All India Daughters Protection Forum

The RIGHTS of daughters: Maintenance of Daughters out of Late Father's estates: The law

2010-12-01T07:48:00.001-08:00

This is a collation of the Rights of the Girl-Child to inherit from the assets (Death without a will) of her late father.

In many situations, there will be evil family members who will try to grab the late father's estate as well, compete with the girl child's rights by trying to stay rent-free in father's estate, instigate against the girl-child and reap benefit from the profits of the late father's estate.

To summarise,

1. Children are eligible to inherit 2/3rd of their father's estate (in case of sudden demise, intestate i.e. without a will) in equal proportion, which has to be handed to them at the time of maturity i.e. 18 years. The widow inherits 1/3 rd of the property.
2. Girl-children in India have a right to be married with their father's money, and maintained on their father's estate (even after his death). If maintenance has not been given, then there has to be arrears of maintenance to be given as well.

There are some mothers who treat their daughters like UNTOUCHABLES and give their sons STEP-FATHERLY status .

This Child abuse & neglect has been condoned by family members in the name of SON PREFERENCE and GENDER BIAS.

Inheritance law has been mentioned before. The President Pratibha Patil has also mentioned about this earlier in December 2008 (see earlier posting). In December 2008, I've emailed details of my blog to the President of India, members of the ruling party, members of the opposition about Child abuse (to be included in a revised, gender-neutral Domestic Violence Act). Campaign about Gender-discriminatory Domestic Violence Bill has been made since 2000 by men's rights groups including Save Indian Family Foundation.

http://voiceofwomenindia.blogspot.com/2008/12/gender-law-abuse-president-pratibha.html

http://voiceofwomenindia.blogspot.com/2008/12/father-liable-to-pay-for-daughters.html

http://voiceofwomenindia.blogspot.com/2008/12/sisters-of-india-wake-up-gender.html

http://voiceofwomenindia.blogspot.com/2008/11/sisters-of-india-unite-your-brothers.html

The President of India has re-iterated that Inheritance laws in India have been made free of discrimination to women since the 1980s.

Does that happen in India? Or are girl-children denied of their inheritance and told "Go fetch your own fortune?"or "Get out!" or-----
What do you say about the realities, Mrs. President? Any comments, Mr Prime Minister?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Know your inheritance laws

R.L. NARAYANAN

The author is partner, RANK Associates, Advocates, Chennai.
http://www.hindu.com/pp/2006/12/23/stories/2006122300340600.htm

As you are already aware, the Law of Inheritance differs from religion to religion. The Christian Laws of Succession are codified under the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Each religion has its own prescription for distribution of properties on the death of an intestate. While codifying the rules of succession, care has been taken to retain the religious flavour.

The provisions relating to intestate succession apply as contained in the Indian Succession Act, 1925, apply to Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Jews, Armenians and certain Christians who are foreign nationals but are domiciled in India.

For understanding the manner in which the property is distributed on the death of an intestate as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, the meaning of certain terms will have to be understood.

The word "kindred" is used as interchangeable with the word "Consanguinity". The terms indicate the connection or relation of persons descended from the same stock or common ancestor.

"Lineal consanguinity" means the relationship arising out of direct line between persons like a man and his father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc, or a man, his son, grandson, great grandson, etc, in a direct ascending or a descending line. A generation constitutes a degree either ascending or descending. As such, a person's father is related to him in the first degree, being an instance of son and father, as is the case between father and son. The grandfather or grandson will be placed in the second degree. The great grandfather and the great grandson in the third degree and so on. If the consanguinity is not direct, but subsists between two persons who are descended from the same stock or ancestors, then this is called "Collateral Consanguinity".

Widow's share The position of a widow is fairly secured in intestate succession of those governed by the Act. In the case of other religions, a widow's share may increase or decrease depending on other heirs or sharers. In respect of Christians and others governed by the Act, the widow will get at least one- third of the property in any situation. It may increase depending on the other heirs.

If an intestate dies leaving wife and other lineal descendants, one-third share will go to the wife and two-thirds will be distributed between the lineal descendants as provided in the Act .

If the intestate dies leaving wife and kindred only (without leaving lineal descendants), one-half of the property will go to the wife and the balance half distributed to the kindred as provided in the Act.

If the intestate dies leaving wife only (without leaving lineal descendants or kindred), then the entire property shall belong to the wife as provided in the Act. The share of a husband surviving his wife is the same in respect of her property, if she dies intestate as that of a widow in her husband's property.

If the intestate dies leaving a surviving child or children only, then the property will be taken by the child entirely or between the children equally as the case may be.

Take an example of a person having three children. His first child has two children (two grandchildren); the second child has three (three grandchildren); and the third child has four (four grandchildren). All the three children of the person die before him. The person referred to also dies intestate leaving in all nine grandchildren. The position is that each of the grandchildren will get a one-ninth share in the property of the intestate.

If the intestate dies leaving only eight grandchildren along with two children of a deceased grandchild, then the property is divided into nine parts. Each grandchild gets a one-ninth share and the remaining one-ninth is equally divided between the two great grandchildren.

Take another example of a person having three children. His first child dies leaving four children (four grandchildren); the second child dies leaving one child (one grandchild); and the third child survives the intestate. In this case, the surviving child will get a one-third share. The four grandchildren of the first child will get a one-fourth share out of a one-third share (one-twelfth share) and one-third share will be taken by the grandchild through the second child.

Take one more example of a person having three children. His first child dies leaving four children (four grandchildren). One of the grandchildren dies leaving two children (great grandchildren); the second child dies leaving one child (one grandchild); and the third child survives the intestate. In this case, the surviving child will get a one-third share. The surviving grandchild through the second child gets a one-third share. A one-third share is divided into four parts and one part is to be allotted to the grandchild through the first child and one part is to be shared equally by the great grandchildren through the first child. A person has a son and a daughter. The son predeceases the father leaving a pregnant wife and, thereafter, the person dies intestate. In this case, the daughter will get a half share and the posthumous grandchild (child of the predeceased son) will get a half share.

If the intestate has no lineal descendants, then, after deducting the wife's share, the balance share will go to the father, if father is living and if the father is not living, but mother, brothers and sisters live, then each will get an equal share. The children of brother or sister will get their parent's share, if the brother or sister had predeceased the intestate leaving their children. In this case, if the intestate leaves only his mother, then the entire property will be taken by the mother.

