The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010

6) Women leave their jobs or settle for the less lucrative jobs to what we call settling down with the family.

- Yes it is a sacrifice for establishing the family. But how many they are in numbers, who scarifies in this manner and thereafter faces the divorce proceedings?

If such cases are there, obviously husband should take the responsibility to maintain his wife.

7) Gender biased employers would not like to appoint a woman.

Might be.

Husband not - that employer.

In these cases, husband not responsible at all.

8) It is the men, in general who are now resisting maintenance would have very well suppressed their sisters or wives education, and prospects of good employment

Yes, it is man, but they are in the form of father or brother, not husband.

Some husband needs homely housewives, - they are out of this group, some husbands need service holder wives, they never oppose their wife’s service or carrier upliftment.

Therefore it is a vague logic.

A husband not responsible for it.

9) Gender based division of labour.

In ancient India, division of labour were based not only gender, but also caste, creed, even religion.

In modern India, it becomes baseless. Even court refused to direct a housewife for cooking. It is not their duty. Whatever they do, is voluntarily and for the interest of the family.

In the same manner, husbands also do some domestic duty – which generally not recognized by the wife.

In case of divorce, a wife should be happy for the reason that, she need not to do all those odd jobs.

Then why maintenance?

10) Privy Purse not fluttered but amusing.

It is amusing for a wife, but suicide to a husband because without sufficient reason or no cause he has to bear this burdain.

11) All such comments in this contexts are gender biased.

It seems to you so, but in reality, it is a gender neutral stand.

The word used is ‘maintenance’ in the acts, not compensation.

Not all, but those who have no other source of income and dependent financially on her husband are entitled for maintenance.  Maintenance is very different than compensation.

ACTUALLY MAINTENANCE PROVIDING A GROUND TO ACCEPT DOWRY.

NOT MATRIARCHLE,

NOT PATRIARCHLE,

BUT A GENDER NUTRAL SOCIETY IS THE

ULTIMATE GOAL.

Dear All,

I want to know Hopefully if the Bill becomes Law by this month end, in Such a Scenario what is the procedure to convert present Divorce Petition U/S 13a to IBD Section , during the proceeding u/s 13a the financial hard ship of wife is been taken care by interim maintenance does this condition fulfill the new section for  immediate Divorce Decree?

@Trinadha Rao

//what is the procedure to convert present Divorce Petition U/S 13a to IBD Section , during the proceeding u/s 13a//

// financial hard ship of wife is been taken care //

You can file and IA seeking relief U/S 13 C setting forth the grounds and present to the Court.

As usual the courts will take its own sweet time to serve notice to other side= say 4 months to 2 years. A good lawyer of our wife can seek time to file counter upto another two years.

 Then the Court will send you for mediation. Now that your are desperation  to get Divorce is obvious, your earlier 'finacial hardship taken care" would double or triple. our lawyer would feel and tell you it is da light robber and would want to decide the matter on merits and would insist for a trial.

The judge would adjourn for another two years and finally sa both matters can be decided together and the " TRIAL NOW SUPPOSEDLY" going on would be resumed again.

If an order in IA is passed in the mean time either of the part can go for revision and o will lose two more ears of our youth.

See you at old age home

‘Long to run ……….. before you sleep’

Now the bill is at - RS

BILL > RS > LS > PRESIDENT > OFFICIAL GAGET OF GOI > ACT

A COPY OF THE PROCEDURE, WHICH COLLECTED FROM RS WEBSITE, - PM TO YOU BOTH.

DRAFT

Memorandum objecting
Marriage Law (Amendment) Bill 2010
submitted before

Ms.Jayathi Natarajan M P,

Chairperson, Parliamentary Standing Committee
Thro'
Shri K.P. Singh,
Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat,
201, Second Floor, Parliament House Annexe,
New Delhi-110001

"All India Men's Welfare Association"(AIMWA) are working towards the goals
of promoting Men's and Boy's Welfare, WE are in the process of creating a
Male Vote Bank.

AIMWA reject every kind of patriarchal belief, presumptions and attitudes
which impose and enforce duties and responsibilities on men, and indulge
women with irrational protection and privileges

AIMWA reject every trumpeted patriarchal belief and presumption that ALL
women are ABLA NARIS who are incapable of committing harassment, violence
and crimes.

Patriarchy attributes lack of self esteem, self pity, vagrancy,
vulnerability and helplessness to all women in general.

Supreme Court sought "Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage"(IBM), as another
ground to grant divorce to couples irrespective of Religion, with a specific
purpose to arm the Courts mainly to give quietus to ballooning matrimonial
litigations clogging the already dysfunctional Judiciary.

