Whether new proposed marraiage law another whip to husbands?

Good luck! see ya-when you get a hefty 100,000/- fine from SC.

I have read all the laws many times. Yours seems wishful thinking. Alll these laws were made with that wishful thinking.  The west has already considered rolling back in the direction I was saying. It is not there, yet.India is only making the same mistakes what west or at least in US people are realizing and correcting.

BTW I am smart enough to realize that SC doesn't make laws!

Hey never mind, please go ahead on that SC thing. Keep us posted.

Read articles 141 and 142 of the constitution of India @ bhima, will tell you the SC can do and what it can't do in terms of making laws .. I need to become physically stronger and to make my medical condition stable enough to take my case and my views to SC, will let you know when I do.. In the meantime do some reading dude, you seem to have an opinion on everything but very weak on facts..

Sure, I get a lawyer for that! Maybe, just maybe, you do need to read those articles again, to be safe!

@ bhima, I have been arguing my own cases for over one year now, I even went as counsel for myself for bail plea, which is unheard of in bail cases, so I would think I know by now what I am doing. And I must be in good knowledge of laws and facts if I am able to deal with courts and police myself for over a year. When I go to the SC with my case, I will let you know if they slap me with a fine, and if they don't I'll give you a treat.. He he..

https://ibnlive.in.com/news/central-bill-ignores-mens rights/243329-60-119.html

Central Bill ignores mens rights

BANGALORE: The approval of Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, under the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act by the Union Cabinet, has not gone well with the Men’s Right Organisation which claims that the Bill is biased and favours the fairer s*x. Office-bearers of the Save India Family Foundation and Men’s Right Organisation on Tuesday condemned the move for ‘ignoring’ their opposition to the Bill.

President of the Foundation Kumar Jahgirdar said, “Inclusion of property in family disputes and divorces are a major concern as the cases of divorce have shot up and the rate of suicide among men has increased over the years.

This Act is anti-male. The law talks about women rights and has none for men.

Also, the law has a clause where courts will be empowered to snatch away half of the property of the husband and give it away to the wife.”

He added that women could misuse the Bill for ‘selfish gains’.

The organisations have now put forth several demands to the Union Government to reconsider the law that was amended against the ‘interest of men’s community’.

I agree with the news posted by arup sir ..the new bill is completely Anti -Men..

@ arup & aishwarya - I don't agree, I think that the amendments are more favourable to women than men but they will benefit both parties as IRBM clause will encourage matrimonial cases to finish off faster.. Also that the property clause is not an automatic 50% share, but would be decided on merits by the courts on a case to case basis....

@ mirage.

I too said that it is anti men , which means it favours women as u said..no difference..hmmmmm?

yeah i kinda agree with u abt the technicalities of tht ie the legal clauses and break up of the whole law..that may favour both the parties to some extent only..

but majorly i believe that property related feature and the no appeal thing if women files a divorce  is completely anti men law ..

@ aishwarya, pro women does not necessarily mean anti men. If you look at existing divorce law, women had already more grounds for divorce than men. This just gives one additional ground for divorce to both men and women. Also it gives men the added option to give a lump sum amount instead of alimony for the rest of their lives. So the amendments are more favourable for women than for men. That is not the same as being anti men..

For me ,its my view of the things that happen or happening and might be for others too ..

.the recent change is for sure not favouring men in any way..its only that they are giving and giving out even more..so how can it favour men? ..and whatever that doesnt "favour one" is always regarded to be "anti"..its how i percieve it to be..it may be different for u but i take it in this way..

@ aishwarya, see most members here have not gone into the legal ramifications of the amendments in detail. Earlier property share used to be factored into alimony also, if now women actually get a share lump sum then the alimony would be reduced accordingly. So that factor does not favour women over men per se. And both parties get an additional ground for divorce above the current grounds. So that is also not necessarily lopsided for one party. Only thing is that men do not get a right to appeal. But then what people forget is that a divorce is the lesser of two evils versus an unhappy marriage. For both men and women. These amendments will speed up the divorce process, allow people to move on with their lives faster, and discourage frivolous litigation by women as it will lead to a quick and sure divorce, and women will be more thoughtful and not act rashly, which is today the maximum cause of false litigation and breaking of families. What do you think?

ummmmmm still i may not agree tht much for the fact that it may lead to more frivolous divorces, even on petty issues women or men might knock the door of the courts to get rid of each other..it may speed up the process but only when all the porperty alimony, child, and other issues are sorted out..still it may take time..and some may just do it for procuring a good easy money or property ...

i believe it will be now, when people would actually give no thought before breaking up as its quick and sure divorce..

still id put am not aware about deep legal points of the amendments and my knowledge is superficial upon which i dwell mostly about the current issue..

@ aishwarya, good to see that you're honest enough to admit that your knowledge is not extensive about the subject, unlike some people in this thread, at this point no one can comment for sure, as these amendments are just cleared by the cabinet, the final shape of then if and when they become law is anyone's guess right now. Btw why do you think that any issue in a marriage is petty? If the issues are stronger than the marriage then how can they be petty? And they are not substantial then it's better to divorce than to keep up a shambolic marriage? In my experience issues are just the symptoms but the real cause is the temperament differential of the two parties. Isn't it?

@mirage

when i say petty ,i mean some baseless and pointless issues that have solution in some form and have scope for improvement or modification ...

As for me there is nothing as big as life and death scenario be it marriage or any other forte of life.

I dont know why it has to be like if something happens a fight a big fight , why someone has to go for one and only solution of breaking up..it doesnt make sense to me at all..things can change..give some time to the relation, or do more fighting nothing bad in that to the end..some day things do change and moods & temperaments change with time..it needs a chilling period and if not there's no problem with putting on and on with a fight too..no harm..

but every road of disagreement or tempramental difference should not lead to breaking up of the two..it should be completely ruled out as an option..and may be this is how one can stay put with with the realtionship he or she is in...

having options of breaking up or getting someone else is the major issue in this but if u dont have it mind or thought ..i bet no one can ever give up on  a realtion anyday..but its just when both have this kind of thinking alike..not that one has to bear everything in mind..hainaaaaaa...

Mutual divorse for first motion is completed and MOU also attached with that

In Mou it was mentioned "There will be no claim in form of cash or kind of property in future".

If she not agreed in second motion.

" is still the MOU is valid if suppose she claims anything on property".