Marriage amendment bill 2010

@Naren. "You oppose for the sake of opposition"?

 

Do you think women gather all the information relating to husband's properties before marrying?

 

That is a question. You did not know the tone and tenor in which I asked the question.  One can ask that question with the tone and tenor of a curious student who likes to know the answer or like an argumentative hero who bursts out with venon asking that question, expressing a feeling, "you know that is impossible for a woman to know I hereby conclude, there is nothing more to discuss".

 

 I have inquired not opposed.  Depending on the way people like to perceive things, one takes it as a question of inquiry or as an opposition or objection.  I just wanted an answer for it.  Like a computer gives an answer when we put a query 1+1 = ?. 

@chandrasekhar

I have immense respect for you as I have seen many useful comments by you to help various members on this forum. However I formed this opinion not based on this single thread but based on various others where you replied to Tajobsindia. 

Its not a big secret that girl's family do inquire about salary etc of boy before marriage and discussions about properties do comeup. My apologies to you if you find my observation offending or wrong.

This Marriage Amendment Bill 2010 is truely a political move to drift the sentiments and concentration of the citizens towards the burning issues of Women Liberation.

 

After being over-crowded and over-burdened under the heap of scams the politicians find a way out by making such pathetic laws. These law practically are taking our society backwards.

 

50% residential property as a right and being allocated in default is in complete violation of Fundamental RIghts of the husband. How this right would deter an erring husband in burning his wife? How he is supposed to stop taking bribe? how this would stop the cruelty to halt in the country? All of the evils are going to increase we a green signal is given to this law.

 

If one person earns money and buys residential property, then with what logical aspect, the wife would claim under this law? In a peaceful family where everything goes normal and everyone is happy, the wife never claims this right. Even when it exists at the death of her husband. She allows her son or daughter to take their share and then continues to live happily with her son and grandchildren.

 

This is not even applicable in the case of the husband treats his wife ith cruelty even without her fault. What if the husband transfers all of his property to on his mother/father/sibling's name and then get married. Will this law be able to give any justice to the aggrieved? When will this Govt. learn to make practical and harmonious laws? When will the Govt. understand that laws in this counry are misused in 60% of the cases and only remaining are being brought to their real use?

 

I feel pity for our coming generation is this goes on like this!

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

Small error in above post

word "bribe" be read as "dowry"

@Naren.  Thanks for all the compliments.  I am not offended at all by what you had written.  Argumentation, debate and inquiry are part of parcel of job of legal profession.  I see them as contributing factors to value addition. There is nothing personal about it.  I was confident even tajobsindia would not take it offensively.  When even he disagreed with me I had only taken it sportively. Wish others also respond in same token for my comments if they are in anyway in a disagreement mode. I am actually enriched by interacting with tajobsindia, Adv.Chandu, Ashish Daveshwar and Bharat Chugh, who I find most learned members of this forum.  And humble people like you who move me a lot and motivate me to be part of this forum and help others.

With national elections round the corner-there is significant chance that this law will be passed unchanged.Infact what one sees is the clamour amongst different parties to be seen as 'more pro women'.I wouldn't be surprised if they say guve them 90% even his future earning, even ancestral property,inlaws property! If they don't there is 498a or odge 498a and DV for remaining 10%. Maybe the cabinet should have made a law -that husband is a slave. in laws are slaves as well. India goes back to bonded cheap labour.

Before I say anything I want to say that I am a secular person and completely believe in secularity of our country.

 

Why Mr.Khursid thinks that only Hindu women need roof on their head after divorce and not muslim women. If there are changes brought in HMA and SMA, why same provisions are not required for muslim women as well.

I agree with ranee, the bill is 50% good and 50% bad.

there are instances where the law can be misused. but at the same time it will surely help wives who are treated with cruelty and cheated.

the bill will be bad under circumstances like

1.if property acquired by husband before the marriage will be divided.

2. cunning girls can trap innocent boys and then later on take a divoce taking off 50% of his property.

3. cunning girls can make this a good method of collecting property from a number of marriages.

But.....

the bill will be a boon for true and good girls (wife) in case

1. The property is purchased after the marriage ans she has contributed in any form for the purchase of the house.

2. many times the parents gift their daughter with cash, fd, gold for her security. it is possible that this is contributed by the wife willingly or sometimes unwillingly for the purchase of the property, under the wishes of the husband.  then  later in case the marriage fails, the wife will be in a position to get her rights on the house.

3. in cases where the husband cheats on his innocent wife, deserts her, and leaves her alone to fend and look after the house while he flirts with girls to the wifes knowledge. waiting for her to get tortured and give in for a divorce, there this 50% right which she will have will make him think twice, and also the girls flirting with him (who may be doing this for his property) will think twice.

the court must consider

if the woman is misusing this law by remarring a number of times. then she is a con

if the property the wife is claiming belongs to the mans family then its not fair.

if the man has treated the wife with cruelty then he is wrong the wife must have the right

if the property is acquired after marriage she should have the right

if the property is purchased by any contribution of any kind with the money of the wife then she has a right.

basically marriage is union for love and the love must be unconditional. but these days many use it as a business to loot the other party, in such a case either of the two one is innocent and the other is the culprit.

thats why the court must consider several issues to give justice.

 

Its strange that they make laws............they never perform a follow-up, may be 10yrs down the lane.............whether it has served its purpose or not. Take 498a, passed with gr8 pomp & show, 20 yrs down, SC says it "LEGAL TERRORISM". Take DV act. 4 yrs down, SC says it "clumsily drafted". What the present lawmakers are up-to. These gender biased laws haven't only grossly-misused, these have CLOGGED THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM too! Govt shud take lessons from its past follies, high time that these follies be urgently corrected....................But SEE, THEY ARE BUSY MAKING NEW ROT!

