Property division law (The divorce law) and some random questions – my answers


This post is in response with some comments in Indian home makers blog posts . Even after a day or two, she didn’t published my responses to those comments. So, I don’t have other options than publishing them here. And that too, she published my comments made after these comment.

May be she didn’t have enough time to read all the comments and publish them. Especially,if they have external links. She is getting more than 100 comments for many posts. So, I can understand her. But my priority is make people aware of the situation. I can’t leave those comments unpublished. So, I feel my act is justified.

I Brierly explain under which circumstances I made those comments, what are the other parties arguments. If you find that is not enough, you can check the article and the person’s comment.

Scenario1 – Comment by Indian Home Maker (blog owner). Blog post: Instead of eyeing their husbands’ ancestral property, why don’t Indian daughters in law make their own homes?

I replied to one comment and said women never left without proper alimony. They all compensated as per the living standards of her man. But, It Is the greed of the women that make them asking man’s property earned before marriage and ancestral property of man. for that she gave some statistics regarding this maintenance …

7. 58% of the divorced women did not receive any maintenance at all (most of their cases are pending in court).
8. The remaining 42% received approximately 10% to 13% of their spouses income as maintenance. In one case from Kerala, the woman fought for 17 years to be awarded a maintenance of Rs. 900 per month even though her male spouse was earning Rs. 56,000 per month.

my response to that comment, that she didn’t published (why I don’t know) is..

7.58? don’t you think it’s small percentage? I don’t mean to say we can leave them, but the law definitely work for them too. All we need is proper implementation of the law. Even after IrBM pass the statistics looks like this only. Because property division is a civil case. They stay in courts for years. I am sure about that and that’s why WCD ministry oppose this move of including ancestral property. I must say.

And the amount of alimony depends upon not only husband’s earning, the women’s position also. If she have other source of income she will get less alimony. And even maintenance law goes against men, if the judge is biased.

Is maintenance law fair with men?

And why do you think proper implementation of the law is the answer for it instead creating another biased law? which is not gender neutral at all?

Scenario 2– comment by Satish : Blog post: Should women be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable property?

I replied to a comment made by satish who pointed women are oppressed for ages. We have a shameful history of women oppression. So, we have to share the property. But I answered him with suicide statistics of men and IHM asked me the proof for that data. I provided her two links related to married men suicides. But she didn’t published both of those comments. So, I am publishing them here.

Sharing property is not the problem. But which property thats the question we are rising. You can’t share property earned before marriage and ancestral property. That is too much. No one is denying wife shaer in martial property.

If women are oppressed since independece or before independence, it’s not my fault or any man who is alive now. You can’t punish people for the sins of their fathers or forefathers or previous generations. It’s unfair.

And every year nearly 66000 married men suciciding because of family problems, married women suicide rate is less than half of it. But women orgs and intellectuals claim many of them related to financial problems. But now they are increasing financials woos of divorced men. The suicide rate increase more and more.. after this bill passed. Why do men deserv that, because in the past men oppressed women, so some feel it’s justified if men oppressed now?

IHM: Please substantiate your claims with links, random numbers and personal opinion are not facts. Never heard/read of men committing suicide because they didn’t get enough dowry or inheritance. Or because the wife doesn’t bear male children? Generally one reads about them killing the mother,and/or child.

My reply to her questions on married men’s suicide..

These are some links that explain suicide rates of men.
One married man commits suicide every 9 minutes

NCRB stats show more married men committing suicide

Society becoming anti-male day by day with these kind of biased laws. We know domestic violence is not gender issue. Men and women both commit domestic violence but our feminist orgs and biased studies don’t show that and no body cares about a man in India. At least there is a study in america which explains doestic violence is not gender issue.
Unprecedented Domestic Violence Study Affirms Need to Recognize Male Victims

Still in India there is no study on domestic violence on men. Why? our feminists don’t let it happen. When ever people talk about male victims of domestic violence they debunk it as rare cases. The same thing american women also did in america. But the study gives different picture.