The rules change depending on the degree and are complex depending on the degree of relationship of claimants. However, the examples given are sufficient for a general understanding arising in usual circumstances.

http://voiceofwomenindia.blogspot.com/2009/01/know-your-inheritance-laws-christian.html

2----------------Maintenance out of late father's estate -------------

Fathers (and mothers) have to jointly maintain and pay for their daughters marriage. The obligation of getting married and starting a family is "with the purpose of raising children well". There are many parents who fail in their duty of providing for their children's food, education, emotional needs, self-esteem and other needs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Father liable to pay for daughter’s marriage and maintenance:Even after death of father

HC Express news service

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/father-liable-to-pay-for-daughters-marriage-hc/277563/

Mumbai: Stating that every father is under the obligation to maintain his daughters and even get them married, the Bombay High Court has directed a man here to reimburse the money his estranged wife spent on their daughters’ marriage.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Kusum Rewatkar (58) of Wardha district, who sought reimbursement of the amount she spent on the marriage of her three daughters. A mother of five daughters, Kusum got divorced from her husband Nathuji, 25 years ago, after a 10-year wedlock .

Upholding her claim, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has held that “the father’s obligation to maintain the daughter and get her married arises from the very existence of the relationship”.

Under the Hindu Law, a daughter is entitled to be maintained out of the estate of the father even after his death, said Justice C L Pangarkar.
“The law envisages that a father is bound to make a provision for the marriage expenses of the daughters as part of maintenance. Therefore, if wife has spent for the performance of the marriage of the daughter, the husband would certainly be liable to reimburse the wife. He cannot escape his liability in any case,” the court said.

3--------------Maintenance law------------------------------

Source: My nation http://mynation.net/

22. Maintenance of dependants
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased.

(2) Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary or intestate succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate.

(3) The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependant shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.

23. Amount of maintenance
(1) It shall be in the discretion of the court to determine whether any, and if so what, maintenance shall be awarded under the provisions of this Act, and in doing so the court shall have due regard to the considerations set out in sub-section (2), or sub-section (3), as the case may be, so far as they are applicable.

(2) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a wife, children or aged or infirm parents under this Act, regard shall be had to-

(a) the position and status of the parties;

(b) the reasonable wants of the claimant;

(d) the value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant's own earnings or from any other source;

(e) the number of persons entitled to maintenance under this Act.

(3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a dependant under this Act, regard shall be had to-

(a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of his debts;

(b) the provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in respect of the dependant;

(d) the reasonable wants of the dependant;

(e) the past relations between the dependant and the deceased;

(f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived from such property; or from his or her earnings or from any other source;

(g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under this Act.

24. Claimant to maintenance should be a Hindu
No person shall be entitled to claim maintenance under this Chapter if he or she has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.

25. Amount of maintenance may be altered on change of circumstances
The amount of maintenance, whether fixed by a decree of court or by agreement, either before or after the commencement of this Act, may be altered subsequently if there is a material change in the circumstances justifying such alteration.

26. Debts to have priority
Subject to the provisions contained in section 27 debts of every description contracted or payable by the deceased shall have priority over the claims of his dependants for maintenance under this Act.

27. Maintenance when to be a charge
A dependant's claim for maintenance under this Act shall not be a charge on the estate of the deceased or any portion thereof, unless one has been created by the will of the deceased, by a decree of court, by agreement between the dependant and the owner of the estate or portion, or otherwise.

28. Effect of transfer of property on right to maintenance Where a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate, and such estate or any part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of the right.

Want mum or dad, judge asks 7-yr-old girl in open court: Daughter Chooses Father

2010-11-30T16:49:00.001-08:00

Want mum or dad, judge asks 7-yr-old girl in open court: Daughter Chooses Father

The girl sobs uncontrollably at the poser, following which the hearing was held behind closed doors. Finally, with the girl insisting on staying with her father, the judge gives in to the kid’s demand

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/1/2010113020101130074911934561dda6d/Want-mum-or-dad-judge-asks-7yrold-girl-in-open-court.html

November 30, 2010

In an unusual end to proceedings in a child custody case in the High Court, Justice B Sreenivase Gowda delivered an order awarding custodial care of a seven-year-old girl to her father. In itself, a verdict in favour of the father is rare, but Gowda’s process of arriving at his decision was certainly novel.

Sanjay Shetty, a hotelier, and his wife Asha, a government officer, were fighting for custody of their daughter, Shruti. While Sanjay and Asha, who hail from Mangalore and were married in 1998, were both in attendance, the presence of Shruti too seemed to have compounded matters. The arguments in court barely lasted 15 minutes before judge Gowda decided to elicit the views of the child. He asked the child in open court whom she would like to stay with. Shruti broke down and said that she wanted to remain with her father.

CRYING IN COURT

In the first session on Monday, Gowda had asked Asha to look after the child till noon. He also asked her to take the child out to lunch. Shruti, however, refused to budge from her father’s side and burst into tears. The judge kept prodding her to be wit her mother, but a wailing Shruti insisted that she did not want to go with Asha. Gowda then adjourned the case and resumed hearing in his chamber after lunch.

What transpired between the couple, the child, the counsel and the judge in the chamber is not known, but Gowda later pronounced the verdict in Sanjay’s favour.

“The judge may have taken the case to his chamber as he did not want to embarrass the people involved,” an advocate in present in court said. “It is another matter when only the parents are present, but the presence of the child makes it sensitive,” the advocate said.

Sanjay and Asha have been fighting a divorce, child custody and a domestic violence case for some years now. Three years ago, a family court had given custody of the child to Sanjay, but Asha had appealed the verdict in the High Court.

Child custody matters rarely reach the High Court and verdicts usually favour the mother. The father is only provided visitation rights.

Justice Gowda normally presides over criminal cases and in the last few months has disposed of the highest number of cases - over 60 of them.

(The names of the couple and the child have been changed).

‘Mum can’t prevent dad from meeting their child’: Sivakumar Challa case of Adultery and Visitation rights of Fathers

2010-11-27T03:17:00.001-08:00

‘Mum can’t prevent dad from meeting their child’: Sivakumar Challa case

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/10/201011102010111005273150984689fd0/%E2%80%98Mum-can%E2%80%99t-prevent-dad-from-meeting-their-child%E2%80%99.html

Hearing divorce case, chief justice Khehar rules in favour of husband who was denied visitation rights. But the real drama took place outside the court when the lawyer’s former wife turned up

November 10, 2010

In what is being seen as a landmark judgment in cases related to divorce and visitation rights of parents on their children, the high court of Karnataka on Tuesday ruled in favour of a husband who was prevented from seeing his son for over 10 months.

