not to have on her own she can deny that pleasure but if she wants she shall not be forced to have that pleasure of motherhood.  So when it is her right to become a mother, the child who is born thus, without the consent of husband and parents must be taken care of by husband and inlaws, they all bear joint responsibility for it. 

In the second situation, woman does not want a child, she is forced to have a child by husband and in laws.  So no need of big explanation here.  As they themselves forced her to have a child, they bear a joint responsibility towards child.  The third situation, child is born with consent of everyone.  Even in this case, they bear a joint responsibility towards a child.

If you say, a woman can use contraceptives to avoid children if she had not used man is not responsible for such irresponsible woman, then you mean to say that it is entirely a woman's decision to give birth to child or not, husband and in laws have no role to play in it.  That is far from reality. And if you say, without using contraceptives if she gives birth to child, such a woman is irresponsible woman for that man is not responsible then it means that every child born on this earth (including you) is born only because of irresponsible behavior of women.

So in old times where there was no concept of ' maintenance' men were jumping from woman to woman every six months?
 

In old times, the society was strong, and people used to follow traditions out of fear of society.  Old times people were not spoiled by law, they were guided by traditions and customs.  So men were in control.  However there is other side also.  Look at Gemini Ganeshan.  Father of film actress Rekha (if I am not mistaken).  How many women he married you know.   And there was practise of Kanyasulkam in South india which the social reformers fought tooth and nail.  You know about it?  Kanyasulkam means men offering dowry for woman (or her family) in order to marry her.  By paying Kanyasulkam old aged males in sixties and seventies used to get brides aged 16 years.  The greed to receive Kanyasulkam used to drive parents of girl child to sell their child to rich old men.  So the the answer for your question could also be in the affirmative.  Men are like that generally untrustworthy, and expect that women succumb to them s*xually for want of money.  They always tend to make the s*x and s*xuality of woman a marketable thing.  The more cheap it becomes the more pleasure they derive because they cannot bear the dignity of a woman who does not sell her s*xuality for money.

 You are raising irrelevant questions. How is this related to educated voluntarily incapacitated women? Women sell themselves because to eat you need money and when she has nothing, she sells herself.Man has money and can feed her! Educated woman/ any woman who can work and take care of her needs need not sell herself. It is again an argument in favour to hold the woman accountable to herself. A woman who is responsible for herself is a desirable woman for many men.  Educattion provides for better opportunity.However if not accountable by law -do you expect them to hold themselves accountable? It is clear from several cases some women are not taking responsibility. The topic is about these women- not about gemini ganeshan or kanyashulkam.

"And it is not necessary that only when a woman is educated, unemployed she shall get maintenance, depending on facts and circumstances of the case, if the wife enjoyed a standard of living in husband's household which she is not able to enjoy after dispute, even while doing a job, then also she can claim maintenance, so that she enjoys same status as she enjoyed when she was with her husband. Court shall award maintenance assuming she does not have a job, and reduce her salary from it and grant rest of the amount as maintenance from her."

This is my stand Mr. Balla on educated women and their maintenance.  I already told it clearly, you might have missed it in Rajas (passion).  You know Mr. Rajas.

I know him very well.  Anyways.  Regarding making a law or revising the existing law to ensure educated women do not exploit men claiming maintenance sitting idle at home I have given two three situations if you remember.  If a woman is not asked to do a job by parents and in laws when conjugal relationship was going nice, then the husband cannot say, he won't pay maintenance.  Second, if a woman brings lot of dowry which makes the family of husband feel, she need not work and contribute to our family because she had already brought sufficient money, then also husband cannot say, he won't pay maintenance.  Third, even if she does not pay dowry but the family of husband accepted her as daughter in law, then whatever privileges she enjoyed as daughter in her maternal home, she is eligible to enjoy in matrimonial home, because she shall customarily enjoy the status of a daughter even in the family of husband.  For FIL and MIL, DIL is as per Hindu customs daughter itself.  So if she had been educated by her father but when she expressed her desire not to do a job and father accepted it, the same privilege she shall enjoy at the house of husband as well.  Hence, even in this case, husband cannot say, he won't pay maintenance.

Supposing, the girl is poor and the family of boy is rich. And girl not paid dowry but she is educated but not working.  But the family of husband liked her, whatever may be the reason and married her into their family.  They can appoint cooks and servants for household job.  And they in fact had all of them at home, then also they cannot demand the girl to go for a job as a matter of right, after marriage, just because she is educated.  The marriage is only about accepting her into their family as a family member not as a maid-servant, cook or otherwise as a contributor of money by way of doing a job.  Marriage can never be a contract for this reason.  The family marrying a woman should try to absorb her into their family as a family member, they should not go by what they desire to get from her in terms of services and money. 

I do understand you concern you want marriage to be a contract before marriage with regard to responsibilities they are to share in conjugal life.

Supposing marriage becomes a contract, then a rich family marrying a poor girl can have a term in the agreement that the girl being accustomed to live as poor girl, can live in the outhouse and she has to perform all the duties that servant maid and cook used to perform and after she enters house, the servant maid and cook will be given retirement.  That makes the institution of marriage totally exploitative and there would be plenty of women to agree for that because of poverty.  But it impinges on the dignity of the woman itself in the final analysis. 

Whatever way you see, whether educated or uneducated, it is very difficult to pick out a particular situation where a man is exploited by a woman and make a law for it, it is too meagre an offense to be considered by law makers to codify it.  Courts however, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, declare certain woman not eligible for maintenance and some guidelines are needed to ensure that educated women do not exploit men. 

I have said somewhere else, that there might be a case women get share of property from her father and ancestors.  She had not given any dowry, but whatever she gets as income from the property she inherited from father and ancestors is sufficient for her to maintain herself.  That is an exception where, a man may be relieved from paying maintenance.  There can be some exceptions like that, and depending on the facts and circumstances of the case the judges using their discretion shall avoid exploitation of men.