Whether new proposed marraiage law another whip to husbands?

@ kumar, child support means money for child, alimony means maintenance to wife, same in USA, same in India, same everywhere else, what's the problem in understanding?

@ bhima, your comment about admin tells me you have taken out the wrong way. Bank robbery and family law is like comparing apples and oranges. There is a distinction between morality and practicability. The courts can't decide whether the man is wrong or woman. They have not lived with the parties in their marital homes. They need to implement certain yardsticks, and finance is the most crucial and the most easily practicable. Hence the rules about maintenance etc. And you forget that eighty percent of India is rural. You are living in the shelter of education and facility. Just that you are able to use the net for your posts is indicative of that. Just think if you apply your arguments to rural part, how much of justice would be done. Previous post was not a criticism of you, but a suggestion to channelize energy better. Dude you can argue til the cows come home, but how much of a difference would you have made to people. Whereas if you talk about law you can benefit others much more..

@ Mirage..I appreciate your version for liberalised views as adopted in U.S..Citing example of U.S is very much relevant but whether such laws such as 498-A/DV are there in U.S in their code or whether it was ever been passed that it is made aginst men for nailing down man just on the basis of formal complaint made by married woman or is there any law there in U.S which covers the relatives of husband under the perview of 498-A/DV Act..These laws are very much biased and has been abused for decades for dragging more and more money

You talk about the share in husband property, if the husband in eraning more than that of wife but if hsuband id comparatively poor or has poor economic striata , the hsuband will not get any share from wife property..Whether such rules/law are also there in U.S/U.K?

If you talk about equality then it should be absolute in every sense

Infact I really appreciate that you has contested cases "in person" you probably has more exposure than all of us..Kindly reveal it so that probably we could learn more aboit the same

@mentally, DV is there in the USA. 498a is not there in USA because there are no dowry deaths in USA. Husband can get compensation from wife in India under HMA u/s 24. Many husbands have got it in India..

@ Mirage..I am apologetic to say that India is not U.S and there is no case in which Husband has ever get the maintanace or shre from the wife property.There was case in U.P in which unemployed Husband was awrded Rs 2000/- p.m by UP court which was set aside by the Appellate Court

As far as Dowry is concerned, there is law on giving dowry which was once charged aginst the father on the Bride but was set aside by the Applate Court..In India, Laws favors towards the women.Probably the law was made for protecting the weker sections of the society but whether they have aviled it or not? But surely middle class women had abused it so much that the Govt through Law Commission has been making it for reconisderation

@ mentally.. There are cases in which man has got maintenance from woman, but very rare. But if there is the provision for the man to get compensation from woman and the courts don't award it, then who is at fault? The law makers or the judges? Usually the laws in India are good but it is the police, judge, court staff, lawyer nexus which manipulates the system and gives law makers bad rep. From my own experience as party in person I have seen all this first hand, from peon to judge, from constable to DCP, every one wants their own cut, the only weapon to use against them is courage and knowledge. And it is possible to defeat them, I know because I have at times..

I agree! But imagine that Govt is adding fuel to fire by proposing more gender biased laws.........................plenty of them are already in force. Now this latest one will ruin him totally.

Can u expect any law in this era.........which says

1) So & So ground can be taken by person of FEMALE GENDER ONLY, NOT MALE to seek divorce

2) MALE LOSES HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST DUE TO HIS GENDER ONLY

3) Court will decide how much to loot this MAN without hearing his side!

& ppl say, its a welcome step. WHY ITS NOT GENDER NEUTRAL??

1) IRBM if made a ground for divorce.........why MAN is kept out to seek remedy based on this

2) If anybody (man/woman) takes any ground 4 divorce, the opposite party shud have right to CONTEST so that truth comes out. O'wise ITS AN EXTORTION RACKET

@galsober, first even men have the right to use this ground for divorce, not only woman, woman just has the right to contest, that's all. Second the court will hear both sides before deciding what share of property (loot) to give the wife. Pls get your facts right..

This law is anti men.