Seeing Madhuri cry in court, the CJ said, “This is not going to affect us”

The ruling came on the divorce proceedings of Shivkumar Challa and Madhuri who were married in 1996. Their son Rahul was born in 2000. Madhuri is being represented by James Arun Kumar.

Threat of jail

The court berated Madhuri for not following its order to allow her husband to meet Rahul every Sunday.

“We will send you to jail. Do you understand what jail is? You will be sent there right from here. Then your counsel can go to the Supreme Court,” chief justice J S Khehar told a stunned Madhuri in open court.

“Since January, how many Sundays have the father and son met? Not a single Sunday should be missed. Follow the order. If you fail, the following day you should be present in court at 10.30 am to tender an explanation for the same. Jail is a very bad thing. We look upon you as children. But even children should be reprimanded.”

At this point, Madhuri started crying profusely. Seeing this, the chief justice told her, “This is not going to affect us.”

Challa then told the court, “My child’s life is in danger.” But the court told him to stick to the present case, that of child visitation rights.

Lawyer gets it too

After the division bench of the chief justice and justice A S Bopanna had read its order, James Arun Kumar began to plead Madhuri’s case again.

But the chief justice said, “Do not play tricks. Do not play with words. We will be only too happy to take action. You are giving one explanation after the other. We will not allow this to happen. On Monday, you wasted 30 minutes of the court’s time. It will not be allowed to happen again. If there is the slightest deviation from the order, severe action will be taken. We are fed up with this case.”

LAWYER’S EX CLASHES WITH CLIENT

But the real drama happened outside the court as James Arun Kumar’s former wife Geetha and son Jason showed up. Challa had told Bangalore Mirror that Madhuri and his son were staying with James Arun Kumar who had divorced Geetha seven years ago.

As Challa came out of the court with his mother-in-law (Madhuri’s mother), Geetha told her, “You have not brought up your daughter properly. She stole my husband.”

Madhuri’s mother retorted, “Your husband stole my daughter.”

Son’s plea

Geetha and her son then turned to Madhuri. Geetha berated Madhuri for ‘taking away my husband’, which led to a heated argument.

While Challa is fighting for visitation rights on his son, Geetha’s son wants his father back. Jason said, “My father drops Madhuri’s son Rahul to the same school where I am enrolled while I go by bus. I want my father back.”

"My father drops Madhuri’s son to the same school where I’m enrolled while I go by bus. I want him back".

Jason, son of lawyer James Arun Kumar

LANDMARK JUDGMENT

Picture: Roshni Mathan Pereira (Convenor AIDPF, Counsellor CRISP), Kumar Jahgirdar (Founder CRISP), and Lokesh (CRISP member) in Protest against DV Act 2005 in Bangalore 2010

Kumar V Jahgirdar of the NGO Childrens Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP) said,This is a landmark judgment,which sets a precedent in such cases.The court has made it clear that it is the duty of a custodial parent to send the child to the non-custodial parent.By saying that the child should adjust with both natural parents and that the custodial parent should convince the child,the court has given relief to thousands of non-custodial parents.Another important significance of this order is that non-compliance of visitation rights has to be explained before the court the very next day.This is a great turnaround in the thinking of the judiciary in family law.

Liar & Lawyer stole my wife and son, says techie Sivakumar Challa

2010-11-27T03:14:00.001-08:00

Lawyer stole my wife and son, says techie

October 20, 2010

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/article/10/201010202010102006592723ef3ac682/Lawyer-stole-my-wife-says-techie.html

Shivakumar Challa, a software project manager has been fighting a divorce and child custody case against his wife Madhuri for the past five years.

As though that wasn’t traumatic enough, Challa discovered that James Arun Kumar, the advocate fighting his wife’s case, is now living with her. “He is not letting me meet my son who is staying with him and my wife. To facilitate my visitation rights, he wants me to agree to the divorce,” Challa alleged.

Arun Kumar denied the allegations outright, saying that the conservative-minded and emotionally disturbed Challa was imagining things. “In matrimonial cases, people think with their egos rather than their minds. I come from a broken family and I know how children suffer. He has to accept the fact that his wife has left him and wants to lead her own life. His finances were bad and that is the reason she left him. He is still in the 19th century while the world has moved on,” he said.

COURT LEAVES IT TO THEM

Challa and Madhuri’s child custody case was heard on Monday by a division bench of the High Court of Karnataka headed by the chief justice. Challa had agreed to file petition under section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act which is divorce by mutual consent. Challa, who claims that he has not been able to see his son for an year, told the court that “the counsel (Aun Kumar) comes in between me and my son.” The court directed both parties to meet and arrive at an amicable settlement.

Challa claims that the court does not know about the relationship between his wife and her advocate. “When I examined the electoral rolls of Chikpet, my wife’s address was the same as her advocate and Arun Kumar is mentioned as her husband, even though she is still legally my wife,” Challa said. When he confronted Arun Kumar on this, the latter allegedly suggested that, “We could all live together.” Challa who described himself as a very traditional person added, “My spirituality has saved me from losing my mental balance”.

Challa and Madhuri married in 1996 and a son was born to them in 2000. “Arun was a HR recruiter who hired my wife for a job. Later, I came to know of their relationship. My wife filed for divorce in 2005,” Challa said. Interestingly, Arun Kumar became Madhuri’s advocate after that.

A FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION

Arun Kumar, speaking to Bangalore Mirror, said Challa was making false allegations. “If his allegations are true, let him use it in the court and strengthen his case. If what he is saying is true, I would be Lord Krishna and marry all my clients,” Arun Kumar said.

He added that Challa’s obstinacy was preventing a solution and that the child was the main sufferer because of this.

Women And Hindu Marriage Law

2010-11-26T17:16:00.000-08:00

Women And Hindu Marriage Law: Some frequently asked questions
http://www.countercurrents.org/gender-marriage031103.htm
What is meant when the law uses the term "Hindu"?

The term "Hindu" in post-independence Hindu law governing marriage, divorce, adoption, maintenance, guardianship and succession, describes not only persons who are Hindu by religion, but also those who are Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain. Roughly speaking, the term "Hindu" encompasses those Indians who are not Christian, Parsi, Muslim, or Jewish for the purposes of the law.