Hon'ble Madam
At the very outset AIMWA reject the out of context stipulation in the Bill
which provide for "Financial hardship faced by Wife" (Sec 13D) on the
following grounds among others.
You would agree that when a Hindu marriage breaks, it fails equally to both
Husband and Wife. Such breakdown creates not only Financial but many other
Hardships to either of couple. AIMWA straightaway decline the premise that
"it is the husband alone guilty of breaking the marriage" and "relief that
too Financial can be claimed unconditionally by the wife alone".

Manifestly opposed to Supreme Court Direction
This Bill instead of addressing the underlying rationale and intentions of
SC direction to make "Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage" another ground
for Divorce is piloting the cause of Divorce and Family Breaking Industry by
providing for "Financial hardship faced by Wife". This Bill append one more
provision for alimony for wife even if she is at fault or even adulterous.

Actually SC sought authority to dissolve marriages as a discretionary power
when warring couples battle for years at Court Rooms resulting in Judicial
Chaos. But this Bill adds to the despair of Courts and involves Judges into
a roving enquiry whether the marriage is Broken Down or Not. Neither the
wife nor the Husband would get any relief if the term "Irretrievable
Breakdown of Marriage" is not defined.

This Bill would be widely misused against the husband who will be forced
"pay and buy" a divorce reducing the institution of Hindu Marriage into
glorified prostitution.

We suggest Section 13 D be reworded as under in the interest of both
Husbands and Wives as well as the society:
Section 13 D (To be inserted instead of the present one)

(a) The court hearing any petition under this Act may hold the marriage to
have broken down irretrievably if it is of the opinion that the parties to
the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of not less than one
year either immediately preceding to or succeeding the presentation of the
petition and there is little or no hope if them living together.
(b) Nothing shall stop both the spouses whose marriage is dissolved under
this Act to marry and live together peacefully again.

Financial hardship provision for Wife is Patently Anti Male
The present Section 13D of the Bill, effectively reduces the husband to a
mere witness to the proceedings, even when he is facing financial hardship.
Husbands will be thus forced to pay their way out to wives and this will
lead to "Legal Terrorism" while any adulterous or criminal wife can walk out
of a marriage with a huge booty from the husbands.
Section 25 the Hindu Marriage Act already provides that "at the time of
passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to
it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may be,
order that the respondent shall, while the applicant remains unmarried, pay
to the applicant for her or his maintenance"
and Sec 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act already provides that "after the
decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to
time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody,
maintenance and education of such children"
Besides a plethora of laws like DV Act, 125 Cr P C, HAMA etc are Very Much
in place to address the "Financial hardship faced by Wife" driving husbands
even to commit suicide
The obvious purpose of addressing the "Financial hardship faced by Wife"
again under this Bill is only to persecute the Husbands and make them loiter
around the Courts. This is simply a brazen anti male Law The husbands will
have absolutely no legal remedy, relief or right, even to oppose the same,
even for the sake of his children.

Strikingly destructive of Indian Family System
Marriage is and was considered a Social Institution. The Hindu Marriages Act
(HMA) 1955 is in fact is Hindu Divorce Act. It does not define what a "Hindu
Marriage" is nor does it stipulate what duties and obligations spouses have
towards each other.

However HMA does provides for divorce only resulting in Mass destruction of
Indian family system by creating duties and obligations only on the
Husbands. Such Divorce Laws in vogue in western Countries has resulted in a
Fatherless Society, incidence of SPERM BANKS, Single parented Children
besides high rate teenage abortions and juvenile crimes ending in disastrous
effect on the social fabric of western nations.
The Communist manifesto of Breaking Families and radical feminist's dream
has come true. Only the eastern countries escaped from such a catastrophe
may be because of the Value System practiced by Families

IBM law is Conspicuously anti Hindu
Divorce and Breaking up of marriages do happen irrespective of Religion or
Caste. If Hindu women's concerns about Financial Hardship need to be
addressed by way of Multiple Legislative Provisions, then the reasons of the
Government about discriminating the welfare of Christian Women and Muslim
Women raises a great doubt.

The true intentions of Hindu baiting are writ large conspicuously in this
law. Hindu Religion is under every form of attack and a state sponsored
terrorism by way of one more Hindu Family Breaking Legislation would first
lead to the Hindus disintegrated. The Hindu Religion would soon be extinct.

AIMWA cautions the government not to play with the Religious Sentiments of
Majority of the people of the Country. Appeasement of Religious Minorities
at the cost of Hindu Families may be politically correct for a short term
but we request the Government to take into account the long term backlash.
We request the government, unlike west, to consider Hindu Family as a
alternate support system which helps the Government by taking over major
social responsibility and cost.