What I want to say is I am not against giving some maintenance to divorced women, but extortion they do in the name of “contribution women made”. There is no way that a women contribute to man’s property before marriage and his ancestral property. So, that should not be divided. Only marital property that means acquired during relationship need to be shared. That’s the fair game for both men and women. I ask feminists not to be greedy. Which have far reaching consequences.

Advertisements

Why buying a house is the stupid idea for men in India !!


Generally, we have every right on what we buy. Nobody can deny our rights on it. In our life, house has very important role. Many people have sentiments on the house they own. People buy or build the house by spending lot of hard earned money and time. Many people feel emotional when they leave their own house or sell it. We do develop lot of affection. And most importantly, we assume, we have every right on that.

But those days were over sometime back. Now, you can be thrown out of your own house. And may be sometimes you are not even allowed to come near to it. It will be an offense and you can be punished for that!!

No, it’s not the work of land mafia or some supernatural power. That could be the work of your own family member, may be your beloved wife. Surprised?? Then I must say that your LawQ (law quotient 😛 ) is very poor. If you assume that law don’t allow this and you can get back your house using law, then I must say, you are living in wrong decade.

Your house can be occupied by your wife legally and you can be thrown out of it legally. The only difference is it’s not considered as occupying. Again surprised, then I must say about a law that came into force in 2005.

It’s none other than Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. Don’t be fooled by the name and come to a conclusion that it will protect every one from domestic violence. And don’t compare it with the laws already exist in some western countries.

This is a law that aimed to protect women and children from domestic violence. Men are not covered under this law, men are only perpetrators. And most of the times only women use this law not children. So, you can safely read it as “A law to Prevent Domestic Violence Committed by men on women and children”.

It is the law criticized by many including the supreme court as “A loosely drafted law”. It has many loopholes which can be exploited by unscrupulous women to harass husbands.

One of the important aspect of this law is right to residence for the women in the shared household. It doesn’t matter who is the owner of that house. So, she have the right to live in husband’s house. But, husband can live in it only if his wife permit him. If everything between man and his wife is well, then no problem. If not, it’s a big trouble for the man. She can simply file a case under DV Act and throw him out of his own house.

Of course, law don’t say this, directly. But it can be used that way. It is only made to protect women from the domestic violence. But to protect women, Men’s Rights can be sacrificed. Man can be sent out of his house, if court feel he is a threat to the wife. What a women need to provide as evidence to prove the man is a threat to her? nothing. She just need to file a case under DV Act, it is man’s duty to prove that he is not guilty of those charges.

Until he prove that, he may be barred from entering in his own house. May be surroundings where she live. Remember those accuses against men need not be true. They may be lies. But it is man’s duty to prove that. Even after proving that he is innocent, there will be no punishment for wife for filing false cases.

It’s not going to stop here. There is another law which is going to pass in one way or other way. That is IrBM (Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage). As per that law women are going to get 50% of what ever the property that man have. Even his ancestral property also comes into picture. So, after this the man’s house may be shared equally. Or may goes to women as a part of sharing all assents. So, A house, not at all man’s property anymore. It’s bad Idea to buy a house.

Most of the times men (lower class to upper middle class) buy house or build their dream house by taking housing loans. Every month they have to pay some amount as an EMI. Assume a situation, in which the man thrown out of his own house and still he has to pay the EMI every month and has to pay the rent to newly taken house for him. But wife and her family happily live in his dream house. Everyone who is friendly to her can enter into it, but not the man who bought/build it. Many men are already facing such situations. It is going to be worse in future.

DV Act + IrBM = Throw husband out of his own house until court order  +  Later divorce him and get half of the house legally.

Then what is the good option? Just stay in rented house. Let the women buy the house with her property. If not, just stay with her husband in rented house. If she file a DV case against him, he will be thrown out of his rented house, of course, he has to pay the rent for that. That’s true. But which one is better? thrown out of your dream home or a rented house? definitely the second one.

So, my advice is never buy a house. Always stay in rented one. Let the govt build some houses and give them to rent for all the people in the country. So, every family in the country simply pay rent to the govt.  Or let the women buy their house stay without any problem with exclusive rights on that house.

Always remember don’t save too much money either. Just have a life and enjoy it. Don’t let someone take out your hard earned money in the name of empowerment.

%d bloggers like this: