Divorce and Community property in the USA

Community property is a marital property regime that originated in civil law jurisdictions and is now also found in some common law jurisdictions. The states of the United States that recognize community property are primarily in the West; it was inherited from Mexico's ganancial community system, which itself was inherited from Spanish law (a Roman-derived civil law system) and ultimately from the Visigoths. Even Louisiana, in a rare departure from the Napoleonic Code, was forced to adopt the ganancial community system while under Mexican rule (renamed "community of acquests and gains"), thus ousting the traditional French community of movables and acquests.

In a community property jurisdiction, most property acquired during the marriage (except for gifts or inheritances) is owned jointly by both spouses and is divided upon divorce, annulmentor death. Joint ownership is automatically presumed by law in the absence of specific evidence that would point to a contrary conclusion for a particular piece of property. The community property system is usually justified by the idea that such joint ownership recognizes the theoretically equal contributions of both spouses to the creation and operation of thefamily unit.

Division of community property may take place by item, by splitting all items or by value. In some jurisdictions, such as California, a 50/50 division of community property is strictly mandated by statute, meaning that the focus then shifts to whether particular items are to be classified as community or separate property. In other jurisdictions, such as Texas, a divorce court may decree an "equitable distribution" of community property, which may result in an unequal division of such. In non-community property states property may be divided byequitable distribution. Generally speaking, the property that each partner brings into the marriage or receives by gift, bequest or devise during marriage is called separate property (i.e., not community property). See division of property. Division of community debts may not be the same as division of community property. For example, in California, community property is required to be divided "equally" while community debt is required to be divided "equitably".

Property that is owned by one spouse before the marriage is the separate property of that spouse, unless the property is "transmuted" into community property. The rules for this vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Jurisdictions

In the United States there are ten community property states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Puerto Rico allows property to be owned as community property also as do several Indian jurisdictions. Alaska is an opt-in community property state; property is separate property unless both parties agree to make it community property through a community property agreement or a community property trust.

If property is held as community property, each spouse technically owns an undivided one-half interest in the property. This type of ownership applies to most property acquired by the husband or the wife during the course of the marriage. It generally does not apply to property acquired prior to the marriage or to property acquired by gift or inheritance during the marriage. After a divorce, community property is divided equally in some states and according to the discretion of the court in the other states.

It is extremely important to bear in mind that there are no two community property states with exactly the same laws on the subject. The statutes or judicial decisions in one state may be completely opposite to those of another state on a particular legal issue. For example, in some community property states (so-called "American Rule" states), income from separate property is also separate. In others (so-called "Civil Law" states), the income from separate property is community property. The right of a creditor to reach community property in satisfaction of a debt or other obligation incurred by one or both of the spouses also varies from state to state.

Community property has certain federal tax implications, which the Internal Revenue Service discusses in its Publication 555. In general, community property may result in lower federal capital gain taxes after the death of one spouse when the surviving spouse then sells the property. Some states have created a newer form of community property, called "community property with right of survivorship." This form of holding title has some similarities to joint tenancy with right of survivorship. The rules and effect of holding title as community property (or another form of concurrent ownership) vary from state to state.

Consumers who are considering how to hold property should either research reliable legal source materials, or consult with an estate planning lawyer, a Certified Public Accountant, or anEnrolled Agent.

Issues

Often a new couple acquires a family residence. If the marriage terminates in subsequent years, there can be difficult community property problems to solve. For instance, often there is a contribution of separate property; or legal title may be held in the name of one party and not the other. There may also have been an inheritance or substantial gift from the family of one of the spouses during the marriage, whose proceeds were used to buy a property or pay down a mortgage. Case law and applicable formulas vary among community property jurisdictions to apply to these and many other situations, to determine and divide community and separate property interest in such a residence and other property.

Community property issues often arise in divorce proceedings and disputes after the death of one spouse. These disputes can often be avoided by proper estate planning during the spouses' joint lifetime. This may or may not involve probate proceedings. Property acquired before marriage is separate and belongs to the spouse who acquired it. Property acquired during marriage is presumed to belong to the community estate except if acquired by inheritance or gift, or by exchange for other separate property. This definition leads to numerous issues that can be difficult to ascertain. For instance, where a spouse owns a business when marrying, it is clearly separate at that time. But if the business grows during the marriage, then what of the additional property acquired during marriage? Do they not result from labor of the spouses? Were some of the funds that were used to pay for the property community funds while a portion of the funds were separate property?