What is a proper or valid Hindu marriage?
Since in India various communities have different customs and ceremonies, the law says that a marriage can be performed or "solemnised" according to the customary rituals and ceremonies of the community to which either the bride or the groom belongs. It is very important to understand that the rituals and ceremonies carried out must be recognised and accepted by the community concerned as being the proper ones for formalising a marriage. For example, the law makes it very clear that in a Hindu marriage, where the ceremony includes the saptpadi, the ritual of circling the sacred fire seven times, the ceremony becomes complete and the marriage binding when the seventh round is completed.

Is it possible for Hindus to marry without undergoing Hindu marriage rituals and still remain Hindu for other aspects of the law?
Yes. Hindus can opt for a civil marriage, often incorrectly referred to as a "court marriage," under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Provisions in the Act govern civil marriages and require no religious ritual or ceremony of any kind. The necessary requirement is that the persons intending to marry inform the marriage officer of the district in which at least one of them lives. The marriage officer then posts the information on a public notice board and keeps it up for 30 days. During those 30 days, any person can object to the marriage on grounds such as the intended bride is under age or that she is too closely related to the bridegroom or that she has been married before. If no valid objections are received, the couple signs a declaration in the marriage office in the presence of three witnesses. The marriage officer then issues a certificate of marriage to the couple as proof of the marriage. The Special Marriage Act, in S.21-A clearly states that if a special or civil marriage
takes place between two persons both of whom are Hindus, Buddhist, Sikh or Jain, such persons continue to be governed by other aspects of Hindu personal law, such as the law relating to succession.

What conditions do persons wishing to marry have to fulfill before a proper Hindu marriage can be solemnized?
Neither bride nor groom should already be married or have a living husband or wife. A divorced person, a widow or widower is free to remarry; Both should have reached the minimum age for marriage: 18 years in case of the bride and 21 in case of the groom; Apart from being able to give their voluntary consent to the marriage, both must also be free of any mental disorder which could make them unfit for marriage; The bride and groom should not be within the "prohibited degrees of relationship" nor should they be "sapindas" of each other (these expressions are explained in detail in s.3 (f) and 3(g) of the Hindu Marriage Act). This rule does not apply if it can be established that a custom or usage is applicable to each permitting marriage between the two. Significantly, the rule does apply when the relationship is based on adoption.

What is the result of a Hindu marriage solemnised without fulfillment of the above mentioned necessary conditions
In three situations such a marriage is said to be void, which means that it is invalid, as if it never took place: If one of the parties to the marriage has a living husband or wife; or If the parties are within the prohibited degrees of relationship; or If they are sapindas of each other.

If the conditions regarding valid consent have not been fulfilled, the resulting marriage is void. That means that the party wishing to challenge it can approach the court for a decree of nullity. Once such a decree is passed, the marriage would have no legal force whatsoever. For example, if after the solemnization of the marriage it is found that the groom could not have given his valid consent because of the unsoundness of his mind, the woman can get the marriage nullified through the court. Naturally, the court must be satisfied with the proof of mental disorder and unsoundness of mind claim. If voidable marriages are not challenged in court, they remain valid for all legal purposes.

But what is the remedy if a woman has been married off before she turned 18?
A woman whose marriage was performed when she was under 15 years of age can reject the marriage, or "repudiate" it and get a divorce on that ground alone. She can only take the step after turning 15, but before turning 18. However, by doing so she loses the right to maintenance or alimony which a divorced woman can claim legally.

If a woman has been forced into a marriage, is such a marriage void or voidable? What if a fraud has been played on her?
Such marriages are voidable. If the consent of the complaining party has been obtained by force or by fraud relating to the nature of the ceremony performed or to any significant fact or circumstance concerning the opposing party, the marriage can be voided. However, a petition for annulment in such a case must be presented within one year after the force ceased to operate or the fraud has been discovered. Most important of all, the petitioner or complaining party should not have lived willingly with the other after the end of the force or after discovering the fraud. A marriage is also voidable if it can be proven that the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage by another man. In this situation the husband must file his petition within one year of the date of the marriage.

If a woman is being forced to marry against her will, what remedy does she have?
A woman can seek the help of the police to help her stop her marriage if she is being forced to marry against her will. However, given the level of mistrust that prevails in our society vis-à-vis the police, such an intervention can boomerang on the woman and may lead to more trouble. In such situations, social pressure applied judiciously might work better on her parents as opposed to legal interventions. A young woman being forced to marry against her will by her parents should first try to identify and approach influential people within her own community or extended family who have the moral clout to influence her parent's decision. Alternatively, sympathetic teachers or respected social workers in the area could also be approached for help. However, these social interventions are outside the realm of legal rights and in extreme cases where social pressure does not work, police help may be sought.

Should marriages be registered? How is it done?
The registration of Hindu marriages is not compulsory. However, registration of one's marriage provides proof of it for legal purposes and therefore we highly recommend it for women as a safety measure. A Hindu marriage register is found in the Office of the Registrar of Marriages, usually located in District or Divisional court compounds. The Registrar is normally some type of magistrate. A Hindu marriage can also be registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 if both parties so desire. If that is done, the marriage is treated as a civil marriage governed by that Act from the date of registration.

What options are open to a woman whose husband marries someone else while still married to her? Is that bigamy?
Yes, marrying again during the lifetime of one's wife or husband is known as bigamy. It is a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment and fine. A bigamous marriage is void, a complete nullity (see answer to question No.5). If a woman has prima facie evidence that she is lawfully married to a man who is about to or has remarried, she can register a criminal complaint and the police are expected to stop him from getting remarried. If a wife learns that her husband is going to marry again she can get an injunction from the court forbidding the marriage before it occurs. After it has taken place, a wife can ask the court for a "declaration" that the second or bigamous marriage is null and void. Proving bigamy, however, is not easy. The complainant wife has to prove that both the marriages, her own as well as the second bigamous one, have been performed properly according to the appropriate ceremonies. Most prosecutions for bigamy fail because the complainant does not have the proof
of the bigamous marriage. The accused husband can usually successfully claim against all efforts to prove the contrary that essential parts of the ceremony were never carried out and escape punishment.

If a Hindu wishes to marry a person who is not a Hindu, under what law can they do so?
If the couple wishes to have a religious marriage governed by Hindu law, then the non-Hindu partner must convert to Hinduism. If the non-Hindu partner is a Christian then it is also possible for the couple to marry according to Christian rites under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. Christian Personal Law then governs the marriage. The third option, in some ways the simplest, is to have a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act which facilitates marriages between any two people, including members of any two religious communities. It does not involve conversion and also permits people to avoid various complications that arise from marriages under various religion-based personal laws.

