Family issues such as Alimony & Custody drag on and on in our Courts. Within months / years all parties involved are too emotionally drained and even to the best meaning advocates these issues become just a collection of files. To the judiciary and their staff it is another date on their calendar, and another, and another ....
Invariably, when the judicial process starts, one party is wronged and the other has wrested an advantage. Usually such advantage goes to the first mover and logically, most 'first-movers' are those who have planned out their strategies for a legal battle and therefore unlikely to be a true sufferer in SUCH matters.
Please do not make up your mind about my mindset at this stage. I am a student of human behaviour and I am merely stating the logical and rational arguements that go to SUGGEST that the 'first mover' is USUALLY not the sufferer & yet starts off with an advantage.
Finally, if any reader finds a flaw in the above proposal, I earnestly request him / her to think about ways to address the said flaw before tabling it on this forum as a 'problem'.
We ALL want to resolve these matters, do we not ?
For the two painful legal issues a normal man / woman can encounter in todays increasingly intolerant social fabric, namely custody & alimony, I have the following suggestions -
Custody - The default arrangement must be SHARED CUSTODY whereby the mother (and her family) keeps the child on all work days and the father (and his family) on all weekends / holidays. If both parents are working, father gets to enjoy ALTERNATE weekends to enable mother spend some leisure time with child.
Alimony - The default arrangement should be between 1/5th & 1/4th of husband's ITR earnings LESS wife's ITR earnings. Typically the latter should apply if there is a minor child staying with the mother and the former should apply if the couple is issueless.
I wish to emphasise that these are proposed as DEFAULT arrangements ONLY, to be enforced as law "takes its own course". There would be numerous exceptions, but all rules are meant to have exceptions. Any situation, that doesnt "fit", can be debated out and a rational treatment is bound to emerge.
As far as the trials are concerned, I strongly advocate that -
a) All custody related trials MUST be by a jury of peers where the gender balance MUST be in favour of the non-custodial parent.
b) Psychometric tests for children should be mandatory and lie-detector test for both parents should be permitted if asked for by O.P.
c) Lie-detector test should also be permitted in alimony / divorce cases.
Strangely we are all so vocal about whether or not technology should be permitted in games but are not willing to pursue the case of similar technology (maybe imperfect but then who said our judiciary is perfect ?) in matters where one is playing games with our lives and happiness !
Our judiciary is fond of maintaining status quo. Let status quo start from something like what is proposed above. Then let us see how long the cases drag on.