Community property may consist of property of all types, including real property ("immovable property" in civil law jurisdictions) and personal property ("movable property" in civil law jurisdictions) such as accounts in financial institutes, stocks, bonds, and cash.

A pension or annuity may have first been acquired before a marriage. But if contributions are made with community property during marriage, then proceeds are partly separate property and partly community property. Upon divorce or death of a party to the marriage, there are rules for apportionment.

Options are also difficult to ascertain. A stock option is a right to purchase shares of a company at a fixed price. Companies with growth potential sometimes award stock options as compensation to employees, during times when there is not enough money to pay a suitable salary. By accepting a stock option for compensation, an employee invests his or her own trust in the belief that he or she will help make the company acquire a higher value. Thereafter, the employee works and contributes value to the company. If the company later acquires a higher share valuation, then the employee may "cash in" his options by selling them at the fair market value. The employee's trust in this future value motivates his work without immediate compensation. That effort has value. If the marriage is terminated before the shares are cashed in, then the parties must decide how to apportion the community property portion of the options. This can be difficult. Case law precedents are not yet available for all situations involving stock options.

Quasi-community property

Quasi-community property is a concept recognized by some community property states. For example, in California, quasi-community property is defined by statute as

"all real or personal property, wherever situated, acquired before or after the operative date of this code in any of the following ways: (a) By either spouse while domiciled elsewhere which would have been community property if the spouse who acquired the property had been domiciled in this state at the time of its acquisition. (b) In exchange for real or personal property, wherever situated, which would have been community property if the spouse who acquired the property so exchanged had been domiciled in this state at the time of its acquisition.

Typically, such property is treated as if it were community property at the time of divorce or death of a spouse, but in California, at least, property acquired while married and domiciled in a non-community property jurisdiction does not become community property just because the married parties move to a community property jurisdiction. It is the new event of divorce or death while domiciled in the community property state that allows that state to treat such property as quasi-community property. As of 2007, only Washington, California, New Mexico and Arizona have such laws.

Source: wikipedia.org

A Guy’s Divorce Survival Guide

February 9, 2011

When cou­ples first marry it’s all bliss and blowjobs. But they’re also mak­ing legal com­mit­ments to each other. Too often guys choose to ignore the legal and finan­cial impli­ca­tions of get­ting married.

In a “com­mu­nity prop­erty” state (Cal­i­for­nia, Texas, and eight oth­ers), your spouse is enti­tled to half of every dol­lar you earn, includ­ing every dol­lar you put into your retire­ment plan and 401(k). But every dol­lar her par­ents gives her is hers—because gifts to one per­son are sep­a­rate prop­erty. Gifts to both of you are com­mu­nity property.

By the time a mar­riage is over—and there is a 50–50 chance it will be over at some point—most men are at the “just get me out” stage. They often don’t care about most of the property—800-thread count sheets, tea sets, and fancy kitchen gizmos—that was pur­chased over the course of the marriage.

But men do care about their kids. This is where they make their biggest mis­take. Most of the men I rep­re­sent will walk away from the house and the fur­nish­ings, pack their three bags of clothes and leave. The man assumes, incor­rectly, that he’s doing the right thing for his soon-to-be ex-wife and kids. He thinks that if he gives her all the stuff, she’ll treat him fairly when it comes to the chil­dren. He thinks he’ll get 50 per­cent custody—and because he’s being a “good guy” she will treat him as one.

In my expe­ri­ence, that’s rarely how it happens.

The minute the man leaves the house he is giv­ing his part­ner con­trol of the kids. The sta­tus quo has been estab­lished. She has all the stuffand the kids. He’ll be pay­ing child sup­port and see­ing his chil­dren every other week­end (plus maybe a mid-week dinner).

With this in mind, how should a guy pre­pare for divorce?

First, he needs to know what the com­mu­nity prop­erty is and that he is enti­tled to half of it. I’m not say­ing he needs to take half the sil­ver tea sets—but he should be sure to get half the value of the tea sets. I rec­om­mended that he build a room-by-room inven­tory of things that were pur­chased dur­ing the marriage.

