Something to consider

Only a man whose marriage is spoiled would think, "though a marriage what did she gain, what did I gain".  A man whose marriage is not spoiled thinks, "What did WE gain from marriage".  So it is not for men whose marriages are spoiled to make or suggest for laws if the institution of marriage is to survive.

A woman bringing dowry need not work? This is criminal thinking that encourages dowry to be persistent in society. No one should take or receive dowry. That is the law.

Acontract will define their goals. If a woman can't agree then she need not have to marry. No one forces her. Are you saying woman in India can't think for herself? Then it is in bigger trouble.

There is no need to maintain a woman in the matrimonial lifestyle. Woman living for few days, few months and few years do not deserve it.Only long term marriages deserve that. The law is very primitive in that it does not deal with these things specifically. It should. Since it does not contracts will be needed. Hence it should be made a part of the law-that if contract is made then the parties should be held to those standards.

No one can prove whether the inlaws or husband wanted her to quit job before marriage or whether a woman quit her job since she wanted to or for any reason on her own. It sia she said he said , hearsay which is meaningless. A contract specifies that. You are assuming things which cannot be proven or which may not be true. What is the need for it when all we need is whether the woman can take care of herself? If she can then she should. The law should only consider that. If she doesn't want to work that is her decision. She needs to face the consequences. Why should a husband or anyone pay for her decsions? She is an adult and should take responsibility.If a woman can get easy money-do you think she will work?

Lack of responsibility is what is the problem.I am saying an adult who is capable should take care of herself/ himself. I do not support maintenance for husbands who are capable of taking care of themselves. If he doesn't it is his problem. If you did not allow woman to work then she needs maintenance. If there is opportunity and she is capable yet she chooses not to.Then she should take care of herself. Woman needs to be protected etc is medieval thinking. In india laws still treat women like dirt by assuming that she is abala naari, weaker s*x etc etc The IndiaN law the way it is framed is infact an insult to a woman.

Prostitution is illegal. However still it exists.Infact they may be thriving. Woman are selling their body because they want to? Will government just give them money freely so they don't feel the need to sell themselves? Why do one train prostitutes etc with other skills? So they can work and not sell themselves. Here we are talking about women who are perfectly capable of working but do not do so-because they get easy money.

It is disgusting to see one finding rationales to support such behaviour.

The fact that people think of giving or receiving dowry is ridiculous and against the law. Strcit implementation is the key. The dowry act is not a qualified -it is absolute. No dowry should be taken or given under ANY citcumstances. Anyone doing so is criminal. If a country cannot implement its own laws.Then there is anarchy. Selective implementation is tyranny.

Laws are made for failed marriages. Nowhere in law is it defined how a marriage should be. It is left for the parties. However when laws are made such that one party is favoured over another during breakup, then it is a problem. When there is faulty law or its improper implementation-then there is a problem.

Indian marriage laws are based on false assumptions. It is not reflecting current realities and is based on medieval mindset.

It is absurd that you argue that dowry must be a consideration whether or not a woman need s to work. Dowry is CRIMINAL. Infact I would argue that any marriages that is based on illegal activity must be voided. That will take care of the dowry -not its selective implementation.

Nobody thought of marriages as an institution under threat before when the divorce rates were less than 1% It does become a concern when it reaches 30% or more. People who go through unfair laws are the ones who should stand up and point it!

I also pointed that a woman in this age does not need a husband to have kids. She can get sperms from a donor or from a bank.There are artificial insemination procedures. She does not need to deal with inlaws and dowry and husbands.She does not need to deal with 'irresponsible' men!

She does not need a husband to have kids?  Why does she need a husband at all if she earns her own money?  If a woman wants to break free 100s of men will stand in queue to have a relationship with her. (that is not the case with men, very sadly).  She can have one or two of them whenever she feels the biological need of s*x and have kid by buying sperms from donors.  Why she needs a husband, if she is earning, if she can have a kid without a husband and if she can have 100s standing in queue for her?

If she does not need a husband, why bother about a law restricting her exploitation?

The fact that people think of giving or receiving dowry is ridiculous and against the law. Strcit implementation is the key. The dowry act is not a qualified -it is absolute. No dowry should be taken or given under ANY citcumstances. Anyone doing so is criminal. 

