The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010

@Mr.Arup

Someone asked me Compensation for what? Well compensation for lost opportunities because the woman was either juggling with multiple work burden and could not climb up the ladder of success as fast as husbands did, or majority of women left the option of choosing the career or opted for home based jobs because some wanted only housewives whose work anyways is considered as non productive/non cash work. 

I say systemic because it was not that patriarchal values were prevalent only in ancient india they are very much there in the contemporary India: both in Rural and Urban areas. Now my take is this that women also need to have equal share in their paternal /maternal property, and here I agree with Arup ji 100 percent that girl children and women need to have good education and more importantly enabling environment in their paternal/maternal homes to exercise choice in the sector of education and employment and whether or not and when they want to get married. Women who are on their own feet, in many cases leave their jobs or settle for the less lucrative jobs to what we call settling down with the family. And that's where women's CVs become patchy, and a rough terrain, with lot of gaps which gender neutral employers would not like!

Well, this is not the case. The same men( I am not referring to this man or that man or any man in this forum, it's a generic and very contexual expression)  who are now resisting maintenance would have very well suppressed their sisters or wives education, and prospects of good employment. In the houses of the same men who malign women and call them by names: one can pick up so many names maligning women from this very website--some girls would have gotten married under heavy pressure, it is when thier own daughters and sisters are in troubled marriages, that they would understand why for women compensation /maintenance is a question of surviving with dignity and it is their  entitlement for nurturing human resources back home when husband was free to fly high.

The gender stereotyping and strict gender based division of labour which govern the relationship between women and men is still a common feature in india, nay in the South Asia on the whole. 

I do not get fluttered now when I read privy purse and many such other expression. I remain amused by them, after all these comments are embedded in the very contexts we are living in and all contexts are gendered in nature.

The well this is not the case does not make any sense. I inserted some more sentences later, so delete it when you are reading it. I mean, well this is not the case part of the para does not now fit into the contest. Just start from The same men....

Why can't we have only one forum on this site for this issue of The Marriage laws amendment bill 2010' presented by Hon Mr. Moily in RS. It would be easy to read different thaughts and opinions on this issue in a single forum.

I have simple questions to all ladies:

Que.: Are Family Laws not for common masses (rural as well as urban) ?


Que.: Does rural women who are in population majority educated and were working in a salaried job and have ambition to climb ITC's corporate ladder etc. etc. ?


Then why juggling thoughts comes as RG writes which means you are giving arguments from urban women's point of view and forcing it to rural women too whereas the case in hand is opposite !.

What ambition we are talking here of rural women in relation to their farmer husband ?


What choice of career we are talking here about rural women who is not educated first of all and second she has no other option other than to sire child for him and do homebased work ?


Why pick throughts of 32% urban women and simultaneously pick throughts (status) of 68% rural women and then say women are oppressed ...c'mon this line of argument is faulty RG !

We talk of ambitions and fault and no fault theory and property division from husbands home but not of ladies own home and we forget that our marrige laws based on fault theory is too good to be true what is required is implementation in its strict terms (sections / clauses) and yet add up more and more amendment based on urban class ambitions neglecting the rural class which needs implementation of family law first so that there is balance of reliefs nationwide.


Many people here may not know that until 1969 the US also had the same fault based divorce system that India has and this had caused the same sort of issues that India has like perjury, mudslinging in courts 9only difference there and here is that they took perjury cases first to filter out genuine cases and flase cases to balance workload of courts whereas here perjury in family law is avoided / delayed so that both spouse get tired in court battles and then come to table only for settlements and now great Indian family courts give signature to a consented Decree this is the only role now left of Indian family courts !).


Till then the most popular allegation for divorce was cruelty (which was then unavailable in New York). For example, in 1950, wives pleaded "cruelty" as the basis for 70% of San Francisco divorce cases. Wives would regularly testify to the same pitiful (and often false) facts: their husbands swore at them, hit them, and generally treated them terribly. Arey bhai pick up case studies from various US jurisprudence to check verocity of these saying yourself.


This procedure was described by California Supreme Court justice Stanley Mosk as:

"Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the "innocent" spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed "cruel."