Many men will see tak­ing inven­tory as petty, or a waste of time, but most courts require that each side dis­close to the other all the items of the mar­riage. There may be some things that he gen­uinely wants to keep that he would not have thought of oth­er­wise, and there will likely be a con­sid­er­able num­ber of items that he doesn’t want but should be com­pen­sated for.

Sec­ond, he needs a plan for how to deal with the chil­dren and vis­i­ta­tion. He should never leave the house (unless he is in phys­i­cal dan­ger) with­out hav­ing a plan in place for how the the cou­ple is going to co-parent.

This is a cru­cial area for men to review—and not just their day-to-day lives. They should con­sider the hol­i­days and spe­cial events through­out the year they want to have with their chil­dren. Gen­er­ally par­ents alter­nate holidays—odd num­bered years go to one par­ent and even num­bered years to the other—but if there is a par­tic­u­lar hol­i­day that’s desired every year, then be pre­pared to give up some other holiday.

Then there is the prob­lem of post breakup life. Here’s the good news for men: in my expe­ri­ence, guys gen­er­ally have a new woman in their life within a year. But be careful—even if your wife is the one who ini­ti­ated the divorce, she might be sen­si­tive about you dat­ing some­one new. Go ahead and date, just don’t intro­duce your new girl­friend to your kids.

If the divorce gets ugly and your ex is angry, don’t engage her anger with anger. If she gets mad, let her be mad, pick up the kids, and go on about your life. Remem­ber that you will sur­vive this—even if you don’t jump into another rela­tion­ship right away.

Take some time to be alone. Some men need to hit the gym to work out their anger. Every guy should do some reflec­tion on the relationship—not only on what went wrong, but what was right about your mar­riage. Go to a 12-step group, see a ther­a­pist, or even go to the bookstore.

Just because a rela­tion­ship changes form doesn’t mean it was all bad. A short period of self-centered emo­tional heal­ing is a good thing—it will make your next rela­tion­ship that much bet­ter. My ex and I broke up, and once I real­ized that we were just going in dif­fer­ent direc­tions, all the anger dis­si­pated, and today we’re great friends.

Source: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/a-guys-divorce-survival-guide/

HC gives lifer to man for killing wife

Feb 8, 2011

Hyderabad, Feb. 7: The AP High Court on Monday sentenced to life imprisonment a private medical practitioner who killed his wife.

A division bench comprising Justice V. Eswaraiah and Justice Suri Appa Rao gave the order while allowing an appeal filed by the state government challenging the acquittal by a sessions court of East Godavari district.

According to the prosecution, Akella Suryanarayana Murthy of Kadiyaplanka, East Godavari district, had a strained relationship with his wife Bramarambha. She had been staying away from him. He was threatening her to mend her ways and join him or give him divorce. When she did not yield, he decided to kill her.

The accused stabbed her to death on Jan 14, 2002 when she was at her work place at Sampathnagaram of the district. The lower court acquitted him after finding that there were contradictions in the versions of witnesses.

The bench felt that in the sequence of events, small contradictions in the statements of witness cannot be interpreted to the benefit of the accused. The bench found the accused as guilty and awarded life imprisonment.

Source: DC

Call for repeal of 498A chauvinistic: SC Judge Ganguly

This Judge is participating in Misandry, although he himself is a Male. Justice Ganguly may very well be a Supreme Court Judge in India, but with all the evidence in front of him along with the fact the many of his peers on the Supreme court opposing his view on IPC 498a one of the most Draconian laws in the world, he is a big fool.
 
Feb 6, 2011

Mumbai: The demand for repeal of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with cruelty to a woman in her marital home, made by some sections of society and even the judiciary is “male chauvinism,” Justice A. K. Ganguly of the Supreme Court said on Saturday. He was delivering the keynote address at a seminar on ‘Negotiating Spaces: Gender Concerns in Conflict Zones’ here.

“There is a lot of argument that 498A should be repealed because it is being abused. I am sorry to say that even Supreme Court judges have said it openly in courts. Which law in this country is not abused? This [498A] is a law which empowers women. I am not saying it’s not abused. Just because it empowers women and gives them a negotiating space, [there are demands] that it be repealed. This is male chauvinism.”

Justice Ganguly pointed out that Section 307 of the IPC was the most abused with instances of even a slap being construed as an attempt on one’s life.

Urging that women’s fight against injustice continue, he said: “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Justice Ganguly drove home the importance of the Preamble in the delivery of justice. It was “the organic part of the Constitution” on which depended “the fulfilment of the constitutional promise.”

