There’s been a lot of talk about the new divorce laws giving the woman an automatic 50% share in the husband’s property. While I realize that the state of divorced women in India leaves a lot to be desired, giving a woman a standard percentage of the assets of her ex husband is wrong.
The laws of a country should be just and fair to everyone. It’s not enough to say that “most women are not treated fairly in a divorce” and use that as an excuse to frame legislation that is unfair to even a small percentage of the population. When my wife and I got married we made a pact with each other that our finances would be separate. She would have her own investments, and I would have mine. There was to be no overlap. Our investment and financial decisions are not made taking the other person into consideration. Just imagine the havoc it would cause to my financial plans if 50% of all my assets were to go to her in the case of a divorce! To my knowledge, the law says nothing about her having to share her assets with mine. It’s only one way. Is that fair? And no, we don’t have children either.
To me, this is just lazy lawmaking. It’s entirely possible to have an equitable and fair divorce law that is gender neutral. I know this because I write for a law firm as part of my work. I have a pretty good understanding of how a state like Colorado in the US handles divorce proceedings. Compared to them, our laws seem primitive.
Now I’m not saying that the law doesn’t need to be changed. Yes, women need to be supplied adequate maintenance and child support if they need it. If they need it. There cannot be a set percentage of support or assets that must proceed from the husband to the wife. In fact, the words “husband” and “wife” should not be in the picture at all. It should not matter what the gender is. Some say that India is a special case and that women need special treatment because they are downtrodden.
But creating a blanket rule specifying a percentage of the husband’s assets to be turned over to the woman is unfair to couples that keep their finances separate from each other. Laws are created for everyone. They cannot be biased against a subset of the population no matter how small. It’s entirely possible for a law to have special cases and exemptions in order to clarify its intent. Creating a good statute takes time, effort and an understanding of the situation. Lazy and knee-jerk lawmaking hurts everyone.
I really hope that the divorce amendments don’t go through in their current form. India has a history of making stupid laws as an overcompensation for a perceived social need. It’s time we got serious about crafting well-thought-out legislation that doesn’t have a ticking time bombs attached to it. So many of our regulations get overturned by the courts once they hinder a person’s liberty or freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution. The current divorce laws as proposed would deprive a lot of people of the right to equality and turn every single woman in every single marriage into a victim by definition.
Is that how every woman in India wants to be perceived? As a victim? As someone who is incapable of standing on their own feet? Nowhere in our Constitution is a woman assumed to be financially inferior. Why then do we make laws assuming that every single woman is in need of monetary help when there are millions who get by just fine on their own? Once again – aren’t the rules meant to be fair to everyone?
Provisions like this will more or less force couples in a marriage like mine to sign a contract stating that a divorce is to have no financial implications for either partner. Is this the state that we have come to? Do I now need a lawyer and a specific contract to protect me from the laws of my own country?
Very well said. I really liked the statement “India has a history of making stupid laws as an overcompensation for a perceived social need. “. So very true. Take the case of reservations too. I am going to a step further and say that even though I am a woman, I feel that Indian divorce laws are completely anti-man. I feel at the end of the day, men become scapegoats and end up having to bear the brunt of it. There are cases where conniving women have taken advantage of this fact and I know someone myself who thinks nothing wrong of doing it. If the woman earns well and is financially independent, why take a set figure from your husband? The very act of being financially independent is what enables some (not all) to step out of an unsuccessful marriage, then why use the same excuse to show yourself as needy. In most couples in a marriage, intentionally or unintentionally the man is also the one who coughs up the money for monthly spendings. Most of the women’s money would generally stay in the savings account. Again, I dont mean this happens everywhere. Its a very sad situation that Indian laws are putting couples into. I strongly feel too, that divorce laws in the current form, should not be passed.
In reply to Deepa
Yep. Maintenance is important when needed. Child support is almost always necessary since each parent must contribute towards the upkeep of the minor child.
But a set percentage from the husband to the wife? What the hell is that supposed to even imply?
And yes – reservations are very much an example of the kind of stupid law making I’m referring to.
