LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010

Page no : 2

Unbiased Advice (Advocate)     06 August 2010

As rightly suggested by Mr.Arun Ji, Let us all read the entire PDF  File and then discuss the amended act merits and demerits instead of generalizing and personalizing the whole issues.

 

All the best.

1 Like

(Guest)
The silent early essence coming out of the IBM, 201 The Bill is actually based on two broader scenarios and I am talking here of who will want it most and not how one can get it at what cost so there is a clear demarcation of what you are reading below and what your mind is going to tell you to act upon once you apply your mind to below takes:
 

Say using IBM, 2010 The Bill the wife wants a divorce: [say broader usage visuals in days to come]

1.
The wife would file a 498a, or other wise also after 3 years of seperation can easily get a divorce using IBM funda. Right is it not so ?
2. It is but natural that the husband can't even contest this nature of divorce becuase The Bill's 'object and reasoning' is based on the HARDSHIP of GENDER in seeking divorce. Do you say right !
3. Now, she already has decree in hand of divorce and say now she gets married and offcourse can easily claim money while quashing the 498a say after 10 yrs. Is it not so going to happen? 
4. Here what will happen is that the husband would run in Courts in 498a cases for years, in which the wife would never appear as she has already got a decree of divorce courtsey IBM, 2010 The Bill.
 

Now let us say using IBM, 2010 The Bill the husband wants a divorce: [say broader usage visuals in days to come]

1.
The wife would oppose on ground on money (means maint. / alimony / custody too) ld. members is it not mentioned in the Bill that she should not feel hardship so what is wrong in admitting para 1 !
2. Now, what happens is that say if the wife does NOT want to give a divorce, she will fight till SC for next 20 years, saying that she is not satified with the money offered in the lower court or high court.
3. Now for para 2 backdrop what is left is that at the end the husband would NOT get a divorce even if he is willing to pay money, say even after 20 years using IBM, 2010 The Bill.
 

So, the most disastrous thing is that the husband can't even contest if IBM, 2010 The Bill is even ever enacted in present form!. We all preety well know, in our courts, cases runs for years and no body gets justice if the oppsite party opposes (said in context to Family Laws seeing trends in majority of contested cases scenarios). So to overcome this problem the husband's contesting power has been taken away by this Bill in its current form. So sum total effect of passing the IBM, 2010 The Bill is that ONLY a wife would get a divorce, as the husband can't even contest it. Contest power is totally removed naturally it is based on IBM so to speak. If the wife opposes the husband would NEVER get a divorce at least in the next 20 years, irrespective whether he is ready to pay, or has money or not.


Now let us try to elucidate above takes with a particular example.


See, in the US state of Texas the alimony is limited to a maximize of $ 2500 (Rs. 1,15 Lakhs) or 25% of the husbands income whichever is LOWER . The time period also cannot exceed 3 years . Wife can demand maintenance ONLY if the marraige has exceeded 10 years. You see so interesting corralities which many of us don't even know and compared to great West we are still on better padestial as far as maint. granted irrespective of cohibitation period or conjugal rights performed or not on first night is concerned.


So that was an example of a OBJECTIVE LAW where the law sets strict upper and lower limits beforehand itself.


However in India this is not the case, here the field is wide open to play (now let us not personalise this say by saying oh lots of Indian husbands do this too, arey forget pinheads be gender neutral is the keyword I am trying to stress here).


The Grave Financial Hardship condition will NOT  be satisfied  by an Objective  law  but SUBJECTIVELY (further that is ONLY when the wife says so).


Grave Financial Hardship is a subjective term (hope you all will agree to it) because just like in several of the Indian maintenance laws the assumption of the law was that wives will demand only what they need for sustenance (see the catchy word you have read no. of times in all the maint citations so we are not naive to this words usage), however 100% of wives try to extort money much beyond genuine need [now here don't shoot all your ammo upon me when i say so becuase you missunderstood demand with needs as a subjective term :-) ].