1) Suppose wife wants divorce husband cannot oppose and wife takes her share of marital property. Who decides what that share would be?

2) If wife wants to move out because she has found a better deal, husband cannot oppose this, even if he loves his wife and has done everything in his capacity to live a married life. In other words a husband who is genuine and honest about keeping the marriage going has no options. The wife gets to keep the child as well in most cases.

3) However the option is not available for husband. Even if he dislikes a bad wife, wants divorce, she can drag the cases and extort. This law has made that easier. Previously husband could have dragged the case as well denying the wife a quick divorce. But with that leverage gone-the husband is at a disadvantage.

I don't see how this could be good for men.

@ bhima, good to see that you have transferred your lucid arguments to law from morality. First, the courts will decide the share of property on merits, if they feel wife is financially comparable to man then wife would not get anything. Second, the very fact that wife wants out, is indicative that man was not able to keep her happy. Third, by dragging any case on, no one benefits in the long run. People drag cases when they are young, and when they get older almost all regret it as a waste of time. I have seen many parties in court expound this myself. Last of all, why is it thought by you that after divorce and after filing any gender biased case wife would not find it ten times harder to move on, get remarried etc. Beats all logical real life experience..

Mirage, Please don't patronise me.

If you cannot get it that laws are not /cannot be done in vaccum and must have basis in morality-there is nothing to talk further.

Financial comparison is a short cut adopted by law, that is all. The government with its illogical and biased laws is only making things worse. You are basing your arguments on feminist agendas. Femisnists want only property acquired during marriage to be the sole criteria. It does not matter to them who contributed and by how much. They want us to assume that they contributed equally. This does not wash.

Why should a man care, if after divorce, wife has it ten times or hundred times harder, to move on? Is she not an adult? Indian laws are treating woman as though they are children -who cannot fend for themselves. That is wrong. Divorce must be clean. Responsibility must end when they divorce. Woman can and should take responsibility for herself.

By dragging case, especially,in case of a rich husband, she is trying to extort money from him-because she is preventing him from moving on.That is blackmailing! Why should a husband care if she is getting older or younger? Is he getting any younger? So, in your words if wife drags the case for 15 years starting at age 19-is it OK that husband is harassed for 15 years? The fact that wife is not happy with this marriage may indicate wife wants to find the next big thing. It may be greed driving her. there could be hundred reasons. But why is it the responsibility of a husband to keep wife happy and not vice versa? In that case why did she marry, in the first place? She could have married that next big thing maybe? Or the one after that?

You are entitled to your views but there are strong arguments against those.

Your argument for maintenance  falls flat, as well. If some husbands want to give their wife maintenance- they can do so on their own, voluntarily. No one can stop them! They might even want to throw their money on the streets or in garbage can. That is their prerogative. Your arguments are based in feminsim-which many cannot agree.. Men have been tricked.

 Laws making anything mandatory, must have a basis. The basis must be on what is right or wrong.That is morality. If laws are not based on what is right or wrong, then such laws are tyranny. Just because NAZIs made laws against Jews doesn't make them valid, as it is immoral. No one said hey, that was the law of the land so let it go! Laws that are biased, must be challenged and corrected. The basis of such challenge is morality. No society that is immoral can survive. A woman who despite being capable, invalids /incapacitates herself-should not be entitled for maintenance.Educated and capable wives are still given maintenance! Rehabilitative maintenance is valid under circumstances, where wife has ceased to work (documented) based on husband's insistence. This is obviously to help her get on her feet. Such nonsense as maintaining her lifestyle etc is irrational and has no basis. It is her husband who got her there in the first place! In reality her contribution may be nothing.But law wants to assume she did and that too equally!  It is still important to note that each case has its own dynamics. IRBM attempts to take this away for husbands and makes it favorable to wife.

I agree there is some reality that should be taken into account. But the fact is-it is lopsided. Educated, capable and still non working wives who are getting maintenance is a clear example of how bad things are.