IBM law is evidently anti Women
The real issue of "Divorce" on discord is cleverly converted into one more
provision for alimony to disgruntled wife.The Government, advocates of this
law and the stated objectives of the Bill innocuously appear to hold up the
cause of women under Article 15(3) of constitution. But in reality and
practice this provision of addressing the "Financial hardship faced by Wife"
would only come in the way of women seeking to get out of a strained
marriage made to loiter around the corridors of justice for years together.
This is what happening today in matters of Cruelty, desertion etc. Since the
courts needs to conduct lengthy trials to determine wheather the Marriage is
really broken down and to decide on the extent of Financial Hardship, to
execute its own order etc. We are confidant that even our Hon'ble Minister
Shri Shinde's daughter may not still get divorce or justice if the Provision
for hardship is included in the Bill..

AIMWA would caution the Government if these kind of Laws and provisions are
enforced, the hapless Hindu Husbands who are entangled in matrimonial
discord would be left with no other option except to disregard the provision
and observe Civil Disobedience. Unless provisions are made to protect boys
and men from discrimination and violence, and unless steps are taken to
ensure their welfare, we will witness serious deterioration and social
Disharmony.

AIMWA strongly believes that domestic harmony will prevail only when women
AND men are ensured their rightful, honorable place within and outside the
home. In addition, when we seek true gender equality under law. Litigations
will reduce, legal terrorism and extortion through misuse of the law will be
eliminated, and our human and financial resources can be employed for
betterment of the society and the country.

We would therefore request the committee to allow us to depose and tender
oral evidence before the Committee, backed with facts and figures in support
of our statements and observations.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours truly,


Suresh Ram

All India Men's Welfare Association (AIMWA)

@ Suresh Anna


Mrs Shinde and Mrs. Sule will get the IrBM divorce as she is Petitioner but had she been Respondent then it is pure Point of Law that she would be opposing HIS such moves on FINANCIAL HARDSHIP grounds and that takes me to following burning questions?

Que. 1:

Isn't Irretrievable Breakdown Divorce (IrBM) Bill a long overdue, and step in the right direction?

It may be long overdue, since people living apart for even more than 10 years could not get divorce so far, because some wise judge will say things (to husbands) like “normal wear and tear of marriage”, “do as your wife says”, “men should not expect freedom”, and so on.

Many people look to example of western countries, so if they have no-fault divorces, we must have one too; otherwise we may be 'backward' in some sense. However, one must look at the fine print of the bill, and that is not pretty for men.

Que. 2:

Will not IrBM provide relief to separated husbands, since women already have options of pressurizing using IPC 498a, DV, maintenance?

There are 2 points here: on plain reading of law, it allows husband to file IrBM application after separation period of 3 years. However, it does not change anything in judiciary's attitude towards men in family courts as second rate human beings and just short of criminals. Given the financial hardship veto power available to woman, she can always veto your divorce application, and you can merrily fight for as many years as the judges think is right punishment for you to initiate IBD against an abla naari.

Creating a law takes less time, than changing attitudes of judiciary.

Que. 3:

Can a husband expect to get divorce after separation of 3 years?

Take 3 years of separation, then 2-3 years minimum if your wife is does not crib on grounds of financial hardship. This 2-3 years will be the time Indian ld. judges normally take to decide any kind of civil case. So total 5-6 years.

If wife uses veto power of financial hardship, then add 5-6 years to initial 3 years, so total 8-9 years at least. In the meantime, expect to pay maintenance which is par for the course for men anyway.

Que. 4:

Will the “financial hardship” clause be misused by women?

If you are reading this, then you probably do not believe in the peaceful, sweet, loving nature of all women kind; based on your direct experience!

When a law gives clear incentives to woman to veto husband's IrBM petition, and the judges are anyway partial to women, this will be used as a weapon to delay divorce, and bring you to negotiation table to settle it by paying money. In a way, it is psychological warfare being waged against men on progressively finer grounds:

1. IPC 498a was used to create fear of arrest among husband and relatives. That was too crude for taste of some women, and it was more like a nuclear weapon with guaranteed destruction marriage. Some women and in-laws did not like such all-out kind of weapon, since they believed it should be possible to get a golden egg everyday from husband and family.
   
   
2. Then PWDVA (DV Act) came into being. That opened up lot more options for women who did not believe in one-cut, one-kill philosophy of 498a. It gave women the option of bleeding husband to slow death by sucking out the blood (maintenance) from a small hole in his body. The added advantage of asking for property rights in shared household made it so nice to have a house to live in during the time the divorce is going on.
   