Dowry is criminal because law says so.  You respect law when it comes to dowry.  When it comes to maintenance, paying maintenance by husband is not law for you.  Here what you say is law.  Wherever it is convenient for you, you will obey law.  Wherever it is not convenient for you, you say "I will change law".  You have all designs of autocrat inside you. 

Calling names does not contribute anything.

I am saying current maintenance law is unfair. Hence need to change. It has to reflect the current changes in society. I am questioning the basis of maintenance as in current law. But let me ask you-are you saying dowry is not evil?

Giving dowry and receiving dowry should be legalized because it should be in the black and white.  It also helps men from false 498A cases.  I tell you why.  It is not at all easy to control giving dowry and receiving dowry in our country.  Those who want to take would take and those who want to give their daughters are compelled.  So the reality is dowry is unavoidable.  Even when friends and relatives know it, nobody complaints to law enforcing agencies about it, because they do not want to spoil the marriage and their relationship with people involved in marriage.  And when dowry is given and law says, it cannot be given or taken, if the marriage gets into dispute then there is no way for the parents to admit that dowry is given.  So they file 498A cases to recover the dowry amounts given by them.  Most of the settlements involving women demanding huge amounts is not only exploitation but also recovery of amounts the parents of girl paid as dowry. 

When I say, dowry must be legalized, then when dowry is given in the marriage ceremony, there will be witnesses.  The parents of girls can claim it legally through a civil proceeding in court.  That avoids filing false 498A cases to threaten men to get better settlement amounts commensurate with dowry amounts they have paid. 

Also,  I believe when a woman who is not a working woman is sent to her husband's place after marriage giving dowry is not purchasing husbands.  We had seen so many advertisements showing men as buffalows and all being sold in markets.  But if it is truly a sale, then man has to come to the house of woman and work in their family.  Then it is called sale of bridegroom.  Here it is not sale of bridegroom, because having given dowry, the woman goes to the house of husband to work there and participate in household duties.  Hence to say it is a sale of bridegroom is not matured view. 

And why it (dowry) is given?  The father of the girl says to the bridegroom, you are the bread earner of the family, my girl is not a working woman, it involves lot of expenses on her for you after marriage, I had to incur expenses for only 20 or 25 years, but you have to bear expenses on her for entire lifetime (as long as she survives) let me share some part of your burden by giving dowry. 

What is wrong in it?  A bridegroom's family adequately rich to maintain a girl asking for dowry is wrong, but when it involves marriage between two lower middle class families or middle class families there is nothing wrong if the father says, "I will share the burden of her maintenance in post-marriage life with you to some extent". 

Hence I believe, taking and giving dowry be made legal so that it remains a transparent transaction between two families and society witnessing marriage and so that if any dispute arises, the legal recourse will not go in the direction of false 498A cases but in the direction of civil proceedings, like recovering the dowry money through a civil suit which does not involve tensions and harrassment for men.

Why men cannot file false cases against women if they apprehend that women are going to file 498A cases?  They too can file a attempt to murder (false case) against a woman (bride) saying she mixed poison in milk and tried to give it to her MIL to kill her? She is alone in husband's family.  There will be 10 witnesses of all the family members of husband's family giving evidence to court to that effect.  Why don't they do it?  Why only women file false 498A cases?  Women have courage to file false cases and men are wearing bangles?  I don't think so.

Anybody can file a case no matter it is true case or false case.  Why only women are filing false cases against men, why not men against women?  They lack courage?  We know there is something in it.  Some justification in it. That is "recovery of dowry". That is why 498A cases are there. 

"My question exactly-why does a woman marry when she does not want to deal with a husband, inlaws etc. A woman who has such attitude can make other choices and does not have to deal with this. That is what I pointed out. Marriage is not a necessity."

Very modern Mr. Balla.  You want a woman to stand her feet getting educated, doing her own job.  And you want that a woman be not married and be bothered by husband, inlaws etc and shall make "other choices" to deal with this.  You are also saying marriage is not a necessity.  So your vision is that all women shall be educated and not marry any man at all.  If all women are educated then no man will get a woman to marry.  So they will also remain without marriage.  What kind of social order you are envisaging for India?  Men and women making money like machines not depend on anybody for anything and treat s*x and child as a biological need and men and women living without families and marriages.

