Whether new proposed marraiage law another whip to husbands?

Pls read the amendment carefully. There are two main points. I have already explained them in previous posts. One is about property sharing, for that since they are allowing one time settlement in lieu of alimony, since earlier alimony was as it is decided on property and income, it is going to be no different now. On the second point, wife can only oppose the divorce on the grounds that divorce would cause extreme financial hardship to her, not on any other ground. And this issue of financial hardship would be addressed in the DV etc. After getting the compensation issue addressed by the court on merits, the wife cannot complain of financial hardship again. And so on. So in theory, these amendments have a lot of benefit to the wife, and some benefits also for the man. But in practice, I fear, this is going to the police, lawyer, judge, court staff nexus even stronger, cause the power to determine property share is left to the court..

Calm....

 

@mirage

Plz help me here

-Wife files 498a/DV on husband and family

-Wife files for divorce after 3yrs

-Wife gets remarried and enjoys her life

-Husband & sr citizens roams around court for getting out of 498a, DV for 7yrs+

Now tell me how can this amendment help men, when wife is off the hook whereas, husband&co are circling the courts and can't remarry for many many years to come because of appeals etc etc

From my understanding, the only hope that 498a husband had was to deny divorce to wife, now if court grants that divorce then there is no weapon that husbands have against false 498a/DV/HMA etc etc.

 

 

@mirage. If a non 498a husband wants lead a matrimonial life with his wife but she doesn't want then in that case what needs to happen ?

@ kumar.. Well to put both your queries in one answer, if one of the parties doesn't want to stay married then why cling on to the other person? For one, there should be enough self respect in a person to not deny the other person a divorce. Second if even one party is unhappy with the marriage then divorce is the only solution. Because by keeping the other partner tied to you neither of the two will be happy. Thirdly in case of 498a etc. once divorce is granted even if any other case is pending, the husband can remarry. This amendment is introduced as earlier also the ground of irretrievable breakdown was there but only available in the SC. It is on SC's recommendation that this amendment is drafted. To that unhappy marriages don't prolong to infinity. Realise that India is the only country that this nonsense of ten years or more on average of unhappy marriage till divorce is granted is there. Not in any other country.. This amendment is very good for women and also good for men..

@ Kumar..

I need not say on the comment But say if once files the 498-A/DV aginst husband then its very difficult to get divorce by mutual consent unless she made declartion in the court that she will withdraw the charges aginst the husband and in laws/once divorce has been granted the husband is free to marry

I totally agree with Kumar101

@ mirage, guys have no intention to deny divorce to such a wife who has put 498a,406 n Dv upon him & his family. His only condition is that I will let u free if u let me free i.e He will agree for MCD (easy escape for wife) only if she nullifies 498a et al.

This new amendment is a disater 4 those guys who are stuck at this very point

@ Kumar, u have forgotten one more point--- This lady while applying for divorce after 3 yrs wil also get a lot of property too as a REWARD as per this insane law!

Its strange that such a law is drafted in this era of equals that ONE PARTY LOSES ITS RIGHT TO DEFEND ONLY BECAUSE OF HIS GENDER!

@mirage

When women want divorce, we have to give. But when men want it, we have to pay money to get divorce. What is this logic ?

Unless men stop this highhanded thinking, we will not get fair hearing in India.

 

@ kumar, supposing that man is earning fifty k, woman is earning twenty k, why should the man not pay ten k to his wife? If the man has property worth fifty lacs, rent value twenty k, woman has property worth twenty lacs, rent value ten k, why should the man not pay an additional five k to the wife? The man would have the option of paying the woman ten lacs in one go in lieu of five k per month. That is the only impact of this amendment as far as property goes. Nothing else. And this to me seems very fair to both men and women. And most maintenance orders are fair like this. And if you encounter a corrupt or inept judge in the lower courts then you can go to higher courts for justice.... So where is the problem?

@ rajiv, if a wife gets a divorce then if the DV etc is still going on then both the parties are free to remarry. And a woman would find it ten times harder to remarry after filing DV, 498a etc than a man. So in terms of freedom that you are talking about where is the problem? Also your comment about property is addressed in the previous post..