He also referred to his judgment last year on assessing the value of homemakers’ work. “In the census, homemakers are equated with prostitutes, beggars and prisoners. It is said they are economically non-productive. Where is the dignity?”

On Vilasrao

Without mentioning his name, Justice Ganguly expressed dismay that Union Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, who was fined Rs. 10 lakh by the Supreme Court for protecting the interests of a moneylender family, continued to be in the Cabinet. “The [former Maharashtra] Chief Minister is still a Minister. He is looking after Rural Development…He continues in equal glory. We cannot pull him down from [there].” Justice Ganguly said.

Source:The Hindu

Golden Rule while getting cross examined

1. Never look into the eyes of the advocate who is crossing you. Always look into the eyes of the Judge.

2. Be cool, calm and composed and don’t panic.

3. If possible get a friend to the court hall to keep company to you prior to getting crossed.

4. Never give justification for the question. E.g.

Opposite advocate: I state that you have demanded 10 lakh of dowry from your wife.
Yourself  Wrong answer: Why will I demand dowry? I earn handsome salary
Yourself  Right answer: This is false.

5. Think why advocate is asking a particular question. He will not ask without motive.

6. Never answer any question in hurry but for that matter doesn’t take too long to answer.

7. Best way to frustrate opposite advocate is to ask him to repeat the question. Sir can you repeat the question. I did not understand!!. This way you not only frustrate the advocate but also you will get time to think over the answer which is favourable to you.

8. If you are not sure about the answer will favourable or against you then simply say I don’t remember.

9. You have the right to refuse a particular question. I have myself done this. E.g.

Opposite advocate: My I know where do you stay?
Yourself  Sir, at the last three places where I stayed they came and assaulted me. In view of that I am unable to give my current address.

10. You can do submission if you feel it can help in your favour.

11. Never lose your cool in spite of uncomfortable questions. Remember advocate is just putting a suggestion.

12.  Denying everything is good but be careful. I was watching a brother of husband getting cross examined in DV case.

Opposite advocate: Are you brother of Shri XYZ?
Brother of husband : Yes

Opposite advocate: In your affidavit whatever you have mentioned did you came to know on your own or your brother told you?
Brother of husband : I came to know on my own.

Opposite advocate: In paragraph 8 you have mentioned about a incident in their HoneyMoon. How you came to know of this on your own?
Brother of husband : F u m b l i n g!!…

Opposite advocate: You have given a false affidavit. Your Honour, the behaviour of the witness may kindly be recorded.

13.  Denying everything has the advantage of finishing the cross very fast. Remember in any case it is only cross which takes lot of time as it is a multiple event.

Authored by National Family Harmony Society, Bangalore – http://498amisuse.wordpress.com/

Why So Many Men Never See Their Divorce Coming

Feb 2, 2011

I first heard it from attorneys who typically represent men in a divorce. I then began to see it in the cases that came before me. I remember the attorney who first mentioned it to me some ten years ago, he leaned back in his chair at a conference on divorce and said, "It never ceases to amaze me how many men come to me with their jaws on the floor saying they never saw it coming."

Now, I am witnessing it in my own social circles. All around me long-term marriages are coming to an end. And as the studies show many of those jumping ship are women.

Not only am I seeing a rash of fleeing women all around me, I also see what I first ascertained years ago: That a fairly significant number of men--especially in longer term marriages--never saw their divorces coming. There was, they say, no warning, no build up, no escalating tensions, just an unexpected, non-negotiable and seemingly unprovoked decision to leave.

Of course, this is not the norm. Most marriages careen into a ditch after traversing a noticeably bumpy road. Likewise, there are women who are surprised when their husbands decide to leave, but what I am talking about here is that not-so-small group of guys who are caught flat footed by their wives sudden and seemingly unexplained departure.

As with everything involved with the human condition, there is no one reason for any trend. But after having witnessed it from the bench and in my own backyard and from reading what I can, I do see one common mistake both men and women are making that seems to rear its head in a number of these unexpected abandonment cases. I mention it here because I think it ends some very salvageable marriages.

I call it "The False Okay." I think a lot of women tell the very same lie for years on end. They say "okay" when they don't mean it. They tell their husbands, "everything's fine," even when it's not. "Keeping the peace" is what they call it. They are, they tell me, getting through the day. It is all about the argument they simply do not want to have.