Now, let us examine that "No-fault" divorce was pioneered in the United States by the State of California when Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the Family Law Act of 1969 on September 4, 1969 (effective January 1, 1970).The Act abolished California's common law action for divorce and replaced it with the proceeding for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. The grounds of irreconcilable differences were accepted as true, based on the assertions of one of the parties to the marriage, and thus the Family Law Act of 1969 eliminated the showing-of-fault requirements to obtain a divorce both for spouses seeking a divorce by mutual consent, and in cases where only one of the parties to the marriage wants a divorce.


So the Indian law is a step in the right direction in current form. This law will reduce perjury and also will reduce unnecessary mudslinging as waste of the court's time.

1) 3 year separation period is too much I say as soon as folks come with IrBM kick both of them out with a Decree in hand the very second, no time for property division, financial hardship n blah blah otherwise what is the difference between regular GI Jane and Amendment going to be.


2) Both Husband and wife must be able to seek relief for financial hardship should be there (here rural classes which constitute majority of women population in India are kept in mind when so said).


Any further law of the world mud slugging matters you can come up to justify for and against the practicality of family law in current form and why we need more and more amendments when already existing family law is sufficient only if correctly implemented by legal experts  first then by their clients only to the point of setteling scores then welcome contentiously !
 

@ Arup ji,

I read page 9 some of your wise saying and here are my painful verbose;

Idiot humor is a humor well taken no doubt about it as being a watermelon a Tenali Rama only thing to see is who falls on whom  - a wife's (maintenance) knife on a watermelon or watermelon on wife's (maintenance) knife demand but ultimately the Tenali Rama is the one who is going to be in great demand is it not so to speak:-)

Kahani wahi hai sahab, when in Court if I say "yes" to a que. of a Judge then it is contempt and if I say "no" then it is construted as perjury so better to fight it out rither way ismy theory in practise.... 

Now as asked by your greatself Tenali Rama's views on 13 D and 13 E painfully as follows;

On 13 (D)

Basically above section is clearly motivated on assumption that a wife subsists on income of husband, and it is duty of husband to financially support wife. There is absolutely no recourse to husband who married a higher earning wife, that his financial hardship be taken care of by wife after IrBM divorce.

The above provision is clearly gender biased, and given the fact that feminists are demanding division of matrimonial property also to be added into IrBM clauses, it will add to demands placed upon men in marriages. Further, the fact that there was no need to have such a clause to be introduced, since in any case HMA S. 25 already deals with Permanent Alimony and Maintenance. S. 25 HMA covers whole of HMA and after addition of S. 13 C, it will continue to cover S. 13 C also. If at all it is required to be very explicit, a simple insertion can be added into S. 25 HMA to allow it to cover petitions made under S. 13 C also.

On 13 (E)

Overall it does not seem to break new ground, but the interesting thing here is the statement: financial capacity of the parties to the marriage.

What this means is that income of both husband and wife should be used to decide on child support and they should share it. It is not mentioned explicitly but given that there are judgments already that both parents have to share child support co-extensively (Re.: SC in Padmja Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Sharma and Re.: Troxel Vs. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 64-65 (2000) and also read some of my says in child custody and child maintenance laws here in some of the past LCI thread posts.

Hope above court buffoonery solves some of the myths against men who are anyhow beast of burden first for a wife (urban), then beast from their old sick parents, and if all these two were not enough then from their children and when all these were somehow manageable then last nail is struck from the great Indian society who now loving calls a Tenali Rama impotent ! Jai hon aab argument mei rakha kya hai janab …….. koi maintenance word ko detrogetory kahata hai aur usse substitute karo compensation kar key kahata hai kahani kaha ja rahi hai woh Suresh Ram nei pahley hi kaha tha baki aap saab gyani hai yaha............gyan batiey fir

‘Compensation for what?’

In reply to that Ms. Renuka ji’s, answers are as bellow, which taken from her text, same reproduced bellow with underline the points.

Someone asked me Compensation for what? Well, compensation for lost opportunities because the woman was either juggling with multiple work burden and could not climb up the ladder of success as fast as husbands did, or majority of women left the option of choosing the career or opted for home based jobs because some wanted only housewives whose work anyways is considered as non productive/non cash work.