What rights does a Hindu child, who is born to persons whose marriage is declared void or voidable have under the Hindu Marriage Act?
Such a child is considered legitimate regardless of the status of the parent's marriage, if the marriage was performed according to Hindu rites under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or was a civil marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Such a child may inherit the property of his parents. However, he/she does not acquire rights in relation to joint family or ancestral property.

Press release: US Social experimentation in Pro-choice movements in India

2010-11-06T07:32:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE

Subject: US hegemony and interference in India’s internal affairs by cultivating radical feminist groups in the guise of women’s empowerment

The U.S is well known for its hegemony and interference in the internal affairs of other countries including India. The covert U.S hegemony and interference in India’s internal affairs by cultivating and funding radical feminists in the guise of “women’s empowerment” has to end, say the NGOs Save Indian Family Foundation, AIDPF and CRISP. Such cultivated elements will ultimately owe their allegiance to U.S agendas.

Obama and his Government are outsourcing degraded American Family Values (divorce, live-in relationships, abortions, single parenting, and fatherlessness) and policies to India by using arm twisting the Indian Government. The current American Government’s policies that seek to destroy the family amount to grave economic and social interference in India. The United States is once again acting like an arrogant global bully. It is imposing its ideas and disastrous social experiments in India via USAID (US state department wing for charity at US embassy, New Delhi) and many NGOs that it funds. USAID and its funded lobby groups in New Delhi vehemently oppose any efforts by Indian Government towards amendment of the anti-dowry law (section 498a of IPC) to stop its misuse. USAID has also lobbied for the biased badly drafted domestic violence act, which is already being heavily misused. All these efforts of US funded lobbies are interference in India to undermine Indian family system. AID is used as a front to push vested interests with pro-American stand into parliament, with a motive to eventually control India and the Indian Government. In short, the United States, by exporting its Radical Feminist Ideology.

All these “Ugly American” initiatives as usual show arrogance and no respect for the local cultures, heritage and values of individual nations.

Extensive SIFF studies have found that, the export of Failed American Social Experiments to India will lead to disastrous consequences for Indian Society and will adversely impact the lives of millions of Indian children as the family system breaks. Are the Indian politicians and Union Ministers listening as they spread the red carpet for Obama and his team or are they simply spreading their hands in the hope of a handout?

For partisan vote bank politics, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and current US Government promote policies, which will break family system and will lead to divorces, abortions and single parenting around the world.

· One out of 4 teenage girls in United States has Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD). This is a huge epidemic like situation. All these girls are aged between 14-19 years of age. (Source: American Centre for Disease Control)

· There were 8,20,000 abortions in United States last year alone.

· 40% of American children are born to unmarried women.

· 10% of American children are born to teenage girls between ages of 15-19.

· One out of 5 American Children lives in poverty.

· 80% of prison inmates in US have not seen their father ever.

· The homicide/murder rate in US is double that of India.

· US has a debt of 13.6 trillion USD (www.usdebtclock.org)

· Children from broken homes in US are

o 10.8 times more likely to commit rape.

o 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide.

We urge Obama to fix his own society and economy first before indulging in unethical global experiments for US hegemony. Indian Family Values are founded on abstinence and post marital faithfulness (which are incidentally the same fundamental values propounded for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases) and not the economic prosperity of condom manufacturers.

Barack Obama and his democrat party are strong supporters of the choice of women to abort the unborn child without informing the husband or father of the child. When abortions are not socially and morally discouraged, this can seriously worsen situations like female feticide in India. This exposes double standards of vested interests, which on one hand protest female feticide, and on the other hand support unfettered abortions. This is against religious, ethical Indian values.

Vote Bank politics, particularly on the basis of race or religion etc damage the society irretrievably. Gender vote bank politics are no less. It does not solve women’s issues, men’s issues or children’s issues. Only politicians gain at the expense of the future assets of our country – children (of broken families).

If Obama is really sincere, then he would have first solved the issue of high incidence of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, teenage pregnancies and crime in United States before getting involved in global women’s issues.

For the past few decades, the United States, especially the Democrat Governments led by Bill Clinton promoted family breaking and single motherhood by alienating fathers from their children by introducing draconian domestic violence laws, which consider all men as aggressors and all women as victims. The same experiments are conducted in India now.

On 27^th October, Obama talked about issue of Domestic Violence and he painted it black and white, i.e. “Men are the aggressors and women are victims”. He was in complete denial of the fact that men can also be victims of domestic violence, and they also need support services.

Finally, all Indians must urge the Indian Government to stop US interference in the Indian Society and Indian Family System with the excuse of empowering women. When we do not allow Americans to interfere in Kashmir, how can we allow them to interfere in our state policies related to families?

We appeal to our media friends to bring these above issues to the notice of the public so that the truth will be out & our nation’s unity & integrity along with our strong family heritage will be preserved.

http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/chldrndiv.htm

http://www.usaid.gov/in/newsroom/iwd_celeb.htm

Thanking you

Speakers:

SIFF – Anil Kumar, Jayanth

CRISP – Kumar Jahgirdar

AIDPF(Family Counselor): Roshni Mathan Pereira

‘Men are not free ATM machines’: DV Act deals with live-ins and keeps rather than Spouses!

2010-10-28T05:09:00.000-07:00

‘Men are not free ATM machines’

Several Bangaloreans welcome the SC judgment against maintenance for women in live-in relationships, say it’s high time government amended the Domestic Violence Act

http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article&sectname=News%20-%20City&sectid=10&contentid=2010102820101028051852408b281ef08

October 28, 2010

Men’s rights groups in the city have welcomed the recent supreme court judgment that women in live-in relationships cannot demand maintenance from their male partners. They have also come out against additional solicitor general Indira Jaisingh who has criticised the judgment.

Kumar V Jahgirdar, a social activist fighting for gender-neutral laws and family harmony, said, “I welcome the supreme court judgment. The concept of women demanding money from men to maintain their lifestyles is completely unacceptable in this era. Men are not economic slaves that they have to keep giving money and gifts every month to concubines and part-time lovers for decades or their whole life even after the end of the relationship.”

