Marriage amendment bill 2010

Dear All.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

But my intention was that, we all could collectively prsuade law making and enforcing institutions like government, courts and judges at highest level be apprised of and informed in detail about the geniune and legitimate concerns/ apprehensions and queries of the larger and more responsible section of the society that is men. So that neccessary amendments are done in this proposed bill to make it more justifiable and equitable irrespective of the gender.

The main concerns from my side are as under:

1.    For property acquired by husband before marriage, no contribution is made by the woman, why she should claim that.

2.    If woman remarries, will she give back the property of previous husband(s).

3.    What about property inherited by the man, means not acquired by him, but is acquired by the father before death or forefathers. Particularly in joint families, property is common.

4.    Where court decides that woman is at fault for causing divorce, why man should suffer.

5.    Where women start using this as a tool for grabbing the property of men. Get married, take property and leave the man or make his life hell.

6.    Why only woman be made owner of property, only because she is woman and never contributed to earn the property, particularly before marriage.

7.    Why men should marry after these clauses.

Please help men of this country, otherwise this society will crumble and more suicides and murders will take place with these wrongful rights to women.

TAKE:Being low-pitched you I am an ironist of the peris who force rent strike.

TAKE:The soma variola think tank,think-tank getup brah your cuppa tea sir!

Dear Later,

Frankly I did not understand those comments, it is beyond my reach and ability to understand the meaning of it.  I don't even know whether you have shared a joke, praised me or passed an adverse comment against me.  I don't feel shy to admit I refer dictionary to know the meaning of words like soma variola, brah, peris etc. 

But you know something.  We have many regional languages in the country.  We all must be having one mother tongue as Indians.  The telugu word for Dictionary is NighanTuvu.  But 100 out of 100 Telugu people call it Dictionary.  If someone use a tough word in Telugu, people laugh at him and call him a Telugu pandit.  That means some kind of derogation.  Somebody calls you a Telugu pandit means, you are a kind of fellow who are of no use to anyone except teaching telugu students as Telugu teacher or Telugu lecturer. 

But when it comes to English, if you use tough words, nobody would call you an "English pandit".  Instead they will perceive you with great sense of admiration.  There is nothing like colloquial and literary or non-colloquial as far as English is concerned in India.  Instead of calling fundamental you use the word rudimentary and make people refer dictionary once, you are a genius.

But I think we all lack something in all this, that we feel shy to talk our mother tongue using exact words, though they may sound non-colloquial, but at the same time, when it comes to English we love to use words that so many people don't understand to project ourselves to be....no need to say.  That is one problem.  And people perceiving such people who use such fanciful words that only a class of elite people can understand, as their role models, another problem. We have very low self esteem as speakers of our mother tongue and feel high degree of self esteem talking a foreign language.

Law is not a common man’s cup of tea be it before Bench or in Public debates.

Law is meant to serve the best interests and common good of all and common must know what justice is when it is done to him.  It is not that when a court delivers judgment, the common man is told by his counsel whether he won the case or lost the case.  Nobody knows the offender better than a victim and nobody knows the justice better than victim.  Two advocates argue their cases before bench to arrive at the truth of matter or to help the bench to arrive at the truth of the matter not to display their communication skills or legal skills. Law that has nothing to do with common man is not law at all.

When justice is done the common man should feel justice is done to me.  If he does not feel for any reason, justice is not done me, howsoever logical the judgment may be, justice is not done to him.  A common man may not understand the intricacies of law, but ultimately, he understands one fact clearly.  That is, whether justice is done to him or not.

I agree with Amit.

very right

1.    For property acquired by husband before marriage, no contribution is made by the woman, why she should claim that.

2.    If woman remarries, will she give back the property of previous husband(s).

3.    What about property inherited by the man, means not acquired by him, but is acquired by the father before death or forefathers. Particularly in joint families, property is common.

4.    Where court decides that woman is at fault for causing divorce, why man should suffer.

5.    Why only woman be made owner of property, only because she is woman and never contributed to earn the property, particularly before marriage.

all the points put by Amit are fair.

@later aka tajobsindia

seems you got flattered by everybodies words that you write professional english..so you write more tough English when you write as Later..this is ridiculous..

Let alone property attack maintenance itself-in any shape or form, unless a woman is physically handicapped or mentally unstable- (she can be confined to mental institution under those circumstances). Any able woman must be covered only for a few months to find a job-at theend of that period she should take care of herself. Property division , if any, should be based on actual proof of her contribution and must be left to courts.

 @Bhima balla

Dear sir.

Is this law for muslim too?

 1. NO