Now, every reader will clap when I now add little masala in this post and say even in all maintenance laws there is term that maintenance must be given so that wives are not driven to vagrancy (right or wrong). However in society what we see is also that top executive wives also demand lakhs and cores as maintenance and Alimony (raise your hands who differ with this thought) . So this IBM, 2010 The Bill will be used in the exact same way if given in wrong hands (now don't ask me to exactly spell out in these early days of The Bill who are these wrong hands I am hinting at, I leave few wordings to your imagination too).


Also every readers to this post will still agrre when I further say that I am 100% sure that courts will support the wives saying that grave financial hardship does not mean wife will just have to be provided bare essentials, it means she has to be paid what she asks for. This is what courts have said even for CrPC 125 also so where is the catch ld. readers in this The Bill, 2010 ?


In other words Grave Financial Hardship will not be satisfied till money is  extorted from the husband and courts will also interpret it not objectively (like 2 Lakhs One time Max Alimony I mean can such sealing cap be made practical that also in Indyaaaa..... forget it I say) but subjectively like Grave Financial Hardships will be satisfied only when the wife says so is the only mute point in this The Bill, 2010.


The last law on divorce was made in 1955 then came the next generation of law in 1956 and further in 1984 and is going to be changed in 2010 by this IBM, 2010.


So  if this law (IBM, 2010 The Bill) comes now then this will never be changed in our lifetime.


So think Objectively as well as Subjectively before you support it in  Haste !!

 

Against above simplified broader check and balance (here I have removed the great urban and rural divide which few writers commenting to this post got confused with) such as above and let us discuss further now without being personal so to speak and seek your valuable core views on IBM, 2010 The Bill as a general practice meaningful debate.
 
Rgds.
1 Like

sivani (engineer)     06 August 2010

I never said I am a teacher.  I am a engineer.  I was talking about a frined of mine who is going through the same battle infact much worse than what i am going through.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     06 August 2010

OK THAT'S ALRIGHT

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     06 August 2010

sivani (engineer)     06 August 2010

@Arun, Lets talk real.

Take the case of my friend itself.  She recently completed 25 years of married life and has one son of 24 years who has recently started working.  My friend who comes from a very good family and her husband started with almost nothing.  Though she was educated, she did not take up a job as in the first few years she looked after the child and thereafter helped the husband in his busineess.  She even sold her jewellery to support him.  During the 25 years of marriage he has had a number of affairs which she kept trying to ignore to keep her marriage intact. After her son went away to college, she took up a job as a teacher in a govt. school to keep herself busy.  now after 25 years the husband wants a divorce as he is involved with a girl half his age. 

Now consider the IBM 2010 Bill.  With this bill her husband will leave her and stay with his girlfriend for 3 years (remember SC has given a nod to live in too) and then apply for divorce and my friend cannot even contest as the court will not consider her in 'grave' financial hardship as she is working in a govt. job and can take care of herself.  no maintenance as her son is already working.  It will not consider that the son after a  year may want to go in for further studies and need support.   The court will not consider anything else, it will not consider why she did not pursue a career when she was educated enough, it will not consider how she sold her jewellery (as she does not have proof as this happened more than 20 years ago), it will not consider her helping her husband to set up his business (no proof again), it will not consider how she forgave his many filandering ways (no proof again), it will not consider that he is earning in lakhs now (no proof again as it's his own business), it will not consider that she was used to a lifestyle where they holidayed abroad every year, dined in five star hotels, travelled by air always.  It will not consider that her husband is leaving her for another woman to get married again (no proof again), it will not consider that he will get married again and lead a life as he wanted and maybe even have children again.  It will not consider that after all this the society will only blame her and it will not consider the stigma she will face in our male dominated society.  It will not consider that she has nothing to look forward to as it is at this age that she needed her husband by her side most. It will not consider that to top it all she also will have to struggle with a new lifestyle which she took for granted so far.

It will consider only that the husband has asked for IBM as he cannot live with her anymore as she is not in 'grave' financial hardship.   WOW, Mr Moily tusi great ho...........

and i'm sure this is not only the story of my friend but millions of women across india.

Suresh Ram (Business)     06 August 2010

Moily started with Molding a Ganesha (sec 13 C HMA) and ended up with a Monkey (Sec 13 D).

