One more weapon in the wife's arsenal

Pls read the impact of the amendment carefully. It is a very good amendment both for husband and wife. Wife can't just say no to divorce, she can only oppose on ground of financial hardship, and such she will have to prove in court. Also now the husband has a choice if he doesn't want to stay with wife, he has a choice to file divorce without proving anything in court. The onus will be on wife from now. This is a very good amendment for even husband, especially being retrospective in nature, in ninety percent of matrimonial disputes in courts today, the husband will get an added weapon..

Originally posted by :mirage
"	Pls read the impact of the amendment carefully. It is a very good amendment both for husband and wife. Wife can't just say no to divorce, she can only oppose on ground of financial hardship, and such she will have to prove in court. Also now the husband has a choice if he doesn't want to stay with wife, he has a choice to file divorce without proving anything in court. The onus will be on wife from now. This is a very good amendment for even husband, especially being retrospective in nature, in ninety percent of matrimonial disputes in courts today, the husband will get an added weapon..	"

 @ Mirage husband doesn't have a choice it is court who will decide whether or not divorce petition filed by husband should be granted divorce but in case of women they are free to walk away from marital bond and then later they are entitle to claim share in husband's property. Where do you see husband benefiting here ? Wht happens if a miserable wife decides not to give divorce to husband and files cases such as 498 (a), DV.....etc etc. I am sorry but the way i look it doesn't benefit husband at all..............it seems things are getting worse day by day.

If you read the amendment @victim, then the wife can only oppose the divorce on the grounds that the divorce is going to lead to immense financial hardship, which she has to prove in court. The court will not deny a divorce just because the wife is saying no. If this amendment becomes law then if the wife files DV etc then she will be compensated financially according to what is right, hence she cannot claim financial hardship after being compensated for the same. Lot of the faltu drama will get over after this amendment. It should in theory provide some relief to husband in ninety percent cases, and will make the wives think twice before filing DV etc. Dude, I facing all these cases for last two years, and am arguing my own cases in court, and trust me, for genuine husbands, this will provide some relief at least..

Your argument about property share already addressed in other post @ victim

can somebody pl upload the link to ammendments

@ Mirage,

I have gone through the amendment waiting period for 6 months has been waived which is good but i am sitll wondering how wife's will react on property share issue. Just think of it especially when a greedy women just like i had comes to our house and then then applies for divorce later gets share in property. I understand for the fact that they have to prove in court about the property acquired during marriage therefore husbands from now on should be aware of this criteria as well. But no matter what wife is already entitled of share when it comes to enforce maintenance on husband. If husband is unable topay either property or bank account gets siezed and then same is paid off to wife.

I went through your profile and this was not only the first time but whenever i read your story i felt to shut down my computer especially you being very young as a stroke patient. The thought of it jst knocks me off.....anyway my salute to you and i am sure all of us have difference in opinions i am jst looking at my own way and then commenting accordingly nothing personal though.

Don't feel sorry for me at all. I have recovered very well from the stroke, much better than the doctors expected. I don't feel sorry for myself at all. In fact am very proud of myself for achieving so much after the stroke. As far as property goes, there is a clause in the amendments about a one time settlement instead of alimony. So it is basically the same thing, alimony was earlier decided on property, now with share it can be used for settlement. So husband should not be deprived in theory..

So which means Husbands will be on the roads??????????? 

read this

The committee recommended that the government should make adequate provisions in the matrimonial laws to ensure that the courts at the time of divorce decide upon the women’s share in the matrimonial property, to which they have contributed during the marriage. The government has also accepted the recommendation of the panel that women should have a share in the property of her husband in case of a divorce, but the quantum of share will be decided by the courts on case-by-case basis

The only good thing I found in the amendment (through media) that period of 6 months for second motion has been waived.

However, wife can have a share in husband's property which the couple has acquired during subsistance of the marriage being divorced.    

I have filed for divorced in Dec 2009. The case is still going on.  Now , if the Marriage LawsAmendment Bill 2010 becomes an ACT, can my wife claim a share on my property.

Is this bill  can be applied retrospectively?

If anyone can throw light on this I will be highly obliged .

 

Indrajeet, if the amendments become law then they can affect your case..

it is good amendement in cases where one party is unnessaroly draging the other.but drawback is HUSBAND HAD TO GIVE NOT ONLY MAINTAINANCE BUT  50% OF HIS EARNED FROPERY ,WHICH IS BUYED AFTER MARRIAGE.

If wife re-married,then what about asset received from ex-husbend?