Virag Dhulia, liaison officer (India) for the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), said, “It is outrageous that Indira Jaisingh argues in a non-government case and demands that a man pays Rs 500 every month to one of his sexual partners for many decades in future just like a free ATM machine. Given a chance, she can also push courts to order men to pay maintenance to their female colleagues at work, citing some imaginary office romance. We are heading towards a society where women are independent and men are no longer treated as free ATM machines.”

“Today, sexual relationships between men and women are mostly mutual. Lawmakers must put an end to this practice of maintenance, alimony and compensation to women just due to some mutual sexual or emotional relationships for short or long periods of time,” says Jahgirdar.

Women welcome judgment

Some women have welcomed the supreme court judgment which went against the Domestic Violence Act 2005. Roshni Mathan Pereira, family counsellor and mediator at Children’s Rights Initiative For Shared Parenting (CRISP), said, “The Domestic Violence Act is very biased. It does not include the role of husbands and children within the framework of a family. It reads like a set of rules on how to break a marriage. Jaisingh, who is one of the architects of the Act, does not look into the importance and role of the women in the family.

“The Act deals with jargon like concubine and is more worried about such women than the wife. It is not pro-family. The act has become a magic wand in the hands of dominatrix wives who misuse it to break their families because of their own intolerance and manipulations leading to alternative character roles like live-ins, keeps, concubines and spouse thieves.

Though the supreme court has said it is not for them to legislate or amend the law, the government should revamp the act as soon as possible.”

Letter to Rajya Sabha

The Save Indian Family Foundation has also come out against the Act. In a letter to the Rajya Sabha secretariat, it has called for its amendment, saying, “Although the name of the act is Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, almost all the cases are filed only by wives or daughters-in-law. The foundation has called for making the Act ‘gender neutral’, rewriting sections and punishing false complainants.

Extracts of News-9 Interview with Roshni Mathan: Debate about Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce (Too much Sex as Cruelty)

2010-10-23T08:41:00.001-07:00

Extracts of News-9 Interview with Roshni Mathan: Debate about Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce (Too much Sex as Cruelty)

“Unlike vitamins, there are no daily minimum requirements,”

Fewer than 10 times a year is considered a sexless marriage, having sex once or twice a week is considered average. But, there is no definition for too much Sex.

1Cor 7:3-4 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

1Cor 7:5 Do not refuse one another, unless perhaps it is just for a time and by mutual consent...

See entire TV programme on youtube:

Picture: Vivek Deveshwar (SIFF member), Roshni Mathan (CRISP counsellor), Sakshi (TV-9 anchor), Advocate S Srivinas after TV-9 Programme debate

News-9 Television conducted a debate about Too much Sex as a ground for Cruelty in a Marriage.

Cruelty as a Ground for Divorce is applicable under the following sections:

Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides for dissolution of a Hindu marriage by a decree of divorce on 13 grounds. One of them is cruelty.

Section 27 of The Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides for 12 grounds for divorce. One of them is cruelty.

Section 2 of The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, provides for 8 grounds on which a woman married under the Muslim law is entitled to obtain a decree for dissolution of her Marriage. One of them is cruelty.

Section 32 of The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, provides for 11 grounds for divorce. One of them is cruelty.

Section 10 of The Indian Divorce Act, 1869, provides for 7 grounds of dissolution of marriage of Christians. One of them is adultery coupled with cruelty.

The idea, the meaning and the concept of cruelty changes from time to time, varies from place to place and differs from individual to individual. It is not the same for persons situated in different economic conditions and status.

Perhaps this is the reason why the Legislature has not, in any of the Acts, defined as to what cruelty is and has left it to the best judgement of the Judiciary to decide as to what amounts to cruelty to a particular person in a particular set of circumstances.

The question of cruelty is to be judged on the totality of the circumstances. In order to term a conduct as cruel it should be so grave and weighty that staying together becomes impossible. A conduct to be cruel must be more serious than the ordinary wear and tear of marriage.

Out of 100 cases of divorces, in 95 cases, the ground for divorce is cruelty and in the majority of them the cruel conduct complained of is physical violence. However, cases of mental cruelty are also not unknown to our Courts and, at times, complaints are made of a spouse afflicting cruelty upon another, without physical violence, just by his or her conduct of saying something or refraining from doing something.

A wife's conduct of :

- humiliating her husband in the presence of family members and friends,

- taunting her husband on his physical incapabilities,

- denying him access to physical relationship,

- neglect,

- coldness and insult,

- deliberately wearing clothes which her husband dislikes,

- purposely cooking food which her husband is not fond of,

- visiting her parent's family off and on against her husband's wishes,

- undergoing an abortion despite her husband asking her not to do so,

- threatening to commit suicide,

- refusing to do household work,

- keeping husband outside the door of house,

- complaining to husband's employer,

- disobedience,

all these are not acts of physical violence but yet it has an effect on the husband's mind and due to this, the husband's health suffers and therefore these acts can be termed as cruel.

Similarly, a husband's conduct of:

- humiliating his wife,

- calling her frigid or cold fish, making excessive sexual demands,

- comparing her with the maid servant,

- taunting her for not having any child or giving birth to female children,

- demanding dowry,

- asking her to bring money or articles from her parents,

- objecting to her visiting her parents, insulting her relatives when they visit her,

- deliberately removing all servants and making her do all household work,

- denying any medical treatment when she is ill

are also acts of mental cruelty by the husband upon the wife.

>>

Demand for too much sex is cruel, grounds for divorce: SC
Oct 21, 2010
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Demand-for-too-much-sex-is-cruel-grounds-for-divorce-SC/articleshow/6789057.cms
NEW DELHI: Persistent demand for excessive sex causing injury can be ground for seeking divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Dealing with the undefined term "cruelty" under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides grounds for divorce, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said the onus was on the one seeking divorce to prove with evidence that a particular conduct of the other partner had caused him/her cruelty.

The ruling came on a plea by an aggrieved husband.

While dealing with the whole gamut of what can be called "cruelty", entitling a spouse to move court for divorce, the Bench said even a single act of violence which was of grievous and inexcusable nature could fit the definition."Persistence in inordinate sexual demands or malpractices by either spouse can be cruelty if it injures the other spouse," said Justice Sathasivam, who wrote the judgment for the Bench.

However, a few isolated instances of cruelty over a certain period of time would not amount to cruelty as married life should be assessed as a whole, the Bench said while rejecting one Gurbux Singh's appeal seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.

"Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterised as cruelty. Mere trivial irritation, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty," the Bench clarified.

Having failed to prove cruel behaviour of his wife, Singh tried to impress the apex court to grant him divorce saying the marriage had broken down irretrievably as he and his wife were living separately since 2002 and there was no chance of their reunion.

The Bench said divorce has to be granted strictly under the grounds provided in Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act though the apex court might have dissolved marriage on account of irretrievable breakdown in one case.

Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) too biased: Four NGO’s come under one fold to hold a protest on October 23rd

2010-10-23T02:34:00.000-07:00

AIMPF

www.saveindianfamily.org www.crisp-india.org www.aimpf.org

All India Daughter Protection Forum

http://allindiadaughtersprotectionforum.blogspot.com/

Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) too biased

Four NGO’s come under one fold to hold a protest on October 23^rd

The Domestic Violence Act 2005 was authored by people like SC Advocate Indira Jaising, who are unmarried and not in committed relationships. Unfortunately, they planned the DV Act for Keeps and Concubines, not for Families, Marriages and Spouses.

Roshni Mathan Pereira (AIDPF), Kumar Jahgirdar (Founder CRISP), Shivakumar Challa (CRISP member) and Lokesh (CRISP member) in Protest against DV Act 2005 in Bangalore 2010

“See the home-maker and then the home” goes the old Ad age. But the tribe of home-makers is fast dwindling. Broken marriages are order of the day and are painful for both the wife and husband. But there is more pain involved which the current society must take note of – children and aged parents who are in the twilight of their lives.

Roshni Mathan (AIDPF) addressing rally in Bangalore

In continuation of their unrelenting efforts to save families, the pro-family NGOs; Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP), All India Daughters Protection Forum (AIDPF) and All India Mothers-in-Law Protection Forum (AIMPF) are organizing a “Dharna” on October 23^rd, 2010 (Saturday) in front of the Gandhi Statue, M G Road, Bangalore from 10 AM to 1.00 PM.

With malice towards none, the NGOs feel that the absurdly drafted DV Act is totally biased towards wives and provides highly competent, educated and independent women, with an unrestrained legalised weapon to harass the husband and his immediate family members. The NGOs want the “Lawmaker of the Land” to make requisite changes to help and protect the Indian family values. In this changed world where women equal men in every walk of life, it is only natural that the civil and criminal laws should be uniform and gender neutral.

The nation, in the hands of incompetents has resulted in the ridiculous governance where not only a section of its citizens need protection from basic human rights violation but from absurdly drafted laws themselves! Just one such is the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act which is helping perpetrate more violence against the family than stemming it.

Family disputes and Domestic Violence is the number one killer for married men as 26% of suicides are directly attributed to such cases, Also young intelligent achievers includes software engineers are wasting their quality time fighting false multiple cases. The process itself is more barbaric than the punishment.

The Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act is an act which is:

1. Totally Unconstitutional and violates basic human rights

2. It is a tool misused by Cosmopolitan and misguided wives to avenge against the husband and in-laws if their demands are not fulfilled

3. ANTI-CHILD, ANTI-FAMILY, ANTI-WOMAN and ANTI-MAN

4. A serious threat to society and Indian family values

5. LEGALISED weapon BY UNSCRUPULOUS WIVES for extortion

6. CHILDREN are increasingly living in single parenting, mostly mothers and missing out Fathers love and affection due to restraining orders.

7. Harassed HUSBANDS are increasing and are not able to file any case against their spouse when they have been Physically and Mentally tortured

8. Children rights is ignored due to this act and suffer silently due to insecurity.

9. Elders/ Senior Citizens are harassed and constantly live in fear.

10.Women family members - Only ‘wives’ are considered women and their fabricated allegations are taken as gospel truth

OUR D E M A N D S

Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF)

Protection for men and children under the domestic violence act
Suo-moto prosecution for false cases of domestic violence
Separate the maintenance laws from domestic violence laws, maintenance should be granted based on length of marriage and must be gender neutral
Trials under the act should be strictly subject to the CPC and the Indian evidence act and criminal suggesting terms like jail, bail etc... be removed from its text
Create a men’s welfare ministry and child welfare ministry
Reform the antiquated judiciary and rewrite DV act with limitation clause
Judiciary must implement RTI Act in right earnest to provide important statistical data
Responsible, accountable and a credible judiciary - make judiciary accountable for unjust adjudications (which are blatantly violating established law and internationally recognised human rights)!
Responsible and accountable legislations and governance and police should be kept away form the family matters. Stop counselling in police stations
Government to appoint and get research report on present family stresses and trivial disputes which are exaggerated

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS INITIATIVE FOR SHARED PARENTING (CRISP)

1. Protect children in matrimonial disputes and domestic violence act and stop child interviews and punish brain washing parents.

2. Domestic violence judges should be trained in child psychology and Couples and Parental disputes should be treated separately.

3. Implement shared custody/parenting immediately! No outdated sole ex-parte custody!

4. Create Separate Ministry of Child Welfare (separate from ministry of women)

5. Legal and judicial reforms for child friendly laws & implementation of internationally accepted good practices and clear back logs through evening and weekend courts.

6. Settle all child custody and visitation cases within six months from filing

7. Stop child restraining orders against fathers until trial is completed

8. Child maintenance and support provided by father should not be misused

9. Action against any parent for not following court orders.

10. Grand parents both paternal and maternal should be treated equally for grand children access.

All India Mothers-in-Law Protection Forum (AIMPF)

1. Protection is required for ALL women! Women family members need protection from domestic violence, including those perpetrated by women against women.

No immunity and suo-moto prosecution of women filing false cases.

Today the wife enjoys a free legal licence & immunity from prosecution while she herself perpetrates atrocities - physical, emotional and verbal abuse on other women members of the family. Such absurdly drafted laws not only shows the incompetence of the lawmakers and also reduces the ‘wife’ to be a legal terrorist, which is derogatory to the Indian woman and unconstitutional.

Reform the NCW which is a PARTISAN WIFE CENTRIC ORGANIZATION. Ensure that NCW takes complaints from elderly women, mothers-in-law and not just wives. Otherwise, CLOSE DOWN THE NCW! They are unfit to redress women’s issues.

The Domestic Violence Act is a “get rich quick” tool for criminal minded women to USURP husband and in-laws property. In the west, such women are termed “gold diggers”! No in-laws & husband should be forced to leave their own home on domestic violence complaint of daughter-in-law.

Don’t treat mother-in-law as vamps and restrain TV serials depicting mother-in-law as evil in the society.

We the members of SIFF, CRISP, AIMPF appeal to the media fraternity to support us by participating and educating the society at large through this DHARNA program the ill effects of DV act. We are expecting large number of our members and victims across the country to participate and express solidarity for the cause.

ANNEXURE

This is a sad period in

India

’s history that while it carries out economic reforms, modernises and aspires for a permanent seat in the United Nations to play a leading role in the world’s governance, it demonstrates a PATHETIC INCOMPETENCE TO UPHOLD EVEN BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, PROVIDE CREDIBLE SPEEDY JUSTICE, PEACE, and SECURITY TO ITS CITIZENS.

Protection of Children from Domestic Violence

Children must not suffer in matrimonial disputes. Granting sole and ex-parte custody to women merely on allegations under PWDVA and in other matrimonial disputes should be immediately stopped. Shared custody should be the mandatory norm in all child custody cases, and children must not be allowed to be used as a pawn in matrimonial disputes.

In-spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has time and again shown exemplary sensitivity and wisdom towards children caught in the crossfire of matrimonial conflict, the same wisdom does not seem to have percolated down to the lower courts. Sections of judiciary need to be sensitised, educated and imparted with special training on protecting child rights. All litigants cannot approach the apex court for various reasons; neither is it possible for the apex court to adjudicate/ provide oversight for all such cases. So, there is a need for the Supreme Court to issues suitable directions/ guidance to the High Courts, Family Courts and other lower courts to educate them on aspects like U.N’s Child Rights Convention (CRC), PAS – Parental Alienation Syndrome, International Parental Child Abduction, stopping ill-effects on children due to misuse of gender biased matrimonial laws including PWDVA. Such training can be imparted during court vacation and will encourage the lower judiciary to improve their quality of adjudication, bring credibility to the judiciary and reduce the load on higher courts which have been reduced to redoing the work of lower courts!

Protection to men under Domestic Violence Act:

Grant protection to men from domestic violence like emotional, physical, financial abuse available to “women” (read wife) must be extended to men also. It is the standard in most countries with domestic violence laws.

Maintenance - Eliminate maintenance as an Extortion Tool:

Maintenance is meant for ensuring a dependent’s immediate livelihood. Its not a mechanism for profit. The domestic violence act has become a convenient extortion tool for unscrupulous women to get married only to demand extortionist compensation/ maintenance. In the west, such women are called “gold diggers”! This is nothing but legalised dacoity! The sanctity of marriage is reduced to a farce. Currently multiple maintenance applications can be made under several sections. Therefore the maintenance laws need to be separated from domestic violence & other matrimonial laws. To discourage marriage as a means of extortion, maintenance should be granted based on length of marriage, the status of the parties, their needs, and so on.

Make maintenance laws Gender Neutral. Maintenance should not be driven by pseudo-feminist ideology which is presumptuous of men as perpetrators. While the world has moved into the 22nd century, the Indian lawmakers are still stuck in a medieval mindset and ever proposing even more oppressive gender biased laws. A case in point is recent recommendation to Karnataka government by Honourable Chairman of Law Commission of Karnataka Justice Malimath, which wants only the man to disclose their income/ assets under CrPC 125 maintenance cases. This is presumptuous that a woman has no income/ assets of her own to support herself and does not require the woman to disclose her income! Implicit is the assumption that man is the perpetrator and not to be trusted in law. There are countless cases where women have filed false affidavits (which in itself is a crime) stating zero income to claim maintenance. It is such recommendations that when passed into law result in blatant misuse, extortion and legal terrorism.

The Indian lawmakers show absurd double standards when on the one-hand they claim equality of women & a modern outlook and on the other go about trying recommending maintenance for even women in “live-in relationships”! Women in live-in relationships are modern, educated, highly competent independent women who are not fettered by olden day social taboos! For lawmakers to appease with maintenance in laws like PWDVA, reflects a primitive “cave-man” mindset about women in society.

The lawmakers and law reformers will do well to study maintenance laws of other democratic countries (to which they make several trips at the taxpayers’ expense), and then exercise and apply their mind in law making! The need of the hour is for lawmakers from the modern generation and not those from a by-gone era!

Educate and sensitize judiciary: The stance that a man is presumed guilty in matrimonial disputes until proved innocent is unacceptable, inhuman and unconstitutional. It is in bad taste for judges to make remarks even in a lighter vein, of the kind: “A man must obey his wife”, or “a man cannot expect to have freedom in marriage”, etc. If similar remarks were made with reference to women, all hell would break loose and there would be a clamour for gender-sensitization of judiciary and so on!

Create a Men’s Welfare Ministry:

The suicide rate of married men is about double that of married women. Suicide is resorted to when a person sees no other way out. The current laws are specifically designed to harass innocent men to death by systematically stripping them of their income, their possessions, imprisoning them, their immediate family members, and psychologically breaking them down by separating them from their children. One example is the suicide of Syed Makhdoom who was unable to meet his son. If a woman commits suicide, the husband is presumed guilty with the onus on him to prove innocence. However, when a woman is the perpetrator, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty & her crime subsidised. Stop such double standards and pseudo-feminist appeasement! Such absurdities have only legalised atrocities against men & children which are no different from the much touted “bride burning”!

About Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF)

Save Indian Family Foundation, Bangalore is a non-profit organization dedicated to promote the cause of gender equality and family harmony, and provides support to men and families facing domestic violence and false legal cases. Its members including women, come from all walks of life and range from young people to senior citizens.

About Children Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP)

CRISP is a Non Governmental Organization (NGO) which recognizes the serious effects of "parental alienation" on children due to single parent families on account of divorce or separation. CRISP also focuses on furthering the rights of a child to remain connected with both parents. CRISP deals with issues related to the unquestionable right of children to be cared for by both biological parents.

About All India Mothers-in-law Protection Forum (AIMPF)

All India Mother-in-Law Protection Forum (AIMPF) is a non-funded, non-profit organization which creates awareness about the problems faced by mothers-in-law and also fights against their vilifying and villainous projection. Such projections which stereotype the depiction women are insulting and derogatory to the modern Indian women!

About All India Daughters Protection Forum (AIDPF)

All India Daughters Protection Forum (AIDPF) creates awareness about the Rights of Daughters in their own NATAL Homes, and how Daughters are abused in their own homes and families.

Press release: Four NGOs come together to protest against Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA)

2010-10-20T09:07:00.001-07:00