In reply to Deepa
Indian men really have to learn a lot from Indian woman. See how much noise they made and how much determination they had in them and got anti rape law in their favor. ( despite the fact that false complaints against men are phenomenal and crimes committed by woman are also quite prevalent ) We still are struggling with one illogical law IPC 498 A dowry law. After the delhi gang rape scores of woman were on the street and how they sized up Sheila diskhit etc. Why cant Indian men do that ? even those who are victims of this law are also cool as cucumber and their families also are pictures of peace and prosperity as if nothing has happened. A person like me who is not a victim yet really feels like begani shaadi meain Abdullah deewana. Now to add to the agony this new law that wife has right to half of husbands property ( apparently a man is a confirmed ATM card and an eternal bali ka bakra ) If men don’t have right to fleece money from woman. Then woman also should not do so. Divorce is not a crime and husband cant be paying through his nose for it. Alimony to house is understandable. Working ladies do earn money. Men dont have any right to take money from woman. They call it dahej. Yes I agree that is wrong. Men can get arrested even if they dont take dowry thanks to IPC 498. Men rights activists pull your socks up. In Anti rape law couldn’t do much. At least make divorce gender neutral
In reply to Niraj
apologize for typing error. I meant alimony for house wives.
I agree with you…I think marital assets should be divided in an equitable but not necessarily an equal fashion after taking into account various factors like how much each spouse has contributed (here a value has to be put on a homemaker’s contribution to the household), duration of marriage etc….Also, I think the person who doesn’t have full custody of the children should have to contribute to their upbringing…For instance, if the mother has custody, the father should have to pay a certain amount every month for his child’s upbringing even if his former spouse is earning…
Regarding alimony, facts like the income and property of both parties including how the marital property has been distributed after the divorce, length of marriage, health, earning capacity etc. should be taken into consideration…
In reply to Sraboney
Exactly my point. Each marriage is different and works on different rules. The divorce rules seem to crush every single marriage into one standard mould where the woman doesn’t work, is always a victim and is helpless.
Weak laws will always be misused. Consider the 498A Domestic Violence Act which is an excellent example of misusing laws for personal ends such as exacting revenge.
Indian Divorce laws even in their current form leave a lot to be desired. Perhaps a prenup is in order.
I agree completely. The law should definitely be made gender neutral. The government can always mention exemptions recognizing the needs and conditions of people who are at greater disadvantage to achieve genuine equality.
In reply to Gargi
I respect and salute all woman who support gender neutral laws. You are truly great.
Unethical feminist politicions could certainly learn some thing from you
i agree with you..
if they dont change the rule, then smart women will start misusing the rule.
i agree with your following lines.
“Nowhere in our Constitution is a woman assumed to be financially inferior. Why then do we make laws assuming that every single woman is in need of monetary help when there are millions who get by just fine on their own? Once again – aren’t the rules meant to be fair to everyone?”
rules have to be fair and neutral. and u didnt mention about the new talks , where women can get divorce in a month sitting at home , without being questioning?
In reply to ashreyamom
Yes – the cause of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage must also be made completely gender neutral with good laws in place to ensure maintenance, child support and property division.
This is turning into ‘Gender Studies and Feminine Issues Blog’. Apparently the feminists are making so much noise on the blogosphere to get attention.
Playing to the mob, dude?
In reply to Marsian
Read the post.
In reply to Marsian
Marsian,
He doesn’t have to play to feminists. He IS a feminist.
I think that women in India deserve the kind of financial protection that the law provides for. It does not sound fair but as you have noted in your previous article: a majority of boys and girls think wife beating is justified.
Against such a backdrop of social reality, it would be prudent on the part of the government to make sure that men part with half their financial assets when they abandon/divorce their wives. This will not only make sure that the divorced women is able to financially survive in a cruel and oppressive society, it will also make sure that the man is penalized and prevented from irresponsibly marrying and divorcing a series of women.
A financial penalty is the minimum that the government can impose to ensure equitable distribution of wealth in broken marriages and provide a disincentive to divorce.