Supreme Court honestly wanted to end long battles of Matrimonial dispute pending before Courts and requested a law to end marriages on the ground of Irretrivable Break down. . Both spouses can get out of marriage and still fight for Custody or Alimony. Law commission approved it.

The govt was not bothered and kept silent ! . SC went ahead ordered divorce in many cases. When Harish Salve demanded Divorce for Ms. Shinde the SC woke up and said Pass the LAW. Now it has become Clash of TITANs!!

Now Moilyis  forced to appease woman activists included 13D giving right to Wife to oppose IBM. Women empowerment is always about paying money to Wives from the Husbands Chest ( Why not Govt Pay Divorced women Pension? if they are seriously concerned)

Actually !3 D is reduntant as Sec 25 HMA takes care of Alimony and  Custody at the time of passing any order under the ACT!

The funniest part is the definition for IBM ! ie" not living under same roof for 3 years" No estrangement or reasoning is needed!

A husband living abroad even without any estrangement can file IBM just by throwing money on his wife and get rid of her. We can only pity Hindu Wives!!

With this law neither the Courts nor the Wives are benefitted. On the contraray this law create more confusion and out Judges will have field day adjouring matters as usual.

Marriages don't break just because of lapse of 3 years time!!

IBM happens due many other serious reasons like incompetability, avarciousness, ego among others.

I am sure Ms Shinde won't get divorce! Harish Salve is failing Mr. Shinde!

Suresh Ram (Business)     06 August 2010

" During the 25 years of marriage he has had a number of affairs which she kept trying to ignore to keep her marriage intact"

Your friend appears to have no self esteem of self respect!!

Blaming Moily or Court is nothing but self pity- which our Young Women are conditioned by Older generation of female aided by Media. It sucks.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     06 August 2010

YOU ARE WRONG MR SURESH, THE BILL COMING BEFORE THE PARLIAMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF REACHING BENIFIT TO THE DAUGHTER OF MR SHINDE.

I AM REACHING THERE PART BY PART.


(Guest)

@ Shivani

Appreciate putting a illustration to me to reply. My only request before you read further is that "don't make rest of your replies personal and emotional" In this post we are discussing proposed Law and not your or mine life story. Let us talk / discuss in larger public interest all that your teacher friend should look from IBM and do not mix up other Sections of the Act / Codes into further replies.


Now here are my takes on your illustration just read it no. of times then reply or if you want then delete it from Outlook box since you asked me a que. I am replying;


1. You have projected the situation of this teacher friend as if she is blind and does not know how to take help of Law for collection of PROOFS / EVIDENCES. Common you want me to spell it out about proofs collection then request to copy past your above post with a new title "How to help a female teacher" as a separate post I will give you for your teacher friends favor number of quick tricks and tweaks to gather "proofs" tell her to use that even before IBM is enacted and she will lead much happier life post IBM enactment and if she wants to use my suggestions then wait for IBM to be passed she will still come out better than what she is today. Leave emotions and sentiments out of these posts. If a wife’s emotions / sentiments are only better and genuine then a husbands emotions / sentiments are not garbage so to speak. It takes two hands to clap as always and only those two hands know who and how they tried to clap rest narrations by third party are all lime and soda mixing same society's outlook so let us leave all these.


2. Now, read again my above page 2 post especially the explanations under "Now let us say using IBM, 2010 The Bill the husband wants a divorce: [say broader usage visuals in days to come]"


What you get out of para 1 till para 3 in above?. Especially the sentence she should not feel financial hardship part ? Now suppose this teacher lady is hit by IBM curtsey husband of hers in some day from today, all she has to show is the "status" minus the meager salary she is getting from teaching. Trial Court will give her, her financial dues before granting IBM if not then she can approach HC and again if not then she has Apex Court in front of her to do complete justice and without this check and balance husband can’t be granted IBM divorce whereas opposite is much true faced as per IBM The Bill in curent form. Now, say trial court based on your illustration will grant my guess is somewhere around Rs. 5 L to this lady,  I know she is not going to be satisfied with this amount then she has a choice to take it before HC where it will be raised to Rs. 8 L and I know she will not be still satisfied because of "25 years clubbed with society views" put behind her so SC will grant her Rs. 15 L.