I say systemic because it was not that patriarchal values were prevalent only in ancient India they are very much there in the contemporary India: both in Rural and Urban areas. Now my take is this that women also need to have equal share in their paternal /maternal property, and here I agree with Arup ji 100 percent that girl children and women need to have good education and more importantly enabling environment in their paternal/ maternal homes to exercise choice in the sector of education and employment and whether or not and when they want to get married. Women who are on their own feet, in many cases leave their jobs or settle for the less lucrative jobs to what we call settling down with the family and that's where women's CVs become patchy, and a rough terrain, with lot of gaps which gender neutral employers would not like! Well, this is not the case. The same men( I am not referring to this man or that man or any man in this forum, it's a generic and very contexual expression)  who are now resisting maintenance would have very well suppressed their sisters or wives education, and prospects of good employment. In the houses of the same men who malign women and call them by names: one can pick up so many names maligning women from this very website -some girls would have gotten married under heavy pressure, it is when their own daughters and sisters are in troubled marriages, that they would understand why for women compensation /maintenance is a question of surviving with dignity and it is their entitlement for nurturing human resources back home when husband was free to fly high. The gender stereotyping and strict gender based division of labour which govern the relationship between women and men is still a common feature in india, may in the South Asia on the whole. I do not get fluttered now when I read Privy Purse and many such other expression. I remain amused by them, after all these comments are embedded in the very contexts we are living in and all contexts are gendered in nature.

---------------------------------------------------------

Not unable to follow the meaning of these:

Malign –?.

call them by names -?

men who malign women and call them by names -?

one can pick up so many names maligning women from this very website -?

--------------------------------------------------------

1)  Lost of opportunities.

2) Deprive from choosing the career.

3) Non productive/non cash work.

4) Equal share in their paternal /maternal property.

5) Women need good education and employment by providing an enabling environment in their paternal/maternal homes.

6) Women leave their jobs or settle for the less lucrative jobs to what we call settling down with the family.

7) Gender biased employers would not like to appoint a woman.

8) It is the men, in general who are now resisting maintenance would have very well suppressed their sisters or wives education, and prospects of good employment

9) Gender based division of labour.

10) Privy Purse not fluttered but amusing.

11) All such comments in this contexts are gender biased.

 Here is my submission:- 

Let us examine how far a husband responsible for the above points.

 1) Lost of opportunities.  A question naturally comes that which opportunity a female lost due to her marriage? She herself answered it as bellow.

 In reply to that Ms. Renuka ji’s, answers are as bellow, which taken from her text

 2) Deprive from choosing the career – before marriage, generally this issue settled by the parties. Everyone has the right to chose according to one’s own choice. If choices are different, then marriage should not be there. But after marriage saying, that, I deprived from such and such is nothing but a foolishness. A question was before the person, carrier or marriage? She chose marriage. How her husband responsible for such depraivation?

Sometimes men also do this mistake.

3) Non productive/non cash work. – Yes a wife has to do some domestic work, like cooking, cleaning, etc. SC already said that a housewife not bound to do so. Therefore there is no compulsion on it. As she do domestic work therefore compensation? If she has such mentality, let her stop doing this, not only she, but the entire family will suffer.

A husband also do some important domestic work. What about it? Who will pay him for it?

It cannot be a matter of compensation/ maintenance by a husband to his wife.

Joint efforts of both the spouses, moves the wheel of the family. What one will do if one wheel of his car became unserviceable or permanently damaged?  Whether he will keep the car without repair or he will change the damaged wheel? Answer known to us.

THERE LIES THE LOGIC OF ‘IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE’.

4) Equal share in their paternal /maternal property. – It is already there, in the act.

The only dispute now exists that – married woman can not want the division of the property. When the division will be, married women will get her share. It is true that, sometimes brothers or father/mother deprive them from it.

But it does not satisfy the logic of maintenance by a husband to his wife. A husband not responsible at all for this.

Here I want to say that, a female firstly deprived at her parental home, by various ways & thereafter at her matrimonial home. 

The issue with the discussion about IBM 2010 is that ....