 The fact is courts are swamped and unable to decide the matters. That is where government need to fix the problem-which is not happening. Responsibilty of courts and governments are being conveniently trasferred to husbands under these laws-all in the name of women's rights (without responsbilities) and feminist agenda.

All this can be eliminated if marriage was made a contract rather than nebulous 'sacred' nonsense that it is now. The terms agreed to before marriage and held as a contract. Each will know their responsibilities and rights. It makes it easier for courts to decide.

If one brings rural areas into the picture as feminists have-are they saying that laws do not apply for rural areas? It is then governments inability. The ones affected by these lopsided laws are the urban males-males who are successful through their hardwork. This fact is often ignored and IRBM wants to make it concrete!

Men have been constrained by political correctness. They are branded as anti woman when they clearly are not. Asking for accountability and responsibility and equality is not a bad thing!These laws are making that accountability and responsibility one sided and biased.

This is a bad law in its current form.

Maybe the government's thinking is that: by making these lopsided laws they would encourage female population growth, reduce female infanticide, set right gender ratios etc That is not what is happening!

It may not be far when time comes where not only divorced woman might have a difficult time marrying but even single woman.

IRBM only makes OK to file on no fault grounds. The hitherto 'grounds for divorce' had lots of flaws and this amendemnt is to recognize 'dead marriages' and end them. Here also the husbands are cheated because wife can challenge but husband cannot. This is no law to cheer. The law seems to be made to humour feminists that is all.

1) If she can get divorce at whim-then wife can walk out of  any allegedely 'abusive' marriage, when she wants it.  The need for proving cruelty/ desertion etc is out. So there should be no need for laws dealing with these? If she does file these cases and fail to prove-should there not be penalty? This is especially so for 498a and DVA.

2) IRBM has come to bottomline that many such alleged 'abuses' are fake/ difficult to prove.The bottomline is wife wants money!

3) This makes marriage partners to keep secrets and not to trust each other, even more. Love cannot be enforced. Under mistrust, love cannot blossom or if there is one, it will fade. There will be more divorces. 

It will be a mess.

@bhima, dude I will answer both your queries here only. To respond to the first one, I just have this to say, that if you pontificate then people will patronise you. And about Nazi's, dude the whole world condemned, whereas India's marital laws are same or similar to the rest of the civilized world. Hence you are again comparing apples and oranges. But by doing so you will never be able to rationalize adequately. Now on to your second post. With the new grounds for divorce, the wife will be able to oppose in very rare cases. The only ground is financial hardship. Wife will not be able file any maintenance case on the man and then claim financial hardship. So out go all the frivolous litigations that are so prevalent right now. Plus she would have to prove extreme poverty. And if the girl is very poor then she deserves to be compensated by the man. So it seems to me that you have not read the amendments properly by continually talking about the new grounds as bad for men. It indicates to me that you are a woman basher, hell bent on twisting facts to suit your purpose. Trust me dude, read my profile, no one would have suffered more thru an x wife and the system as me. But rather than become bitter which clearly many people on this site are, I have many girls in my family and friends who are normal, and I choose not to become bitter towards the system or girls, and plan to do something about both rather than churn out venomous garbage on sites.. I will explain in my next post, about what I plan to do..

PS @ bhima, have you read the HMA, DV, etc? The acts are available on the net for free. Read them and compare to the laws in rest of the countries, maybe you will see things different..

@ bhima, the laws are basically competent but need changes fast. One that 498a should be made compoundable and bailable. And mil should be able to file on dil also. DV should be made gender neutral and limitation to filing DV to up to six months after separation. That all marital disputes should be settled with in two years of filing. Lawyers should not be able to represent as counsel in family courts, unless party is illiterate. And so on. Now I plan to petition SC for all this when my health improves. It doesn't cost money if you are party in person. If you feel strongly about this you can petition the SC with your views. Unfortunately, I don't think the SC is going to entertain your views in their current form. Lastly, the laws are good, and need tweaking, but the main problem is the misuse and abuse of laws by lawyers, judges, court staff, police, and they are to do so cause of lack of transparency. Just the laws will not make any difference..