If she is not satisfied even with this much amount then there is a issue with her not with her husband because the "intent" and "scope" of IBM is purely to get quick divorce and not to make "financial transaction" hope you get my blunt point but in days to come it will become a issue when husband files for IBM and finnacial hardship to lady will be only bargaining point - take my words now !


Now tell me is it not that Mr Moily has rightly included “grave financial loss clause” into the Bill for nothing ! He knew this is the que. a wife (feminist lobbys) are going to put before raising some more objections which in my guess is "property related" which I am 97% sure of take it granted today.


Madam it is only couple of ld. member shere who are discussing this Bill right now tht also in its early stages, you just wait to see the debate brought by Brinda Karat, Girija Vyas, Ranjana Kumari and lawyers collective (see my news posting of Pune Family COurt where Lawyers lobby have already protected against the bill sayign it is not in favour of a wife) what more clauses they bring in to safeguard a wife into this piece of 1978 law commission report exact copied and made The Bill, 2010. In 1978 the scenario (income / price index vis-a-vis divorce rates) were totally different when law commission made that report than what is today, 30 plus gone by this date. You also read Law Commission Report of 1978 on IBM to understand how this Bill is copied exactly, comma by comma at exact spots followed by fullstops by fullstops at same exact spots followed by word by words same .......


3
. Now I have a illustration on your same lines for you to decide whose apathy to consider as fit case for IBM is all about;

Illustration: A Husband spends 25 years into the marriage. Wife educated and qualified but choose to be housewife. A child out of the wedlock. Husband runs a small departmental store / shop. Income for family only from that store / shop. One fine day he is hit by a speeding truck, both lower limbs amputated. Now, wife leaves him for someone else or goes to her parental home because she can’t look after a handicapped husband after 25 years of marriage and stays put there for 3 years. Child already grown up. Now, see husbands, only source of income already gone because he can’t run his shop nor he has money to hire a assistant (money gone into medicals already), his only wife also gone when he needed her the most and his own child who is this blind father's eye at this stage also grown up and in nuleaus way out of his reach. Wife after 3 years files IBM.


Que.: Do you think husband should get money from wife on "grave financial hardship" as per IBM clause ?


Keep thinking aloud if you can for and against millions of down to earth husbands who lead such lives and it is not that only Indian wife live such life - let us see both sides madam.


Now you see reasoning / logic which goes behind making of a bill and its opposition for and against?. Your case and mine case are not ours but voice of millions of husbands and wifes' cases and not all husbands are dowry seekers and b*st*rds so to speak and so do not all wife are money seekers there are cases opening up equally in good numbers in 21st. Century modern India from both sides of genders thus gender neutrality / gender equality is the question always raised by a prudent person and these are not based on "emotions and sentiments" of a spouse.  


Think again and tell me is your teachers emotions / sentiments are bigger than my amputee husbands emotions / sentiments? Whereas the question sis finacial hardship ha ha I say both are on equal footing as far as society is concerned so why say as you said that wife is now in sorry stage. I say NO because she is going to get the financial hardship dues from husband curtsey this Bill, 2010 whereas in this Bill there is no clause for Husband to seek any financial hardship maintenance or even alimony in any form from his wife under IBM granting of divorce !. Is it not a precarious situation for millions of husbands now going to be ?



Now think that in above illustration suppose this amputee husbands files for maintenance / financial support while IBM arguments in Court are going on then what happens in such scenario?  Court will throw his such financial hardship Application at admission itself stating no such scope / intent / reasoning under IBM ???????????? Court will sermon him saying go to civil court and file S. 24 / S. 25 HMA but IBM divorce already granted to wife so where he is going to run without his legs now ???????

To LCI he will come and we all will take a poke on him for and against with 100's of pages written by  ld. ladies and ld. gentlemen here.


Ha ha this is India madam here laws favor women admitedly on paper but yes since it is there on paper women do get benefit and for husbands, name me one Section or one Act I will bow down (except Section 24 HMA) there is none so to speak, you see the malady how disadvantageous the husband is going to be if IBM without any financial hardship clause built in The Bill, 2010. The millions of husband also want that The Bill, 2010 may be passed. GENDER NEUTRALITY / EQUALITY which are the only two keywords.