I think there is a whole group of women out there who don't do well with conflict. They are the ones with a happy husband because he always gets what he wants and she doesn't seem to mind. But what he doesn't see are all of the collected hurts stored up in her emotional closet. Not because she doesn't ever get what she wants but because that lopsided equation makes her feel unloved.

The next thing you know, the kids are gone, as is her best reason to put up with it. The sad thing is he doesn't know there is a problem and she doesn't know how to change the script. "This is who he is," she thinks, "a guy who doesn't care at all about my needs and wishes."

I hear it all of the time. She's sick of being the giver. Sick of being unappreciated. It is not a sexy cause, because both parties bear some blame. It is not the only cause. But it is the one I hear most often when there is an unexpected departure by a woman later in the marriage. She thinks getting her needs heard, not to mention met, is a hopeless thing.

So she goes.

Source: HP

Parental Alienation: It's About More Than "A Uterus, Divorce Papers and Bruises"

Jan 25, 2011

Over the last few months Father's Rights activists have been attempting to have Parental Alienation Disorder added to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychiatric Association's "bible" of diagnoses.

When learning of this effort the National Organization for Women (NOW) became concerned and sent out anAction Alert to counter the campaign. According to NOW's Tracy Simmons:

"Parental Alienation Syndrome has now morphed into Parental Alienation Disorder thanks to the fathers' rights organizations who are wildly pushing this through, and why wouldn't they? It benefits the abuser and discriminates against the victims of abuse, which are overwhelmingly women.

This gender specific, abuse excuse, junk science can not be allowed to enter into the scientific community as there is nothing scientific about a syndrome/disorder whose only symptoms are a uterus, divorce papers, and bruises. I ask that you all to take action against legitimizing this outrageous theory by e-mailing the APA and asking your groups to do the same."

I have a few concerns with Tracy Simmon's beliefs on the subject and a few beliefs of my own in response to her statement.

1. Parental alienation syndrome is not a gender specific issue. It was once believed women were the main perpetrators of parental alienation, but no longer. "Fifty percent are men," said Judith Ray, a licensed family therapist in Colorado Springs.


"Those who are men tend to be narcissistic, characterized by a sense of entitlement, arrogance and low empathy. Female alienators often have borderline personalities, marked by insecurity, neediness, a strong fear of abandonment and chronic emptiness."

When we speak of parental alienation we aren't talking about abusive fathers trying to further their misguided, ill treatment of a mother. We are talking about damaged parents, both mother and father whose children need to be protected from a different kind of abuse.

2. Only someone who has never been a victim of parental alienation would refer to it as "junk science." The vast majority of parents who desire a consistent, loving relationship with a child are not driven by political, ideological, financial or any other scientific motives. The love a parent has for a child can't be dismissed by accusations of domestic violence and the welfare of a child should not be overlooked in favor of a mother/father who has been a victim of domestic abuse.

If NOW is concerned about the further victimization of domestic abuse victims they themselves should be "wildly pushing" for the inclusion of Parental Alienation Disorder into the scientific community. What better way to empower a victim than to promote their right to bring legal action against someone who has not only abused them but attempts to abuse their child?

While experts debate the validity of parental alienation accusations, parents like myself and others are unequipped and unable to protect our children and our parental rights against an alienating mother or father. I say this will all due respect to victims of domestic violence...a parent's right to protect the parental relationship with a child is as important as your right to protect yourself from your abuser.

When it comes to parental alienation the focus should be on the child who has a right to equal time with both Mom and Dad. Not on a parent who may or may not have been abused by an ex spouse. This won't happen until parental alienation is viewed by the Family Court System as a recognized psychiatric disorder caused by an alienating parent.

Making parental alienation a disorder instead of a syndrome has nothing to do with whether or not you have a "uterus, divorce papers and bruises." Most mothers put their children's needs first. Most fathers do the same. Parents who are victims of the few who don't need to be armed with legal ammunition to fight back.

Until NOW and other experts who dismiss the importance of the damage done to children via parental alienation syndrome stop the rhetoric about "abuse" children will continue to suffer emotional abuse and its long-term consequences.

What Tracy Simmons doesn't seem to consider is the true damage done to children when pushing what I consider to be an anti-father, anti-child agenda. And she seems to forget that those abused women she is standing up for would also benefit from being able to use Parental Alienation Disorder as a defense against a father attempting to emotionally abuse his child.