You need to live in America, not in India.  Even America is too backward for you.

 Ha now you point out a glaring problems of law. I agree with that to a large extent. The country hides behind a facade of goodness when all it doing is making idiotic laws.

But as the law stands it is illegal to give. So why should they be let off? Change dowry laws and make it legal as long as it is transparent. Such dowry must be used for household expenses and accounted for during the time of marriage. If money given as dowry is used for the household expenses to the benefit of the household and accounted for it, need not be returned. If such laws are made that is fine. Record what is given as dowry. If the girls family gives something for her only-then record the streedhan. This haphazard laws with a facade is the problem. Saner laws are always welcome.

But that is not the case. The problems started to get worse with improper dowry laws that was not based on reality. The government framed harsh laws to prevent the bride burning at the time. In fact several times even SC has said they can be tried for murder and not ncessarily 304b.

Prenups record the same. Then filing 406, 498a can be eliminated. If divorce is made saner and transparent based on current realities-it will induce clarity and hence could be beneficial to both marriage institution and to society. The government must give up this idea of 'protecting woman' and think about empowering her to be self dependent, if need be. That is empowerment in true sense.

Government makes laws.When there is a problem with current law, they are making more senseless laws. Government should concentrate on proper implementation.

Again it is not right for a woman who is capable to sit at home and idling away and claiming maintenance. There is no two things about it.

Make divorce easier and implement time frames for deciding divorce. No one needs to stay with abusive spouse. I use spouse because a woman s perfectly capable of being abusive. Only in wonder la of government is all women are good! Giving maintenance to such abusive spouse is an abomination and must be eliminated.

The questions now would be:

1) If dowry is made legal and transparent.

2) If streedhan is recorded and is transparent.

3) The way these are spent is recorded.

4) If she can claim the same in the event of divorce.

5) She is allowed to marry post divorce.

What is the problem?

People do think about pros and cons when marrying. Educated/ earning woman with capabilities of managing a home is most desirable. A woman who has good attitude and well mannered is most desired. It is the same for a man. It is upto each spouse to raise their value to be desirable. If not, marriage breaks. False claims and maintenance are not solutions.

Prenups solves a lot of the problems and prevent exploitation of either party.

 In the light of the way things are going maybe they should. But the question is are the girls side going to be arrested immediately? Maybe that will become the new counter trend!

Such dowry must be used for household expenses and accounted for during the time of marriage. If money given as dowry is used for the household expenses to the benefit of the household and accounted for it, need not be returned. If such laws are made that is fine.

Whatever you talk reveals your mind.  I am not saying we should sit with paper and pen at the end of every night to calculate how much of the dowry amount has gone into the expenses of the woman who stepped into house.  That way your house becomes a Hotel not a home.  When one gets rid of the propensities of a Vysya, the third varna in the hierarchy of Varnas that Manu had suggested, then one stops thinking like that.

Marriage is not a contract for maintenance and mutual rendering of services but to achieve spiritual goals of attaining Union of souls by husband and wife.  Religion prescribed Ashrama Vyavastha for it.  One whose mind has not developed into that of a Brahmana (not a caste but a person having a certain set of propensities), will have conflicts with wife relating to money.  One who had not got rid of Vasanas (the propensities of past life which reflect in anger, hatred, jealousy, resentment etc) will have troubles with wife.  To get rid of these vasanas marriage provides a platform to practise religion.  That is the aim of marriage and institutions of family.

Read "colors of perception" in https://www.citehr.com/294003-new-law-government-india-3.html?status=closed. 

Hmmm truly one can read minds on what they write. It seems to me that you are living in wonder land. But the world doesn't work that way. If want to get rid of all vasanas- one can be a buddha. That is ones choice too! You got to deal with reality and not be in wonderland! You are again confusing things with ideal vs reality.

In your wonderland maybe there is  no greed, jealosy, hatred, anger, vengeance, women are all good and men are all bad! You do live in Satya yug!

I don't deal with fantasies. Thank you!