"Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" ground for Divorce gets cabinet nod- Another Legal Extortion tool for Wife. Mens rights organisation Ignored again
RELATED TV MEDIA COVERAGE OF SIFF IN 2010-2011
1. IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-BENEFICIAL OR NOT- P7 news 20jun10http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2010/06/ibm.html
2. IRRETRIEVABLE BREAKDOWN OF MARRIAGE-GROUND FOR DIVORCE-PROS&CONS-ON DD NEWS CHANNEL, EPISODE OF SHANIVAR CHARCHA-26jun2010
3. Should property be given to wife at the time of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Divorce case (THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010 – Panel discussions on DD News Aamne-samne-20feb11http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2011/02/should-property-be-given-to-wife-at.html
4. Irretrievable breakdown marriage as new proposed ground for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act and Feminist Abuse of IPC 498a, Domestic Violence, Child custody laws and Marital laws to Extort and blackmail husband and his family, a LIVE interactive panel discussion on p7 news Channel on Kanoon Special programme on 29 May 2011http://newsmanthan.blogspot.in/2011/05/irretrievable-breakdown-marriage-as-new.html
'MEN'S RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD BE CONSULTED BY THE GOVERNMENT'
by Rohit Karir 24 March, 2012
The union cabinet, on March 23, gave clearance to some changes in the Marriage Act via the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010. While women's rights organizations have largely supported the cleared amendments, Virag R Dhulia, Head, Gender Studies, of Confidare India, a men's rights community center, has voiced grave concern about men's rights not being protected enough.
Merinews: You personally went through a disturbing experience with your wife accusing you of taking dowry and spending two days in jail. But you maintain that the allegation was false as you did not ‘ask’ for dowry – it was given willingly. But then you also ‘accepted’ the dowry. You then filed a counter dowry case against your wife. Where do things stand today? Have you considered re-marrying?
Dhulia: We do not object to the ground of “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage” per se. If a relationship does not make a person happy, he/she should have every legal right to walk out of the relationship gracefully. That being said, it does not mean, the same step has to be achieved at the cost of the other person. Our objections particularly target property division clauses. This is a dangerous one. India is a complex society and definitely very different from the western society. In India, we still have a good mix of nuclear families, joint families, and the concept of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), etc. Still, there are large number of people who share common ancestral property. There may arise a lot of complications with this law coming in, which may even lead to more crime as people can go berserk when it comes to property. This law has the potential to wreak social havoc. Furthermore, the power of division of property wresting with the judiciary is far more dangerous provision. Indian judiciary is incompetent and people have lost faith on its integrity what with judges being caught cheating in exams and found indulging in massive corruption. This power will make a fish-market of the Indian criminal justice system especially in the arena of matrimonial disputes.
Merinews: The belief in the country persists that women, especial in rural and semi-urban areas, are not empowered enough and need protection by law when it comes to a husband not filing a counter divorce against his wife. Do you think this protection is required or is it being more misused than serving its purpose?
Dhulia: As the question itself says, it’s a belief. Some people believe in God, some do not. Can we have laws based on beliefs? There is a famous saying, “I may not die for my beliefs for they may not be true”. Jokes apart, laws must be based on actual ground research and data. The data is not available. In a country where only 3% of the population pays income tax, we can well imagine the condition of the Government when it comes to knowledge about its citizens. However, if we look at the suicide statistics, which include all areas – urban, rural, semi-urban, the story is clear. It’s the men who are suffering and not the women as men are committing suicides almost to the tune of 2 times compared to women, year over year, especially married men. Why would a young married man, full of life and aspirations, end his life? Something is definitely wrong which is being ignored. As far as economic problems in rural and semi-urban areas are concerned, it’s not a gender issue. It’s a social issue in which men suffer more as they are forced to bear the primary financial responsibility. Moreover, as of now, men’s rights organizations are still largely prevalent on the internet. Men in these areas do not have proper access to the Internet and thus they are not even aware that there is some help available. Hence, they suffer in silence and do not speak about their abuse fearing social ridicule. Women’s organizations are found more frequenting Pizza huts.
Merinews: Do you think the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 should contain more conditional clauses when it comes to allocation of property after dissolution of marriage?
Dhulia: This is a complex situation. We need to consider many factors such as the tenure of marriage, contribution of either partner towards the property, tenure during which the savings were made to build the property because property is never built overnight; it takes a lifetime’s savings to build a property. It will be foolish to think that a man can lose his property if his marriage breaks within months and he will lose his lifetime fortune. Moreover, now women will marry keeping this thing in mind and walk-out of marriages eyeing the man’s property. Men’s rights organizations should be consulted by the Government before finalizing the law and its clauses, else it might just end up annoying 50% of the population in order to appease the other half.