It is unreasonable to deflect, twist, and deny that chronic denigration of a parent to a child is not worthy of DSM inclusion. It is even more unreasonable to dismiss the possibility that parental alienation leads to the emotional damage of children. Bottom line, parental alienation is not a gender, custody or domestic abuse issue. It is a child abuse issue. What better reason is there for recognizing and including it into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?

Source: HP

Estranged techie couple reunites, but police spoil party

Well it is quit blatantly apparent the Police don't want to close this case because they want to be given some bribe, corruption has no limits even when married couples want to settle there differences. But the more important question should be, why is a Matrimonial dispute a criminal charge in the first place? Here is another case of misuse of IPC 498a, but in this instance with a happy ending, almost! 


Feb 4, 2011

After filing a dowry harassment case against the husband, the wife returned to him. Four months ago, she gave it in writing that she wants to withdraw the charges, but the cops are yet to close the case.

It could well read like a script of a chick flick, but it's for real and it's the police who are spoiling the plot. Sushma Dubey, a techie, had separated from her husband, Sanjay Ranjan, also a techie. On the advice of her sister, she filed a dowry harassment case (498A) against her husband. Sushma did not know all the details and merely signed the papers prepared by her sister.


But soon after, her sister left her to fend for herself. Left alone, Sushma had a complete change of heart. She is now happily reunited with her husband, but the Banashankari Division police are refusing to close the case against Sanjay.
Sanjay and Sushma, both working in multi-national companies, came to know each other through a social networking site. They were married in November 2009, and all was well for a few months. Cracks in their marriage began to appear in March last year.

“Little things led to arguments and misunderstanding,” Sanjay told Bangalore Mirror. “She then went to live with her sister, but came back again. It went on like this until June, when she went away again to live with her sister. She then filed a dowry harassment case against me. But I had obtained anticipatory bail. I learnt that she had filed the case on the advice of her brother-in-law and sister. I had asked Sushma if she understood the seriousness of the case, but her answer was vague and I realised she was not aware of the charges brought against me.”

Sanjay had tried pleading with her, but Sushma, brainwashed by her sister and her brother-in-law, refused to see reason. “I begged her to drop the case and come back to me. I was sure she loved me and we could be a happy couple again. But realising that she was being guided by her relatives, I stopped trying.”

But, Sushma was soon turned out from her sister's house. Tired of repeated queries from inquisitive neighbours and friends about Sushma, her sister asked her to leave. She moved into a paying guest facility and stayed there for three months. Meanwhile, her friends made her understand the seriousness of the case she had filed against Sanjay and the punishment it entailed. Penitent, Sushma decided to go back to her husband. Returning to the same social networking site through which they had first met, Sushma requested Sanjay to take her back. Aided by friends and elders in the family, the two were soon reunited.

Sushma told Bangalore Mirror, “I wish I can just erase the whole thing from my memory. While staying alone, I realised that I had made a mistake. I am very happy now. My husband is really a nice man and loves me a lot. We are the happiest couple.”

Following their reunion, the couple visited the Banashankari police station to get the case withdrawn. Initially, the cops told Sushma that a written statement requesting withdrawal of the case would be sufficient. Four months have gone by 
since she filed the statement, but the police are yet to close the case.

“We have gone to them many times and also contacted them over phone, but to no avail,” Sanjay said. “We want the case closed. Both of us have already suffered enough, but the police are making us suffer more.”

Kumar V Jahgirdar, president of CRISP, a pro-family organisation to which the couple had gone to for advice, told Bangalore Mirror, “I know the parties personally. They had approached our NGO for reconciliation. 

“The wife genuinely regretted her mistake. She was misguided by certain people.”

When Bangalore Mirror contacted H T Ramesh, assistant commissioner of police, Banashankari division, he said, “I do not know the details of the case. So, I cannot comment specifically on it. But, if the husband and the wife have settled their differences and want the case closed, the police should support them. 

“I do not know why the police have not closed the case despite them filing the required statements. I will look into the matter.”

Here is an example of how good a job women can do, this is a fine example of an Obama patronage appointment to a top diplomatic post. As long as your a Feminazi your good in the Obama administration.

Big Obama donor quits envoy job amid criticism

Feb 4, 2011

WASHINGTON -- As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America's ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum's management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum's case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy "has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador's tenure," said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. "At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities."