The Bill is still in the making. If someone, who really wants to save the institution of marriage and not bring the american culture in India by virtue of this bill, would honestly raise the objections, doubts etc and also its effects on the to society.

But BEWARE... This bill is not yet passed. Even though a few members are raising the objections so as to prevent this bill from getting passed to become a law.... please don't be under illusion that the Hon. Mr Moily's team (or Hon. Mr Shinde behind the stage) is not reading any such forums!! and that they would not ensure that this IBM gets passed to become a law by inserting all those clauses so as to circumvent all the objections raised against it all over India!!

But I genuinely feel that Yet it is NOT going be easy for those 'I wanna run away without any excuse' category of spouses who just want to get rid of the 'marital bond for the lifetime, in the thick & thin' that they themselves had entered into 'willingly'.

I request all those, who are really 'pro' to this kind of bill amendment, to ponder on problems of those 'Who won't get the divorce easily even on the grounds of IBD'!! What about those hapless victims? if cohabitation/reconciliation does not occur after dismisal of Div Petition against the petitioner!!!

@ Shakshi

While agreeing to yet again statutory caution I would say it would have been most decent a democratic call taken by Mr Moily and Mr. Shinde et all to call for "public opinion" before putting the IrBM Bill in Upper and or Lower House ?.


Anyhow all these comments and many more on Family Laws I as a responsible citizen of my free India have already directly sent to Mr Moiley as well as to various Parliament Standing committee time and again as regular dispatch posts from a aam adami so what is left as fear from a oppressing State ! 

The only one law I want in Family Law strictly applied is "perjury as weapon of mass destruction (WMD) in family law (Amendment) Bill, 2011" and "vexatious and frivolous litigation Law Bill - already recommended by Law Commission" irrespective of genders and all family law related disputes will settle in a fortnight (PERIOD). But then we would then need next a Prison (capacity) Reforms Bill, 2010 introduced........... yah it is also overdue :-) 

MS.Sakshi.mind

I AM ASKING YOU A STRIGHT QUESTION, PLEASE ANSWER IT STRIGHTLY. YOU MUST HAVE READ THE SAID BILLS.

NOW WHAT YOU WANT, WHAT IS IN YOUR MIND THAT -  THE BILL SHOULD PASS STRAIGHT, AS IT IS OR NOT?

@ rup ji,

Com'n what answer u expecting because the women flatterers did not get favours from feminist women as they expected and because more and more feminist women are becoming frigid hence throw a caution that your message is being read by Mr Shinde and Mr Moily ha ha.

ARUN JI,

IN MY VIEW, FAMINISM NOT A BAD THINGH, THEY WORK FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UPRISING THE FEMALES; THEY FIGHT AGAINST THE VARIOUS IMBALANCES BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN.

BUT IN INDIA, A ' SO CALLED FAMINISM ' DEVELOPED, UNDER THE DISGUISE OF 'FAMINISM'.

'FAMINISM' DONOT DIFFER WOMAN TO WOMAN, THEY WORK IN FAVOUR OF ' WOMAN - IN GENERAL '. THEY DO NOT CARE WHETHER FAMILY KINTING WILL BE INTACT OR NOT.  THEY ARE NOT AGAINST THE FAMILY SYSTEM, BUT AT ANY STAGE,  IF IT APPEARS THAT - 'FAMILY SYSTEM VS WOMAN UPLITMENT"  THEY PREFER WOMAN UPLIFTMENT AND LET THE FAMILY SYSTEM GO TO HELL.

'SO CALLED FAMINISM ' ON THE CONTRAY CARE THE FAMILY KNITTING AND SYSTEM. THERE INTENTION IS TO EXPLOIT THE FAMILY SYSTEM FINANCIALY AND IMOTIONALY. THEY DIFFER WOMAN TO WOMAN. THERE TERGET POINT / FOCAL POINT IS THE ' WIFE ' NOT THE 'WOMAN IN GENERAL'. IT IS A PRODUCT OF THE CONTROVERCY OF ART 15(1) & (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

5) Women need good education and employment by providing an enabling environment in their paternal/maternal homes.

I agree.

Not matrimonial, but her parental home mainly responsible for it.

At the time of marriage settlement, it should be cleared.

Therefore a husband not responsible for it.