In reply to Ramakant
But not all women need it. Aren’t laws supposed to be made for everyone? Is it acceptable to ill treat even a small fraction of your citizens in search of the “greater good”?
What is wrong for specifying conditions under which women can get assistance to ensure that they need it? That is how good laws are written.
In reply to bhagwad
I think it is perfectly acceptable to ill treat small fractions of citizens as long as the “greater good” is achieved. Bus lanes for example, discriminate against car owners in most European cities.
This kind of positive discrimination is perfectly legal in those countries and has been going on for decades. I am sure car owners feel that the law is unfair to them, but then it benefits the greater cause. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made.
In reply to Ramakant
The difference is that car owners can give up their cars and use buses to reap the benefits. In this case I’m supposed to do what?…Change my gender?
Also – this is not a mere inconvenience like getting stuck in traffic. Imagine if all car owners had to lose half their property instead. I doubt any population would accept that.
It’s absurd to be grotesquely unfair to even a few people for inbuilt and immutable characteristics.
If I’m ill treated by my own country to the extent of half my assets being taken away, why the hell would I ever choose to remain in India?
Bottom line: I don’t care about other people as much as I care about myself. This is the way it should be and the government has to find a way to work with that aspect of human nature, or fail miserably in its responsibilities.
In reply to bhagwad
Most governments have the right to take away property from private citizens for the public good. In this case the public good is served by having the husband pick up the bills of a broken marriage.
Why should tax payers money be used to support divorced women? Why not have the erstwhile husband pay for his deeds?
That way the tab is picked up by the couple and the state continues to mind its own business. Everyone lives happily ever after.
Besides most of the youth of the country thinks that wife beating is OK. People deserve the laws they get.
In reply to Ramakant
1. The right of appropriation of property is on a case by case basis as and when necessary only.It’s not systematic. In addition, the courts have recently ruled that the full market price has to be paid as compensation. If a person’s property was always subject to confiscation, no one would buy anything.
2. I’m not opposed to one party paying the other party in a divorce. I’m opposed to the assumption that it’s always the husband even when the woman doesn’t need it. So the point about tax payer’s money supporting the woman is moot.
3. I don’t think that wife beating is ok. I do not deserve this law.
In reply to Ramakant
Also keep in mind, that the citizens of India have the right to equality as protected by the constitution.
Article 15:
“The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”
Here’s a more full treatment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights_in_India#Right_to_equality
This bill as it stands is prima facie unconstitutional and can (and should) be challenged in the Supreme Court.
In reply to bhagwad
Even if the government pays full market price, some owners may be unwilling to part with their property. In such cases, the government tramples upon the individual’s right to property and builds a road, a railway line, a power line or a school/hospital/playground regardless of the objections of the individual tax paying citizens.
Successive governments in India have enacted laws that “positively” discriminate against large sections of the population. Most of those laws have been challenged unsuccessfully in the courts and are now in force.
The government has to make sure that all citizens are treated equally. In the Indian context, it means that positive discrimination mechanisms has to be put in place in order to transform society into a more “level playing field”.
I looked at the link you provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_Rights_in_India#Right_to_equality. Article 15 allows the government to make special provisions for women and children: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.”
Clearly, in this case, the government is making special provisions for women. Society at large needs this law. The wife-beating youth of this country need this law. They deserve this law. This historical law will change the wife-beating youth of this country for the better.
In reply to Ramakant
Once again – I don’t deserve this law. Laws are meant for everyone. So what are you saying…tough luck?
What have I done wrong? Because everyone has to be treated fairly. To me, “I” am more important than “society at large”. If I had to choose between say losing my finger and preventing an earthquake killing thousands of people, I would choose to save my finger. That’s human nature. Almost everyone would privately do the same.
Laws like reservations don’t take away things from people that they already have them. And once again – look at the scale of things. Being denied a seat in an institution vs having half your property take away? There are limits to everything.
So let me ask you this. If the whole country would benefit by me getting a bullet in my head without any charges or trial, do you think I should be killed?
Because this is what it finally comes down to. How far are you willing to go to harm people “for the greater good”. Is it acceptable to sacrifice one person for the benefit of a 100? 50? 10? 2? Where do you draw the line?