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department's inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. "The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business," she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. "We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors," he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

"The bulk of the mission's internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style," the report said. "She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction."

"Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador's actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal," it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. "It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors."

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum's major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama's campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama's campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign's money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them "the importance she attaches to the perquisites of" being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador's residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador's requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

- Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss "professional school" whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as "management meetings." Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

- The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed "to use excess year-end funds" to buy items unless they are used in that year.

- Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she "preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided." The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher "reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds." The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.

Source: AP

489 A- A Psychological Perspective -

12 Jan 2011



The law is a very good based on democratic, egalitarian and libertarian principles. The law is based on the assumption of equal rights to both man and woman to live a life of dignity and respect. The woman has equal rights to work to earn her livelihood and enjoy freedom to decide her life. Hence the law is good but it is the attitudes of the people that are troublesome which makes them abuse / misuse the law. It is the attitudes of both the man and the woman that needs to be questioned and put to examination. Wrong/ perverse/ abnormal attitudes of man makes him think that the woman must bring huge dowry, that she must obey him, must follow his rules, must be subordinate to him, must please him by all means possible, must be subservient to his parents, must work or must nor work according to his will, etc. Such attitudes can cause tremendous mental harassment to the woman and then if he also eventually subjects her to violence and abuse to impose his will on her it becomes physical cruelty. In such a case it becomes necessary to evoke the law by the woman.

Wrong/ perverse/abnormal attitudes of woman who think that she can nag/rag him on issues, that it is the sole duty of the man to take care of her, who take the husband for granted to fulfill all her unjust needs and to provide her with all luxuries of life, will take recourse to the law not for justice but to take revenge and to ‘teach him a lesson’ if he goes wrong in some way.

The law should be evoked only when there is continuous violence and mental cruelty of the woman in a marriage and there seems to be no end to it. In other words, the law should be evoked only when all strategies of coping with the situation and resolving the marital crisis between spouses have failed and violence and harassment continues in the marriage.
There are many individual coping strategies that people use to resolve conflict between their partners in marriage and if all efforts fail to give any good results, couples should seek professional help from a psychologist and marriage counselor. This neutral third party psychological intervention becomes a must for two reasons; one is to analyze the marital crisis from all angles and identify the causes for conflict between the partners and two, is to find appropriate remedies for the same by planning regular sessions of individual therapy, couple therapy and family sessions. In the majority of cases violence and abuse stops as the counseling and the negotiation process proceeds. In some cases where there is non-compliance to the process of counseling and where violence re-erupts and continues, the couple should be separated and asked to live in different homes. If there is no headway in reconciliation between the couple and the violence continues, divorce should be recommended to the couple. If that too fails as a solution to be agreed by both parties, the law of IPC 498 A can be evoked as the last resort to save lives and further abuse. The reasons for violence and abuse in a marital situation can be various.

It is important for people to know the different reasons for marital conflict and discord. Marital discord can be due to the following reasons -
a. Incompatibility or different personalities or differences in opinions in major areas of life.
b. Unmet physical and emotional needs of either of the spouses.
c. Too high expectations from either side, about life style, money, sex, children.
d. Infidelity or extra marital affairs by either side.
e. Physical cruelty like violence, rape, abuse, etc
f. Mental cruelty like demands for money, harassment on various issues by in-laws in daily routine household matters, continuous hurting comments and  questioning etc.
g. Personality disorders like histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, etc.
h. Psychological / psychiatric disturbances in any of the spouse like Paranoia, Schizophrenia, Depression, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder etc.

As a psychologist the main point for us to ponder on deeply relates to the attitudes and the behaviour of both the individuals who get married and the behavior of the family and specially the in- laws. Physical cruelty can be defined by physical violence resulting in physical injury, harm. If there are repeated acts of violence by the husband the behavior becomes criminal and the law can be evoked. The excessive demands for sexual intercourse and for experimental sex which the wife may be unwilling to indulge in may also be placed in this category. Forced sex may lead to assault and rape by the husband.

Mental cruelty is more difficult to define. Continuous verbal abuse of the wife, abusing her parents, asking for money from her parents, not allowing her to do a job, forcing her to comply with everything her in laws ask her to do, arm twisting her to do things their way, no freedom of movement etc can lead to mental harassment of the woman which could lead to psychological distress and illness such as depressions, psychosomatic complaints and hysteria.