Merinews: Feminists suggest that marriage laws might appear to be loaded in favour of women as this gender finds it much more difficult to re-marry compared to men after a divorce. Do you think this compensates for leaving dangerous loopholes that can be exploited?
Dhulia: Statements of feminists need to be taken with a pinch of salt. For, from the way they are operating, it seems they are more inclined on harassing men than uplifting women. They leave genuine issues faced by women unaddressed like plight of widows, domestic violence faced by daughters in natal homes, and only focus on inventing ways to transfer tax-free wealth from husband to wife. But this method only promulgates parasitism in women and this law will become a legal channel for women to extort men. Earlier, it was only by lodging a false criminal complaint (under Section 498A) and getting few lakhs/millions from the man. Now, just file for divorce and walk away with a plush apartment.
Merinews: Some of the proposals in the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 seem to suggest that women are less devious than men, and men are out to harm the interests of women. Do you think this is case?
Dhulia: These proposals are a direct result of social misandry (hatred of males), which is an age-old social curse on men. Men face misandry day in and day out. Whether it is while working late night shifts so that women can go home early or taking more risks and endangering their lives or living in a society that celebrates anti-male and gender-biased laws. One more clause does not make much of a difference. It’s a different question altogether that there is absolutely no basis or data-backing for such claims. Such gender biases harm men beyond levels imaginable.
Merinews: Should pre-nuptial agreements be made mandatory for all couples in India? Will this address some of the heartache post dissolution of marriage?
Dhulia: Somehow Indians feels copying the West is a good idea. This may work as far as movies are concerned, but laws should strictly be made on the basis of our own societal constraints, structures and norms. Pre-nups may sound lucrative but we must keep in mind that when it comes to implementation, India has always underperformed. So, the best solution to this is that property matters must be kept completely away from marriage. Life will be much more peaceful then.
“According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a
husband’s plea for a divorce under the new “irretrievable
breakdown of marriage” clause, the husband will have no such
rights to oppose if the wife moves court on the same grounds.”
Confidare Research strongly condemn the upcoming “Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill” that was supposed to be tabled today before the Cabinet.
While the law empowers the wife to oppose the divorce at any point of time if the husband has filed for divorce, it restrains the husband from doing so when the wife has filed for the same.
This law also contains a clause by which courts will be empowered to snatch away half the property of husband and give it away to wife.
This law only talks about women’s rights and has no considerations whatsoever for men.
Men start fearing this law and stop buying real estate which adversely affects the economy of the country.
Husband has dependent parents and owns a single property and if 50% of that goes to wife post-divorce, how will the husband take care of his old parents? Is the concept of family restricted to only husband-wife in the Indian context?
What, if the family is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) owning a single joint property? Will the wife get 50% of that? What about other sibling’s share in it?
There is one more law in the pipeline – Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage Act), 2012 – which talks about making wife the co-owner of husband’s properties right at the time of marriage; then, why this law? Why is the Government hell bent on making redundant anti-male laws and convert marriage into an extortion industry thriving on men?
In a democratic law making process, objections raised by a particular group or individual cannot be ignored without any proper justification. The panel has failed to give any just and proper reason as to why the objections raised should not be considered.
As per Dowry Prohibition Act, any demand of cash/kind in relation to marriage is “Dowry”. Is not this law legalizing dowry to be paid to wife from husband under the cute name of “Financial Security of Wife”?
Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and cannot be disrespected under any circumstances. Current bill thoroughly violates it, as far as men are concerned.
Feminists are claiming that nearly 80% of women do not have a place to live post-divorce. This is completely false because no such study has ever been conducted. India does not have any standard data collected as to how many divorces are happening, of those how many own a house and how many do not, how many are nuclear, joint and HUF families. Without any such data in place, any claims made are just airy claims without any data. Formulating a law on airy data is dangerous.
If property division is to be done then wife’s share in her ancestral property must also be considered and then division must be done.
Duration of marriage must be a crucial factor of consideration. The difference between a 2 month marriage and a 20 year marriage must be clearly understood.
Property division must take into account contributions made by both the spouses and also the fact that the property was acquired from wealth earned post marriage and not from previous savings.
Any and all outstanding financial liabilities on the property like loan for property, loan against property, mortgage etc. must also be equally divided and wife must be made to be equally paid for it. If she is not working then she should get her share from her ancestral property.
Both the partners should have equal and unbridled right to oppose divorce and there should be no gender-bias in this.
There should not be any power wrested with the courts to decide upon property transfer or stalling of proceedings as the Indian judiciary is highly incompetent and has not shown positive trends favoring men when it comes to disposing cases. The Indian judiciary is highly anti-male and does not consider twice before ordering a man to either “sell his kidney” or “beg, borrow or steal” just to pay maintenance to his estranged wife. What is the guarantee that the same judiciary will make judicious decisions when it comes to this law?