Oppose this IBM on gender equality / gender neutrality thinking of common wife and common husband and not on your illustration is more pathetic than mine or vice versa. We will spent 100's of pages of this forum just getting struck whose illustration is better. Hope you get my point and here is a side dish now (in one of the previous post of madam Aishwarya you asked me what I did to my wife from 1999 till 2002 and I said send me your address by PM so I am waiting for your address to post her certified copy of Divorce suit and my Rejoinder reply for you to see what I did to her so bottom line lady don't bring personal issues to forum posts as replies. No one like to read such personal replies).


However, let us go beyond your and mine illustrations and see what really this Bill is all about and we look forward to hear general publics comments / remarks / suggestions to understand better The Bill, 2010 in gender neutral point of view only.


Rgds. 

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     07 August 2010

Analysis of the said marriage amendment bill 2010,

Part - 1

If the bill accepted by the parliament in toto, the shape of the bill will be as follows :-

13B. Divorce by mutual consent.

(1)  Subject to the provisions of this Act a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce may be presented to the district court  * by both the parties to a marriage together, whether such marriage was solemnized before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, (68 of 1976.) on the ground that they have been living separately for a period of one year or more, that they have not been able to live together and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved.

(2) On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime, "Upon receipt of a petition under sub-section (1)" the court shall, on being satisfied, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, that a marriage has been solemnized and that the        averments in the petition are true, pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree.

 

By the following words * by both the parties to a marriage together,  - the door closed by the act for those, who are unable to file a joint petition together.

 

By practical experience, we know that, to file a joint petition together, almost impossible, because of the fighting attitude of the spouses, very particularly, where a particular party greedy of money, and coming almost in the stage of blackmailing to other party.

(contd)

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     07 August 2010

The base of analysis.

 

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010.

 

Amendment of section 13B.

 

2. In the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the Hindu Marriage Act), in section 13B, in sub-section (2), for the words, brackets and figure

 

 “On the motion of both the parties made not earlier than six months after the date of the presentation of the petition referred to in sub-section (1) and not later than eighteen months after the said date, if the petition is not withdrawn in the meantime”,

 

 the words, brackets and figure

 

"Upon receipt of a petition under sub-section (1)"

 

shall be substituted.


(Guest)

The Focal Point of The Bill, 2010


1.
Already laws are there to give half share to daughters in property. Govt should implement those rather than making new laws.


2.
What happens when a woman marries and stays only for 1 day, and then files for division of matrimonial property?


Discuss above against the backdrop of IBM, 2010 The Bill.
 

1 Like

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     07 August 2010

Sivani,

 

Have you told my story, with some differences in some of the variables? Just that my marriage is 20 years old! Sacrifices all through life with a robust trust in him even though things were going wrong in so many ways. Being a christian he declares himself a Hindu and files the divorce case under Hindu marriage act on the grounds of cruelity. He specifically mentions a total breakdown of marriage: he left home, I did not. He climbed up the ladder and I inched forward to add frills to my child's life. well, I have not used DV, or any other acts which would damage his life...took the pressure of conversion to Christianity and giving away my jewels in my sister in law's marriage, as my in- laws sentiments and expectation from me to share what I have at the time of hardships. Today when it is time for him to share and give comforts, when it is time for him to be with me, he flasshes the divorce petition with such a confidence and arrogance. Yes, for a moment I felt someone had a peep into my life, excepting that I am not a teacher but a freelance who is not even sure if any assignment would be on way once the ongoing  assignment is over. No perks, no medical benefits, no gratuity, no bonus, no regular fat salary. My strength is my daughter who is growing as a sensitive child, it is she who keeps me go on and smile through tears of betrayal,  disillusions and sheer disbelief for what is happening to the life! Don't want to share the personal trauma in this forum, but personal is political, isn't it?

I am not maligning all men, there are couples around who are going on with their lives with a spirit of sharing happy and unhappy moments, supporting each other through tears and joy.

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     07 August 2010

Sorry Arun ji for being personal, but certainly not sentimental. Sometimes these personal anecdotes help and serve as case stories- be it men's or women's- to reflect and analyse.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query