Remember that I choose my citizenship of a country for my own benefit. Not for someone else’s.
Finally, keep in mind that the legislators can easily craft a law with exemptions for women who are already well off, who are earning more than their husbands, or who have substantial property of their own. Is it so unrealistic for me to expect the lawmakers of my country to put a little bit of thought into the laws they they create? Every law has provisions, exceptions and special cases.
This is just lazy lawmaking. And there’s a good chance of it being struck down as unconstitutional.
I have a right to expect better lawmaking and not put up with mediocrity.
In reply to bhagwad
You are right, there are limits to everything. The wife-beating community of young adults needs to know that the state will no longer tolerate such extremes of behavior. Social change is always painful. But short-term pain in this scenario will definitely lead to long term results. I am sure the wife-beating youth will have a tough time adjusting to this new law. But in the due course of time, they will surely adjust their behaviour to the new reality and, hopefully, refrain from inflicting violence upon their wives.
How does taking away 50% of someone’s property compare with shooting someone? Besides, the property is being transferred to the ex wife, not to 10, 20 or 30 people.
That would mean that the direct benefit will accrue to a single person. However 100s of others will learn not to indulge in wife-beating.
Ultimately, the benefits of living in an enlightened society will accrue to you too. You will also benefit from the increased opportunities that this law will surely provide. From a purely selfish viewpoint, this law will enrich individuals in more ways than one.
This law is a great leap forward. Our legislators have shown exceptional courage and foresight in drafting this law.
Every radical idea has had its detractors. With the benefit of historical hindsight, most people have come to appreciate the foresight of their forbears. I am sure we will too.
In reply to bhagwad
Don’t rationalize injustice to me by bringing in the behavior of other people. I am not to blame for their indecency and I don’t deserve to suffer the consequences of it. That’s what justice means. It’s not “justice for the 80%”. That is injustice. It has to be justice for 100% of the population.
It’s even worse if my life is to be ruined for enriching the life of a single person. Then it’s personal. It’s as if my life and happiness is not worth anything.
I would rather renounce my Indian citizenship and move to another liberal civilized country where they don’t ill treat their citizens.
As for losing 50% of assets vs shooting someone, I disagree. I might prefer to lose my life than lose the assets I have worked for.
And you didn’t answer my question about why we can’t have nuanced laws that benefit only those in need and not those who don’t.
Please let me know why I should put up with shoddy lawmaking.
In reply to bhagwad
One cannot claim to be an island, entire in one’s self. Since one is a part of the whole, one has to suffer the consequences of being a part of the whole. What may appear as injustice to you is actually justice.
One cannot favor a certain part of the population without, simultaneously, prosecuting another part. It is not easy to give up privileges acquired through hundreds of years of social conditioning.
Of course, one can move to another country, that option is always available. Running away is always easier.
This law reflects the need of modern society. The time for this idea has come.
In reply to bhagwad
@Ramakant
I’m sorry, but nowhere is it written that I have to suffer injustice. You can’t just make up your own rules. It’s the responsibility of the government to ensure that justice is served for every single citizen.
There’s no reason why I have to sit and suffer while a country gets its act together. I have a limited lifespan and I’m not eager to waste it where I’m not treated the way I deserve.
And once again you didn’t answer me as to why this law doesn’t have provisions excluding women who clearly don’t need any financial assistance.
Many women live in abusive marriages because a divorce means they have nowhere to go and no income to live with. Getting married or divorced should not mean loss of self reliance/destitution for either partner.
From what I have understood, only the earnings made during the period of the marriage are to be shared, and I think this would be more relevant where women are not working or are not ‘allowed’ to work, or are able to work only part-time. Since non-working married women are a majority, I also think equal division of marital property would make families think before they stop/discourage their daughters in law from working.
