Martyrs of Marriage – A Documentary on 498A misuse


We have many laws. They all misused by someone. But 498A is different. It is the provision misused more than any other law. Almost 98% of the them are misused. Used to settle scores rather than getting justice. Many feminists says, all laws are misused then why to cry only on 498A? I know it is ridiculous argument, perhaps, they too know it. But they don’t mind using the same argument again and again.

It’s true that many laws are misused, but how many laws have the provision to arrest entire family? even a toddler? There are many cases where a toddler also booked for harassing an adult women. And how many of them non-bailable, cognizable and non-compoundable? How many laws we have which misuse termed as “Legal Terrorism” by supreme court? There is only one answer. There are none other 498A. Of course, recent law passed on Sexual harassment at workplace or Nirbhaya law may surpass this, just wait and watch.

Men’s Rights Activists fought tirelessly to stop this menace in the name of protection of women from harassment. We are not against laws, we are against the misuse of laws. We are for gender neutral laws. Not for biased and anti-male laws.

One of the Men’s Rights Activist, Deepika Narayan Bharadwaj, making a documentary on this 498A misuse. “The Martyrs of Marriage”. Martyrs .. yes, we can call them as martyrs. There are many men and women who became martyrs, some of them for marrying a woman, some of them for being sisters or mothers of such a man. The promo of this documentary is heart touching. If you are a victim, you can relate their pain with you pain. If you are not a victim, you definitely empathise with them. This is one of the best promo, I ever watched on misuse of 498A.

Back to the feminists argument, there are many laws misused then why you are crying on 498A only? Well, there are many crimes happening in the world, both men and women are the victims of them. If fact, more men are the victims of the crimes than women. Then, why our feminists are crying on crime against women only??

Advertisements

Male abortion and joint custody of children for egilitarian world..!!


When it comes to children, men have no rights. Men are considered as fathers only if they stay in relationship with mother of those children. If they divorce them their position downgrades to visitors. They will get visitation rights. Still they are fathers on records, but they can’t enjoy fatherhood. Even spending sometime with their children also become a rare task for them. That’s how our divorce laws treat men, yet men must spend all the money needed for child upbringing and maintenance of his ex-wife. That’s the irony of so-called egalitarian world.

Let us come to another concept called Male Abortion. Let us assume a scenario. A man and woman had sex, it may be extra-marital or marital with no intention of having kids. But due to some contraceptives failure or some other reason women got pregnancy. Now what? We have four situations here.

  1. Woman and man like to have baby. Then there is no problem. She can give birth to a baby and everything is fine.
  2. Woman and man don’t like to have baby. Then also no problem. She can abort that unwanted pregnancy and everything will be fine.
  3. Woman don’t want baby but man want baby. Here as per present standards in the world, men have to shut their mouth and pay the abortion bill. Because, it is her body. Her right. She can abort the child. Men don’t have anything to say other than “yes” to whatever she says. And it’s fair deal.
  4. Woman want a baby but man don’t want. Now the problem comes. As per present standards, she can give birth to the baby and man don’t have other option other than becoming father to unwanted baby. This kind of forced fatherhood is against men’s rights. Why a man don’t have a say in his fatherhood? If a women’s body is her right and she have a choice, why not a man have a choice in his fatherhood?

Here male abortion enters into picture. Male abortion is nothing but giving right to men of aborting forced fatherhood. If men are not interested in fatherhood then women have two choice.

  • She has to abort the baby. Man may be or may not pay for abortion. Or
  • She can give birth to the baby, but man is not father of that baby and he need not to take any responsibility towards that baby. They may be socially, economically or any other form. That baby will have only mother, no father.

This has some downside also. Some men may misuse it and try to escape from their responsibilities. But, misuse of the law or provision can’t be a reason for banning of such progressive provisions or laws, Isn’t it? our feminists, women orgs and intellectuals know this point better than us.

To get the egalitarian world where all are equal, men must get their rights. Men must get joint custody of the children in case of divorce and men must have a choice of male abortion in case of unwanted pregnancy of girl friend or wife.

Published in: on July 21, 2013 at 9:45 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , ,

Women can get share in ancestral property of ex-husband..!!


The law passed. The law intended to provide share to wife in ex-husbands property, including ancestral property, cleared in the parliament. At first women orgs said only matrimonial property shared, then they changed their voice (as usually) and demanded share in all property of men. They seek 50% share. But the share of the property they get will be decided by the judge based on different parameters.

So, it may be advantageous in some incidents, disadvantageous in some other incidents for men. They may has to give less than 50% or more than 50% depend on circumstances and so-called parameters. At any time, only man’s property distributed. Women property is safe. My money is my money, your money is our money – philosophy of feminist economy. And that’s equality as per feminists. Long live feminism..!! Men, who cares you, not even your own men bother about you.

After divorce law

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: