Sign petition: irretrievable breakdown a grounds for divorce

Govt already makinf IRBM a ground for getting easy divorce..............

1. BUT ITS FOR WOMEN ONY...............WHY NOT ITS GENDER-EQUAL

2. MAN HAS NO RIGHT TO OPPOSE SUCH GROUND TAKEN BY WIFE.............IT SHUD BE DELETED

We must fight for these 2 points, rather than asking MPs to pass this ammendment as such

FULLY AGREED RAJIV, SUCH GENDER BIASED LAW SHOULD NEVER BE PASSED

Hi Rajiv and Bharati,

I agree with you that this law is not gender-equal. But do read these points ...

The 'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IrBM) as a grounds for divorce' is agreeable to most, be it the government, or the opposition, or the standing committee or the women's and men's rights groups. Very few have opposed it.

But there were some practical issues last year while passing this Bill.

1) The standing committee in the 45th report tabled on 1st Mar 2011 asked for definition of the term 'grave financial hardship'. The comittee recommended:

"ensure that the courts, while adjudicating on divorce petitions, also decide upon women’s share in the matrimonial property while granting divorce so that they are not deprived of the assets/properties in which they have contributed during the continuance of marriage."

The report clearly mentions in chapter 2, the concerns of various groups that the law is not gender-equal (point 10), that only men are harrassing is not the ground reality (point 7) and this law may lead to extortion by vengeful wifes (point 8). Yet after consideration of these and many other points, they have made the above recommendation.

2) Women's rights groups are far larger and more vociferous than men's rights groups. And it does seem true that in the much larger rural and economically disadvantaged sections of India, women are often at the mercy of their husbands.

3) The BJP and the left although approving of IrBM did not think there were sufficient safeguards for women. Read below article of 8th Mar 2011:

https://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-08/india/28667786_1_irretrievable-breakdown-marriage-laws-divorce-by-mutual-consent

4) Thus, recently the cabinet decided that wives should have a share in the husband's property, but the 'quantum of share, however, will be decided by the courts on a case-by-case basis.'

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3207627.ece

I think this is quite reasonable. It is better that the court decides the amount (based on both parties' incomes/assets, their dependants: both parents and children, etc), rather than have blanket 50% share that is being advocated by some women's groups.

5) Finally, I feel that the IrBM clause should not be derailed because of these issues. Presently husbands faced with vindictive wives have to pay both money (irrespective of who is at fault!) and many many years of their lives. At least, this way, they will save the years of their lives and face less extortion if the court decides the wife's share. The IrBM clause will be better for women also who can get divorce with reasonable alimony, without needless fault proving and court hassles.

Do let me know your views.

-Aditya.

:-) Are you not a lil late/

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

the situation is already out of control !

this is a gender bias law  -this is kalyug no one will listen to the pain men are facig by these biased law nnw a day oe more such law

@ Shonee,

Hi,

The law still has to be passed!

I'd sent a personal appeal to the PMO, law minister and some leaders on 7th March 2012. It's at:

https://adityagilra.blogspot.in/2012/04/make-irretrievable-breakdown-of.html

On 23rd March, the cabinet took a decision on the pending recommendations of the 45th report by the standing committee. So I can flattter myself, that my letter may have played a small role in expediting :) !!

The BJP and left still need to be convinced to pass the bill. Hence this appeal to expedite. Many lives are hanging in the balance!

-Aditya.

Aditya, your case is very different, you are young, i have live example of few women who are taking advantage of this law leaving the husband only for extracting money, one of the case is with my cousine, she has left the husband when both of them are 50+, she has deserted the husband and has filed the divorce case on ground of husband deserting her, she has ransacked the whole house while leave, now she is asking for 50% of whatever is with the husband, husband has lot his job before his retirement age.

Now tell me HOW WILL THE COURT DECIDE THIS CASE..... WILL IT BE ON THE NEW LAW WHICH YOU WANT IT TO BE PASSED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IT WILL DEFINITELY HELP PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND REALLY AGGRIEVED WIVES, BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS TYPE OF HUSBANDS WHO ARE NEARING STATUS OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP - IF THE WIVES HAVE TO GET THE SHARE ON THE MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY ISNT IT THE WIVES DUTY TO PERFORM THE MATRIMONIAL OBLIGATIONS WHERE THE HUSBAND HAS FULFILLED ALL THE OBLIGATIONS/DUTIES OF A FATHER AND HUSBAND.

Please note I am not against giving justice to Women BUT NOT ON COST OF DOING INJUSTICE TO GOOD HUSBANDS. If the Wife is WRONG, she should not be given any share/alimony/maintenance BUT if the husband is WRONG then the Wife should get as per this new Law

Actually we should be opposing the law ............. in its entirety 

Everyone see the amendments based on their own circumstances. As far as the provision of IRBM is concerned, it will help those husbands whose wife is not agreeing for MCD nor willing to improve themselves. Such wives want husband to live as per their whims and know that getting a divorce for husband will not be easy. So I believe that this provision will be good and the wife on being awarded an adequate compensation by judge should not have the right to oppose the divorce.

I still feel these ammendments a crap unless

1) IRBM ground is gender-equal

2) There is some objectiveness in yardstic to measure IRBM, discretionary powers of judge be curtailed to minimum in these cases................O'wise most of them sitting at high chair are P*SSY-LOVING & will be ready to rob u ppl off ur property at the very 1st opertunity!

:-) 

There are many who welcome this while many other who oppose the same.

I am in favor of this law and in its present form only.

Let the tyranny reach its peak, before the revolution can be unleashed.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Dear Bharati,

I can understand your predicament. It is a sad situation for the husband regarding the case you mention. I agree with you that the bill should be gender-neutral. However, women's groups want it to be even more biased towards women. And typically they have more sympathy (and perhaps rightly so) given the many stories of wives being tortured in India.

I feel worried that due to pulling by groups on either side, the important no-fault IrBM grounds for divorce itself may not be passed. This will be a great blow to a basic right of a human to not be forced to remain married, when the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

Of course marriage, in India especiialy so, is also an economic bond. The current form of the bill will let the court decide the wife's share (and hence reciprocally the husband's share) on a case to case basis. In case this bill is passed, I hope the judge will take consideration of the facts you have mentioned and not grant the wife what she demands. Though here one relies on the judge's consideration, it is difficult to imagine an alternative, because each case can be very different.

Personally, I think the government has chosen a reasonable middle ground between the various divergent groups. Hence I support this bill.

Thanks,

Aditya.

Dear Shonee,

You seem to support this bill so that the tyranny can reach breaking point :) !!

I think the tyranny (on both sides) wil only decrease with the passage of this bill!

I feel that vengeful or extortionist women are able to arm-twist husbands because they know husbands cannot get divorce (without long ~10 year legal battle or huge out-of-court settlement for mutual consent divorce). If this bill is passed, and if husbands can wait the tyranny out for three years, they can escape from the evil clutches. And for much less than the out of court settlement if the judge is reasonable.

On the other side, women who are being tortured by husbands, can get a respectable, divorce without long legal battle of proving husband's fault + they can also get a reasonable sum of money depending on their income status (case to case basis).

Also, if a person is so desperate to be out of a marriage so as to stay away for 3 years, he/she should be allowed to do so. Here if the husband wants the divorce, he will have to part with some of his property. Fraudulent / gold-digger wives however could misuse this law by staying away for three years and staking claim to husband's property. Here the husband has to present his case and the court will decide the wife's share. But this will have to be done even if the law is gender-neutral.

Even though husband has no right to oppose divorce under IrBM, he has every right to present his case for what share the wife should get, and then it is for the court to decide. Though a husband can't stake a claim to wife's property.

Then there is the much larger section of people who are unaware of the law, or don't even have access to it, or they are forced to follow the 'law of their samaaj / village' or even the 'law of the jungle'. How can any law help such people? Here a much larger extra-legal effort is needed. But here also, if a law is available (and perchance these people come to know of it and are able to use it) that upholds individual choice while ensuring financial safeguards, it will lead to greater good.

The assumption here is that the judges will be reasonable and will consider the whole situation before dispensing economic share. I hope my faith is not betrayed!

Let's see how things pan out...

-Aditya.

PS: I am unaware of issues about child custody and so forth. Again I suppose the judge has discretionary powers and the economic share will depend on child custody, and also many other factors like supporting old parents, etc. Rather than a law, perhaps SC/HC will issue guidelines. Can't HC/SC issue guidelines without waiting for a specific case to come to them?