   
3. Now IBD opens the final frontier of warfare to give the women at large a refined, subtle weapon, the kind of which men with protector and provider mentality cannot even fathom that it can be misused? What? By a woman, they will say? A woman now simply has to live separately from husband, probably live with boyfriend or whatever, wait for 3 years; then when husband files for IrBM, she will come crying to judge about 'financial hardship'. Then she will bring husband to mediation table, or else he faces another 5-6 years running in courts for divorce.

Que. 5:

Since the courts anyway take many years in deciding cases, so even after IBD becomes law, it will take years in court, so why should men worry about 'financial hardship' clause?
A passed law is not a trivial matter. It may take years to decide cases right now, but it may change in future. On one hand, if we believe that law minister will come good on his promise of having court cases finish in maximum 3 years; then it gives every reason to worry about a law which gives women supreme power in yet one more law.

Indian economy will keep growing, foreign investors will demand faster execution in courts, middle classes will demand reforms; so whether it takes 5 or 10 years; reforms of courts will come about. In any case, hoping for taking advantage of loopholes in system is not a robust strategy. Once the loophole is gone, you are naked.

A victory given to feminists at this stage in getting IrBM law passed as it is will increase their bargaining power in future too. See next question.

Que. 7:

Shouldn't we be happy that now women's organisations are asking for division of matrimonial property in IrBM, so if that clause is put then men will have to part only with fair share of property / liability to women depending on length of marriage etc, as in western countries?

AIDWA and other feminists are apparently saying that IBD should not be passed. Their point is that it will be misused by men to divorce women simply by separating for 3 years, and so law must have provision for matrimonial property to be divided. To that extent, even if this law is passed as it is, they have set the stage for final battle, i.e., right of women on matrimonial property. Their leader Kirti singh has said on National TV panel debate that “if a man does not have enough property, then his father's and family's property should be taken into consideration to be given to divorced woman”!

Since the women's organisations have not said at all that they believe in equitable division of property/alimony etc depending on length of marriage, children etc; then it is merely day-dreaming to assume that the law in India will be carbon-copy of laws in US or other western countries. They do not have 498a, they do not have PWDVA, and so to assume that our law on matrimonial property will follow theirs is fool's dream. As it was said in a movie dialogue: “Assumption is the mother of all social (read family law) xxxk-ups”.

Que. Q 8:

Can a woman file DV Act, get house, get maintenance, and then file for IrBM after 3 years of separation? Can a woman file 498a case and then file for IrBM after 3 years of separation?

Is there anything in the draft law which stops her from doing so? The judges may consider the facts of the case, the hardship she has gone through already, and admit her petition of IrBM since 3 years of separation are over. After all, whether divorce is given to her or not is a matter of trial and depends on merits of the case? Isn't that what the judges are going to say. And to clear any doubts, they will go through the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, and declare that there is nothing in that which stops a wife who has already filed 498a, PWDVA etc to also file for IBD after 3 years. If that was the case, the lawmakers would have explicitly stated so. The same logic was used to include women family members of husband as respondents, by looking at statement of objects and reasons of the PWDVA.

Academically it will be interesting to hear precious takes of Prabhakar, a women’s champion Lawyer in LCI forum on her side of views on women’s on the whole debate as we all have noticed she is found of well researched Family law articles and we extend in advance a warm welcome to her on such women’s rights discussions which will infact benefit her own women clients if made a (Amendment) Act.

Sir,

1.       I got married in 2008 I am a in the business of building construction and I keep very busy and sometimes comes home very late, she thinks  that I am having relation with someone else, after  1 year she started making false allegations  against me and always in  search of a minor reason to create  scene in the house and start fighting loudly so that the neighoubers   may also know that we are torturing her  

2.       she knows that my  mother  does not keep well and is under medical observation.  I also have to look into other works of his business and have to leave only on  the responsibility of my wife to look after my mother. instead of being beside my mother as she may need any medicine or something else she should be  right beside her she  leave to her parents home in Ludhiana and  stay there over  2 weeks  or sometime more.

3.       That whenever  she creates a scene or fight with me  ,she always say the ,” you have spoiled my life ad future  an I don’t wan to live with  you and give me divorce.” And when it comes to this point   of proceeding for divorce she refuse to give divorce and threats to me that she  will also make my life hell and wont let you go so easily

4.       She also therat him to file a false case of dowry  against me and my family she is deliberately harassing  me. Please  help me and tell me what shall I do?

Yours truly

H.S.BHANGU.

H.NO-1088/15-B. CHD