Whether new proposed marraiage law another whip to husbands?

Mirage - Do you really think people when getting married go and check the acts and implications of such acts. I know life doesnt work that ways nor life is fair...the only thing I am trying to hint is that the very law is in violation of the constitutional law of equality. Moreover, if she has to be compensated then why also not made liable in case the husband incurs a huge liability is all i asking. I know you are not making laws here, the reason I am raising the same is we i.e. as males do not have a focussed appraoch to it. Whereas women have a strong lobby and very strong leaders who are taking these causes to fight whereas there is no representation for males. May be a thought, may be you might have some solutions. I dont know. I just am saying that the law doesnt feel ethically or morally right. thts just my perspective and i know no one cares of what i think. But just food for thought for you.

@revolutionary

Amazing facts that the law makers don't want to think about. Wife gets back stridhan, gets maintenance, get kids, gets property share, gets to sit and eat.  Its win-win situation for her. Life's always green for a wife....

Lot of men don't want to think logically.

IRBM is going to be a big big no from my side as men will be defenseless going forward.

Many so called basic tenets have been destroyed. Marriage is no longer 'sacred'. The equality in partnership of marriage is a myth. What revolutionary has brought out I have been saying this for a long time! Many Indian laws are based on western laws. Several are copy- paste category. The relevance of maintenance and its form, amount, reasons etc are being debated in the west and elsewhere. West has seriously biased laws as well. The corrections are being applied slowly. Now why should the Indian laws follow the curve and not think relevantly to be ahead of the curve. Why not Justice, from the beginning? The so called woman giving up career to care at home is invalid. Unfortunately Indian 'modern wife' believes that it is degrading to do household chores and wants to keep maid, servant, driver etc while at the same time loathe work outside because husband makes enough! So where is the partnership? Not to mention the serious abuse the husband and inlaws have to take from them!

Not considering these factors is injustice to the husband and inlaws.

Suppose a rich man marries a poor woman and then finds her to be a bad woman-how is maintaining her in the same lifestyle, justice, that too after a few days or few months of marriage? There is no way of knowing physical, mental and emotional compatibility, in Indian context, before marriage! Earlier, they were forced to adjust and divorce was low. Families, relatives and friends chipped in to make marriage work. It was taboo to divorce. Now every street has divorced men and women  and single parents. It has become common.he societal support for nuclear family is lost. Nobody would dare interfere lest they also get the taste of such great laws as 498a! This is really pathetic. In the name of fxing the system we have ended up making it so much messier-and the costs will be enormous.

People have married in India because divorces were uncommon.But now it is becomming common and hence these facts are coming out. Men shall be wary of marriages.

Maybe India should have Iranian style 'contract' marriages to test the waters, before getting into it? (just a joke guys)

Revolutionary, agreed that no one checks laws and acts when they get married, but the real question is, did you get married keeping in mind the basic tenets of marriage whether in India or in other countries or not? The financially weaker spouse always claims and gets compensation from the financially stronger spouse, whether the financial strength is in terms of property or income. And this is true of every law of every country including India. Your's is not the first divorce not the last. You don't need to know acts at the time of marriage, but you have to know this empirical law of financial compensation unless you are living in isolation on an island. If you don't have the right attitude for marriage then why get married in the first place?

The concept of maintenance is based on several invalid factors. Consider the situation where a rich man marries a poor woman. He has uplifted her economic status, lifestyle etc. Now he realises she is not what he thought she was and not a very nice woman and wants to divorce her. Why should he pay a penalty? Infact he has kept her at a higher status than before marriage and for the duration of marriage. Why then is it necessary to keep her so, especially when she has failed to keep her end of the bargain? This IRBM is not necessarily a good thing for men. Infact there must be a lot of discussion before its enactment and further discussions about maintenance etc. Prenuptial contracts must be brought for discussion as well. Prenuptial contract lays out relevant facts upfront.Inheritance must be kept out of consideration as well. Marriage and divorces must be made simpler. Prenuptial contract is between man and woman and each will have clear understanding of each others responsibility.The problem in current setup is the woman comes to marriage with the concept of 'all rights and no responsibility'. The responsibility laid out upfront and the consequences of breaking the same makes it easier for the courts to decide as well.

Much of today's problems also lay in the fact that there is privacy issues and it is difficult to obtain proof of what is going on within four walls. Other factors such as whether wife left work voluntarily or whether husband forced her to quit work etc is taken care off under the prenuptial contract.

The concept of maintenance historically has been flawed. Let us take dowry as a similar example. It was the practice. The same argument can be made for that too that it was the practice and hence the right thing. No one told the father of the bride/ bride-Hey, why did you marry -didn't you know you need to pay dowry? We didn't stop at that, did we? Dowry was outlawed. Similarly the same thing can be done for maintenance. Maintenance is based on false presumptions and is favoring one over other. It is sort of forced charity, extortion or paying taxes to the other. Dowry was OK in old times. In current times it was not OK and it was outlawed. Maintenance is OK till now but needs to be outlawed/ seriously restricted in modern era. Provide more opportunities for woman and get rid of maintenance.