I know of one father in law who doesn’t allow his MBA daughter in law work because “women in our families don’t work” – I think he fears that if she has her own income, she might question some of his rigid patriarchal rules in their family. They live in a joint family and recently they have ‘allowed’ her to work as a primary school teacher, she has tried to get other relatives to ‘convince’ him to let her use her education, she feels suffocated, but her family (and this is very common) feels she has nothing to complain about because she is not being abused or beaten or taunted for being the mother of a daughter etc etc etc. She is expected to go for kirtans and visit relatives with the mother in law, ensure everybody has five almonds every morning, wear only salwar kurta, have no say in which school her daughter studies, trust loving and caring (in their own ways they do) elders to take decisions… eventually such women, who are the majority, are the ones who would benefit from Marital Property Act.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
I’m not disputing that a huge number of women need financial support after they divorce. That is not in question here at all as far as I’m concerned.
My question is whether or not this is unfair in situations where say the woman earns far more than the husband and still gets half of his assets when he gets nothing of hers.
Why does this have to be a blanket law without any kind of determination to see whether the such a division is fair in the first place?
This is not a hypothetical. My wife for example earns double of what I earn. Will this law be fair to me if we divorce? Or is it implied that people like me don’t matter? After all, I pay my share of taxes, and obey the law. Why should I be okay with a law my country passes that is detrimental to me?
In reply to bhagwad
I think the exact share is to be decided by the courts depending on the specifics of each case. Let me find the link.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
To the best of my knowledge, the bill allocates a blanket 50% of the husbands assets to the wife during the divorce. I think that clause is unfair. If it was to be decided by the court, I wouldn’t have an issue at all…
A Ram – Rajya on the horizon ?
Yes , if we were to believe Bombay High Court in India
DNA ( May 09, 2012 ) reports a division bench of the Bombay High Court having observed during a divorce case hearing,
“ A wife should be like goddess Sita who followed her husband , Lord Ram , to the forest and stayed there for 14 years “
Honorable judges seem to be saying to the wife :
“ So what is the big sacrifice in following your husband to Port Blair ? “
I am not competent to comment on the merits of the case, or on the judicial activism , but it would add dignity to a judge if he refrains from dictating moral standards to Indian Women !
May be there bought to be a law that says , divorce cases can be tried by women judges only !
With regards
hemen Parekh
http://www.CustomizeResume.com
Jobs for All = Peace on Earth
In reply to hemen parekh
I don’t think women judges would help because divorce isn’t a “woman only” issue. But yeah – remarks sermonizing to women are completely out of line.
In reply to hemen parekh
If all the logical laws has been made to protect women thinking as SITA , then what’s wrong with asking someone to be like SITA ????
Congress will be out of the power , i think they won’t be able form a govt within next 15 years . Because they have destroyed the society by giving chance to talk some kind of women who does not give any priority to natural relationship between man and woman because thy never been accepted by man because of their thoughts and this govt has continuously deteriorating peoples personal life . This is the only reason in Delhi elections and UP elections they have lost by huge margin . Other than this congress govt has done well enough in every field to win those elections .
First of all we wanted a society where married life should free for both of the gender . Being forced to be dog or being insulted in relationship no body want to keep any relationship and that’s quite unhealthy . Marriage should be only based on love and affection there should not be any kind privilege to either party .
If dowry is immoral then sharing property with someone who has no contribution in someone’s life is completely robbery or forgery . If not then dowry should be legalized too . Why not if woman has right to built up their life on someone’s hard eared money then why man don’t have right to built up their life by woman’s father’s hard earned money ? I suggest this is enough to entertain those women who are trying to establish their ego by immorality should be jailed for spreading wrong thoughts in society .
In reply to Manas Bhaumik
Manas, lots of women don’t directly contribute to earnings in the household and provide valuable contributions as a homemaker and mother. I don’t want these women to be left with nothing after a divorce merely because they didn’t do work that was based on monetary remuneration.
Such women should indeed get maintenance or alimony for as long as it takes for them to start earning by themselves and maintain themselves. It has to be decided on a case by case basis.
I don’t have a problem with the concept of alimony, maintenance, or child support. My objection is with the government created a single rule for all marriages regardless of the situation.
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad , Actually i did not mean financial contribution .I wrote “contribution to someone’s life” that does not mean built up property. I mean contribution to the happiness, contribution to inspiration to live in this world and above all contribution to be honored of depending on someone we called most own.