Institute a National Commission for Men, that can systematically collect issues, concerns and problems of men, study them and recommend to the Govt. about measures to be taken to address those problems.
If the Govt. of India does not take these considerations seriously then we have only one message for the hardworking Indian men, who think putting self before others, is a social norm –
“Also this bill will have a disastrous effect on the marriageability of non-working or low income men/women - as all women/men would like to marry high income men/women now. Will the govt. take responsibility to get these low-income or no-income men/women marrage? How is this bill useful when it helps high income men/women while at the same time makes the low-income men/women un-marriageable? This bill infact is contrary to women’s and men’s welfare”
2. Those are in LAW filed must start collected the LAW of other country of the world and be ready to fight in Supreme court. No country have such biased law in place.
3. Before marriage must engage a Lawyers.
4. Book a low cost Home in some Village area , so that in old age you can have a place to live.
5. The moment you feel any smell of any problem without any second thought dispose-off all your movable or immovable assets .
6. Minimum Saving after marriage , enjoy the life instead of work like donkey and one day die in Heart attack and left huge assets.
7.Come out from all the emotion , today marriage is no longer a emotional bond, all this male haters LAW makers make the marriage a emotionless simple Business deal and a easy money earning business for wrong people.
But forget two wrong can’t make a right think. If women is suffering that is not due to husbands family , it is due to the girls at their own home had not given equal right and responsibility give to a boy, instead of correcting the same started putting all burden/blame to husbands family .
Do not forget more then 90% women who have a home in this country , they got from their husbands family , not from their own family, correct that first or the day the is not too far when we will be witness when a man will die, the bank will come and take over all his assets , which we witness in western country .
"I welcome it. Divorce should be made easier and the laws should keep pace with the changing times," Rekha Palli, a Supreme Court lawyer, told IANS.
Welcoming the move to make divorce easier, lawyer Meenakshi Lekhi slammed the move to make "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground of divorce. This would amount to giving the husband an excuse to walk out of the marriage for a much younger spouse, she said.
The union cabinet on Friday approved the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 by which "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" was included as a ground for dissolving the marriage.
Besides this, the cabinet also approved giving the divorced wife a share in husband's property that he had acquired after marriage, and the adopted child getting same rights to property as are available to biological offspring of the couple.
It also left the existing cooling off period of six months to the discretion of the court.
"I think it is a welcome move. We have been demanding it for long," Ranjana Kumari of Centre for Social Research told IANS. "Share in the marital property is a very welcome move because as it stands today when a wife walks out of difficult marriage she has nothing to start afresh.
The cabinet under the approved amended bill has provided that the wife would have a right to wave a red flag in the event of the husband pressing for divorce on the grounds of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage", but the same was not available to the husband in case the wife decides to seek dissolution of marriage on grounds of irrevocable breakdown of marriage.
Welcoming the incorporation of "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" as ground for divorce, Ranjana Kumari says that doing away with the six months cooling off period is not good.
"A hold on period at times helps in cooling frayed tempers and the marriage is saved," she says, adding that "after all in our society marriage is sacred thing".
Giving the right to property to the adopted child at par with that of a biological offspring is also a welcome step as under the present dispensation this equality of right is not there, she added.
Apex court lawyer Aparna Bhat says the cabinet decision has not made anything easier. "All that has been done is that irreconcilable difference has been added as another ground for divorce.
"How has the entire process becomes easier," asks Bhat, posing what would happen if a wife opposes the husband's plea for divorce.
"What has happened was long overdue. I don't know why India took so long to do what other civilized countries had done long ago," lawyer Rebecca John told IANS.
The proposed amendments would make divorce law more humane and sensitive to the contesting couple and adding irreconcilable difference as a ground for divorce is good, says Rebecca.
Meenakshi Lekhi, who is fighting the case of women officers seeking permanent commissions in the army, wonders how could the rights of a legally adopted child be different from a biological offspring of a couple.
She describes as "complicated" the provision giving the wife a right to property that she and her husband had acquired during their married life. She also asks "would a wife who is just one year in marriage be entitled to property inherited or earned by her husband?
"How could a wife walking away with whatever share of husband's property be reconciled with the maintenance that she is entitled under the existing law," asks Lekhi.
"The proposal to leave to the courts the waiting period before divorce is actually granted is in tune with an earlier provision which was wrongly interpreted by the Supreme Court giving it a fixed term which over a period of time became the law of the land," she says.
Lekhi says that "what is evident from the proposed changes in the law is that its authors have no grounding in law, nor are they the practitioners of law".