The woman has her stridhan, her paternal/maternal property rights, she can work as well-she should support herself in the lifestyle she desires and capable off, post divorce. The divorce must end all such responsibilities to each other. A clean divorce is the only way where parties can move on.

Originally posted by :mirage
"	Revolutionary, agreed that no one checks laws and acts when they get married, but the real question is, did you get married keeping in mind the basic tenets of marriage whether in India or in other countries or not? The financially weaker spouse always claims and gets compensation from the financially stronger spouse, whether the financial strength is in terms of property or income. And this is true of every law of every country including India. Your's is not the first divorce not the last. You don't need to know acts at the time of marriage, but you have to know this empirical law of financial compensation unless you are living in isolation on an island. If you don't have the right attitude for marriage then why get married in the first place?	"

 Although addressed to revolutionary, May I throw my few paise here?

Mirage shouldn't the right attitude be-that you are married for lifetime? Then why have divorce? Divorce must be abolished is it not? However, divorce is accepted as a mechanism to release married couples from a difficult marriage. Why then obligations for one over other and not vice versa?  If theoretically the argument is : husband needs to support his ex because marriages are for life -theoretically is it not bigamy if one marries again? Such maintenance is also unfair to the new wife- as she needs to share  her husband's income with the ex-wife, while she takes all her responsibilities!

@balla  Wow very valid and pertinent points.

Wish you were on the panel drafting IRBM or else husbands will keep being at the wrong end of the judgements.

@mirage--> which country has maitenance to a wife ? Last I check USA doesn't give maintenance to wife

Marriage is fraud in India.

USA has child support and alimony. And their laws are stricter than India. I have lived in USA for three years, @ kumar, what are you yakking about?

@ bhima, marriage is supposed to be sacrosanct as long as both parties are happy. Divorce is the lesser of two evils when it becomes unhappy. It's basic common sense but common sense is very common.... ;-) Regarding second wife, she accepts the relationship, keeping in mind the alimony to the first wife, hence she factors in her responsibilities accordingly into the marital equation..

@bhima, I have read your posts. While you seem to make lucid arguments, one small suggestion, and Pls don't take it the wrong way. This is a legal forum and some people are having a discussion on morality etc. The thing to remember is that moral issues seldom have one right answer and are more grey than black our white, and are very subjective. And they have absolutely zero impact in real world situations. The members here would be better served if you can apply your lucid arguments to law applicability.... :-)

Kumar,

There are several sane voices in the country-but they are ignored or deliberately suppressed in the name of women's rights by a much stronger (in every way)feminist movement. I would love to sit on the panel if given a chance! But that ain't gonna happen (No points for guessing why!)!.

Mirage is right in that there are maintenance laws in US .These, as one might guess were the result of old British laws of 1800s! The current laws in US received 'input' from feminists as well. So you know where that went! Now India is enacting laws based on the same under similar pressures. It is behind the curve. While in US there are challenges mounting to this status quo-India is enacting laws of 70s and 80s! With the experience of US and other western nations available why cannot Indian laws be ahead of the curve as opposed to follow in the footsteps and make same mistakes?

A strong encouragement/movement for women to educate and work is needed. If women are not happy with that, they should take it up with the feminsist and women's rights groups- since it is they who brought these things including  increases in divorce rates!  Men are not necessarily opposed to that! But what is happening is-these laws are giving wives to have their cake and eat it too! That has too change.

When issues of rights come up, issues of responsibilities, should not be far behind!

@mirage . I hope,  child support doesn't mean supporting wife right. So, the maintenace of  feeding wife is ruled out, so similarly maitenance to wife is not correct.

Supporting children is a different issue, I feel.

Mirage, Laws cannot (and are not hopefully) be made in a vaccum. Morality must be the underpinning for any law. That is why laws change. there needs to be more, not less, discussion. I agree that is why setting it in black and white takes away the grey and is injustice. No case is alike another! One can argue Bank robbery is a grey area because-the robber can say, hey I had to because it is MY job and I have to feed my woman and kids! He has a point-so shall we make Bank robbery legal?

The amendments are based on inputs from law commission. These people include those who are /were judges, lawyers etc. The government calls for inputs (whether considered or not is another question) from the public. Why? Bacause it is necessary in a democracy. We, the people, shape the laws. Educating people on existing laws and guiding them is one aspect. But lawyers and public play an important role in its framing as well. In that context maybe this discussion could be relevant. Of course, admins can close this if they think otherwise.