And when peoples are getting divorce , all above mentioned clauses are meaning less , more that that they become enemy , and which war law defines that you should give your things to your enemy ? I think my mom is eligible get the whole property of my father not share only , because all those contribution she did to my father’s life .
Maintenance or alimony should be provided if husband want to divorce his wife out of nothing . I guess women also think the way we think in terms of heart , so obviously husband should compensate that broken heart , compensate that overlooked feelings of that woman , compensate all those dreams she had which are not going to be true in any terms , compensate those lifetime disagreement and lost courage to love some one . And all these should be applied to man also . But we don’t want .
Whatever Indian govt trying to do is influenced by women leaders who wants the power dictate the society as their own .
In reply to Manas Bhaumik
It’s not necessary that divorce has to be a fight between two enemies. In fact in countries like the US, there is “no fault” divorce. The government doesn’t care about why you need a divorce. If you want a divorce you just have to apply.
By taking care of the home and children, many women give the husband the freedom to go out and earn. So I fully believe that in this case she is entitled to anything he brings home or acquires. Similarly if the husband stays home, the same applies.
Keep in mind that this is only alimony or maintenance. Child support is an entirely different matter.
In reply to bhagwad
Bro , don’t talk about US . The last thing in this world i want to do is following US . Who are executing 13 peoples all over USA per day. 3500 peoples are in death rows . 85% of them enjoyed three or four fathers in name of equal rights establishing ego of woman and disagreement of compromise with their partners . And both of the gender become that much of enemy that same gender marriage is on consideration. NO FAULT divorce !!! Then why those guys got married !! Marriage is not prostitution or fulfilling sexual desire . To stop that all the religion started marriage system , in big sense there is no meaning of marriage . You see dogs , cats , lions does not get married all though they give birth . Personally me, do not believe on god , but there suppose to be someone being afraid of whom human should stay away from wrong doing in the sense of morality to stabilized the human society .
I don’t think 95% men wants to live on wife’s earning in India . Because i am living in a country where most of the wife works and husbands play cards talk rubbish around . I am sure women would have get divorce easily because their husband do not do any job if this would have in India . But you can’t get .
Yeah , they are enemy because , in India in divorce cases when both of the sides start throwing mud on each other , most of the times with 90% lies and try to make a bad image of other side by talking lies in society to establish their honor, mostly women then we call them enemy . Alimony or maintenance should be treated as compensation . And no body wants to compensate when he wants be with his wife and his wife divorce and get share of property and stay with someone else .
Actually bro it’s a fact where relationships are based affection there obviously suppose to be some kind of misunderstanding when both of the side thinks they are not getting enough response from other side . so what we need to do is leave them alone instead of taking sides , let them sort out their problems by their own , if you and me start interfering in peoples personal life there is no more personal life now they are publicly enemy.
Anyway bro try sort out problems in human manner to establish better compromising human society instead of animal kingdom . Wish you good luck . Nice talking to you .
In reply to Manas Bhaumik
Say what you like about the US, it has one of the most advanced and sensible divorce laws in the world. I know because I write for a US law firm about these issues.
In reply to bhagwad
Yeah I guess so , but the fact is the world needs advance and sensible law concrete the relationships to enforce priority and importance over anything, not the easier or advance law of destruction of relationship . I did not mean to hurt you bro . Think about it .
And in “NO FAULT DIVORCE ” system , I certainly found faults in the person whoever files it in any situation . Don’t you think so .
Lots of things I like in US . Like buildings and music pretty women ,HAHAHAHAH .
Actually I knew some peoples from US who used to be working in Malaysia for our family business as lecturer . I found them quite OK and looking for Asian women .
May be latter we chat about it after you think briefly .
In reply to Manas Bhaumik
No, I don’t find a fault in whoever files a divorce. Sometimes you just don’t want to live with a person anymore. Why is it the government’s business to look at “how”, “why” etc?
Relationships are not the most important thing. Happiness is the most important. And sometimes you have to get a divorce to be happy.