Attitudes towards women that need to be challenged-- old attitudes would want the “bahu” to be docile, submissive, take care of domestic duties and care for the parents and also work and earn money but not make her career the top priority. The thought that the wife has secondary position in the family and that the man is primary is rampant in our society. Social attitudes many times condone hitting, beating and shouting at the wife. ‘So what if I beat my wife, so what if I shout at her, so what if she has to do all the work, so what if she has to listen to the in laws’ are common attitudes being expressed by men and society all the time. This type of thinking acts as mental blocks to the concept of equality and freedom for the wife. Such attitudes infringe upon her human rights to live a life of dignity and respect.

The 498A law is based on the assumption that women have equal rights as the man to live a life of dignity. This fact has to be understood by the men and the women not only in its letter but also in its spirit totally before a rational discussion can be done. The law is progressive in thought and spirit but the society’s perverse cultural norms and social practices are still not entirely egalitarian as far as women are concerned. It also means that we have to agree first that the old thinking of the subjugation of women is wrong and that the modern thinking of equality of men and women is right. We have to stand  together first on this basic assumption before we can proceed into the discussion in a proper manner.

A perverse mind will not understand the concept of equality of women and hence will not accept the modern law as valid. In such a case the good law stands condemned by such a category of people.

To repeat, the law needs to be evoked when all other strategies fail to stop the violence and the harassment that makes the life of the woman miserable for normal functioning. Actually, in the case of a marriage that breaks down beyond repair the best solution is separation and then divorce. It is the aggrieved party that would want the divorce and it may happen that the other party declines to agree for divorce for reasons that are emotional and irrational. If this solution also fails to be acceptable to one member the law could be evoked to seek justice.

It should however be the last resort.

It also has to be understood by women that once the law is evoked, the marriage breaks down further to a point of becoming irretrievable because of the fall out of the law. The police arrests of the husband and his family (if they have been implicated too), the social disgrace and shame, the police and public humiliation all leads to bad feelings and a total breakdown of the bonds of relationship. The ensuing bitterness and hostility between the two opposing parties makes enemies out of them where no further bonding is possible. This is ironic as the very purpose of the law which is to save the woman and settle her back into the family is defeated. Justice comes only in the form of punishment of the erring man and his family. Justice does not come in the form of rehabilitating the woman respectfully in the family. In fact she is most likely to be totally rejected by the family after they have suffered the law.

If the woman is ready for such an ultimate effect of the use of the law she should evoke the law.

However, it is not the law that needs to be condemned but its misuse and hence its improper use. The misuse occurs primarily on the sentiment of seeking revenge and vengeance. A woman who has suffered and felt victimized has the choice to break the marriage and seek divorce. That is the most rational decision to take. However in some cases she may not opt for a rational solution like divorce but may instead decide to evoke the law only for the purpose of seeking revenge and punishing him. Such a thing needs to be condemned in strong words.

Take another example. If a man has fallen out of love with his wife and wants to end the marriage through divorce the woman may disagree for divorce and may instead resort to punish him through the law by making a false case of violence against her husband. In such cases the specific law of 498 A is being used as a tool by some women to punish, victimize, harass and seek vengeance from the husband. This is a clear case of misuse of the law and needs to be condemned. A point to note for the legal community here would be to realize that when a marriage which has failed beyond redemption, to reject a divorce petition would not serve any purpose. For, when the soul is lost there is no wisdom in trying to keep the shell intact. When there is no ‘marriage’ left in spirit between the couple the stamp of legality on a marriage serves no purpose.

If two people who have been married for some time and now cannot live with each other for some reasons (mentioned above), and if all the strategies of reconciliation including counseling have failed, the best possible solution would be a mutual divorce. This would ensure a peaceful breakup of the marriage with minimum harm to both the parties. When one spouse decides to be vindictive and teach a lesson to the other they take the law into their own hands and make a mess of whole thing.

The marital crisis then becomes a sordid battle which is fought in full public glare and the end result is only further pain, suffering and emotional trauma to all. Such scars may remain for life and mar the personalities of all persons concerned. More so, the children are worst affected, if there are any.


Source: http://www.rita-psychologist.com/section-blog/28-womens-world/179-489-a-a-psychological-perspective-12-jan-2011