I may be wrong here correct me if I am. I guess those property acquired after marriage, wife will have a share and that share is decided by the judge based on facts of the case. Suppose you buy apartment for 40 lakhs with 30 Lakhs loan. Next week if she files for divorce and it will not be 20 Lakhs for wife. I guess it will go through refinement. Judge will also have to decide on motto behind wife filing for divorce.

The draft as reportedly cleared by cabinet has provision for 50% division in immovable (read residential/ real estate) irrespective of whether it was acquired before or after marriage. The court may excercise discretion on immovable property but AiIDWA apparently forced the cabinet (according to news reports) to chnage that to also be divided in half!! Now the only area court can exercise discretion is in waiving the 6 months 'cooling' period.This can be waived if 'both' parties agree to waive it! This is ridiculous.

Please read 'WOMAN' organization in place of AIDWA

 

Originally posted by :pinto
"	I agree with ranee, the bill is 50% good and 50% bad. there are instances where the law can be misused. but at the same time it will surely help wives who are treated with cruelty and cheated. the bill will be bad under circumstances like 1.if property acquired by husband before the marriage will be divided. 2. cunning girls can trap innocent boys and then later on take a divoce taking off 50% of his property. 3. cunning girls can make this a good method of collecting property from a number of marriages. But..... the bill will be a boon for true and good girls (wife) in case 1. The property is purchased after the marriage ans she has contributed in any form for the purchase of the house. 2. many times the parents gift their daughter with cash, fd, gold for her security. it is possible that this is contributed by the wife willingly or sometimes unwillingly for the purchase of the property, under the wishes of the husband.  then  later in case the marriage fails, the wife will be in a position to get her rights on the house. 3. in cases where the husband cheats on his innocent wife, deserts her, and leaves her alone to fend and look after the house while he flirts with girls to the wifes knowledge. waiting for her to get tortured and give in for a divorce, there this 50% right which she will have will make him think twice, and also the girls flirting with him (who may be doing this for his property) will think twice. the court must consider if the woman is misusing this law by remarring a number of times. then she is a con if the property the wife is claiming belongs to the mans family then its not fair. if the man has treated the wife with cruelty then he is wrong the wife must have the right if the property is acquired after marriage she should have the right if the property is purchased by any contribution of any kind with the money of the wife then she has a right. basically marriage is union for love and the love must be unconditional. but these days many use it as a business to loot the other party, in such a case either of the two one is innocent and the other is the culprit. thats why the court must consider several issues to give justice.	"

 A law that is not well drafted is a 100% bad law. It is better to avoid passing such laws. A well drafted law should take all the above points into consideration and provide remedies for it. This will dramatically ease the efforts of judiciary, enables speedy disposal of cases. provides clarity to citizens.This coupled with judicial discretion based on peculiarities of individual case goes far to render justice!

@ Chandrasekhar


Your two posts more or less directed to me are FAULTY. Though I love reading your comments which are besides the point.
Reasoning:
I am not very clear as to your ideology; you tend to favour women or you have your own view to topics and/or when you talk of women here do you talk of urbane women as if they are rural women or vice-versa is what I mean by FAULTY warm-up announcement on your writings here.


Now having observed so let me tune you up why I make such observation about you [nothing personal but more argumentative these observations are so take as usual in same spirit];


1. If a woman say from rural India is getting married it is generically observed that her side of relations ensure complete check-up of bridegroom’s side. Hence property holding or pauper status is more or less known to rural women’s family before marriage more so everybody almost know thy neighbor in rural India!. Now I feel no rural woman’s side will be exactly knowing how much share or exact value of property but property holding if groom has or not is known because of living in traditional customary societies / cultures where things are more orthodox. PERIOD.


2. If a woman say from urbane India is getting married it is genericlly observed that her side of relations ensure correct match making as per status and illustration is Sunday’s matrimonial columns as pointer. Hence property holding or pauper status of a urbane groom and his side of family is more or less known to a urbane women’s family before marriage more so because marriages it is said in urbane India is more of status match than heart of parties match. Here in this scenario urbane woman’s side since living in urbane India know more about the share or exact value of property of groom because of living in metro cultures where things are more non-orthodox and thrives on gossips and status match. PERIOD.

3. Here is some awakai [అవాకై] for you; if it is a love marriage then it is obvious well known that till today rural India as generically experienced shuns practice of love marriage (remember all those stone pelting of such couples / hanging / parading naked news from rural India or do you want me to publish from my archies those news items to refresh your memory!) so paradigm shifts obviously to urbane india's love marriages where it is more or less gaining acceptence. Now here is a question to you; do you think a urbane lass will be so blind in her love not to have basics of status (property) of her beau during courtships when urbane India is much much progressive? The moment you say no then I will construe you have no iota of knowledge on women empowerment and or forward thinking of urbane girls in today’s middle class India.  


4. Generic rejecting my large illustration with “I have to comment somehow” to his reply is not required in a haste. Use some application of mind while rejecting multi platform views. Reason being either you are still un-married and or if you are married then you ought to have been liberal at the time of your marriage hence over-looked great Indian match-making obsession when a girl or boy attains marriageable age and how matches are still done/ made in pan-India is my summing up to your confused ideology and final rejoinder to “Do you think women gather all the information relating to husband's properties before marrying?”+ “If a woman does LLB or if she has Advocates in family and relatives, she may stoop down to that level.”

 

Hope we savvy on placing rural and or urbane lass in their correct perspectives vis-à-vis knowledge of knowing property holding of bridegroom instead of I have to reply to him J   

For HUF better way to covert to Islam. :-) so this amendment will not be applicable for them.