@ aftab, I have DV, 498a, 406 filed against me. And I filed divorce which my crazy x wife is denying and saying she still wants to be married to me after stating that in am nothing short of a monster in her cases. I had a brain stroke after which I lost ability to read, write, speak and type. I have learnt everything all over again and am still learning. I am arguing all my cases in court on my own without any lawyer for more than one year now. So Pls don't tell me that giving advice is easy. I can bet my life that all your experiences would be much easier than mine.. One thing that happened after the stroke that was very good is that I have gained enormous courage and will power.. And I am speaking out of my own relevant experience about all this.. not blowing hot air as you would seem to think.. ;-)

@ kumar, supposing that man is earning fifty k, woman is earning twenty k, why should the man not pay ten k to his wife? If the man has property worth fifty lacs, rent value twenty k, woman has property worth twenty lacs, rent value ten k, why should the man not pay an additional five k to the wife? The man would have the option of paying the woman ten lacs in one go in lieu of five k per month. That is the only impact of this amendment as far as property goes. Nothing else. And this to me seems very fair to both men and women. And most maintenance orders are fair like this. And if you encounter a corrupt or inept judge in the lower courts then you can go to higher courts for justice.... So where is the problem?

 

@ Mirage - I may not be very bright about legal provisions, but just my simple query. Why does the guy need to maintain a wife even when the marriage is broken. Why cant it be understood that breaking of marriage is responsibility of both. In essence, she has no duty but has all the rights. If she is given share of property that the husband acquired during the term of marriage, then what abt the assets his parents had invested in for their only son. I am not sure of the answer to the same but thinking out loud. If a person makes huge losses during the term of marriage, why then the liability also not shared. This is risk free investment for women in which there is only upside. I would also like highlight, that why all the feminists just keep creating abig hubalo about the girl leaving her career for the sake of family. Well work at home is equally hard and for which she is compensated in a way of food, clothing security. If she was working on her own, she would spend money on the same. So how has she sacrificed her career. She has merely taken a different role to perform. And in cases when marriage is going ok, usually husband spends on everything and what ever wife earns goes into saving, but then she is provided with a maid a cleaner, so she is not sacrificing anything and when the split comes, her money which was supposedly savings of the couple suddenly become hers and no credit is given to guy for maintaing her lifestyle for the time they were married. Another query is why has she to maintain the same lifestyle that she had with her husband. First did she had the same lifestyle before and if not then hsusband has kept her well and in a better status, so he should be penalised for the same. After seperation, her duty of taking care of house gets curtailed but duties of husband remain permanent.isnt that a huge bias.

Revolutionary, if wife and husband have similar income and have acquired similar property during marriage, then wife would get no maintenance and share in any property of husband. It is only when the assets or income is dissimilar comes the question of property share or maintenance. Not otherwise. Courts can't get into who was good husband or wife. And they can't make out whether husband or wife is the liar or both of them are lying to the court. They have to award judgements based on the facts that are there, like income or property etc...

Mirage- I guessed you missed my point. I am questioning the very basis of maintainance. Why has the guy to be responsible. Even if during marriage husband has been earning more, he has worked for it, while the other friends went out partying he stayed back and studied to make a career. So he should be penalised because he worked hard and spent endless nights to make it to where he is in his career and should share the same with his wife why. She didnt work for it. So even if there is a disparity in income why should the women be compensated.

I am not even suggesting that the court needs to get into the drama of right and wrong. My query is simply why does the guy needs to maintain her at the same lifestyle as she was with him. That was the benefit she enjoyed when she was with him and if she is seperated then why should she still keep getting benefits or any share in the property of the guy, becuz she has already been compensated for her efforts in terms of having a shelter over her head food clothing and the rest of the perks for her work at home.

Revolutionary, spouses being the responsibility of the partner is one of the basic tenets of HMA. If you had a problem with this then you should not have gotten married, and should have stayed a bachelor. Or had a live in relationship. You made the choice, and dude, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way.. ;-)