Latest news

Sunday 11 August 2013

MRA, SIFF up in arms against new bill on marriage law

MRA, SIFF up in arms against new bill on marriage law

Men’s activists have threatened to carry out nationwide demonstrations outside the houses of those Members of Parliament who support the new Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010.
The Men’s Rights Association (MRA) and Save India Family Foundation (SIFF) terms the bill as extremely anti-male, anti-husband and anti-marriage that seeks to incentivise divorce. They have opposed discussion on the bill in the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament as they feel not enough discussion have been done while formulating the bill.
Both the groups insist that the bill, which gives divorced women an equal stake in the husbands’ ancestral property, will result in several damaging results, such as a men being scared of marriage. They also say that it gives the women an unfair advantage. The activists have even declared that not only will they not vote for any MPS who vote in favour of the bill, but also will agitate outside their houses.
MRA’s city president Atit Rajpara said that since the past two weeks, they had met at least 45 Mps and the city Mayor who gave them a memorandum opposing the act. “We will sit outside MPs and politicians who will be seen advocating this Act, and ask them to adopt us and give a share from their properties,” he said.
According to the new law, the wife is entitled to have a share in the husband’s inherited property during the divorce. The decision regarding the monthly spousal support and how the property is to be divided has to be decided by the judges.
SIFF and MRA have asked the government to revise the law and not to table it in the current session of Parliament. The NGOs have also called for a more gender-neutral law that calculates the alimony depending on the woman’s contribution to the household and the duration of the marriage, among other things.
SIFF president Rajesh Vakharia said, “Any marriage law amendment has to be seen in a horrified manner taking into account other laws like shared monthly alimony, parenting, child support and others. The decision has been taken in haste. This will not curb the crime but instead may get misused. There is no provision where a woman will have to compensate to husband and his family if she woman misuse the law. If this act is passed, men will be pinned for life. The man will have to keep paying alimony to his divorced wife even after parting with his own property and ancestral property.”
Today, a man gets married mostly at the age 30, as he waits to become financially stable, with a fair salary, lot of savings and a house. If this act is passed, a male and his family will lose all this in case of a divorce. Females get concession even in income tax, Vakharia explained.
Rajpara said, “We are already witnessing many fake and extortion cases filed by women. The cases are pending for years and if this act comes men will stop marrying. This act was adopted by China, but was ruled out in 2010 after it’s widespread misuse resulted into males in China afraid of marriages. I don’t understand why such atrocities against Hindu husbands only? As per the provisions, the husband will pay 50 per cent property in case of a divorce. The remaining 50 per cent will be lost in the endless court battles. We all need a single civil matrimonial law that applies to all Indians irrespective of religion and gender. Such biased laws will lead to men committing suicide or killing wives instead of fighting legally.”
d_chaitraly@dnaindia.net

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=50143&boxid=17046&ed_date=2013-8-11&ed_code=820040&ed_page=3#.Ugb5l2_X5b8.gmail 

Supreme Court grants man divorce from wife who crumpled his dress, and life too

Supreme Court grants man divorce from wife who crumpled his dress, and life too

Her cruel behaviour “has snuffed out the bright candle of feeling of the husband”

Crumpling the husband’s ironed clothes or hiding his motorcycle keys to prevent him from going to office may be childish acts, but would constitute ‘mental cruelty’ for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has held.
A Bench of Justices Deepak Verma and Dipak Misra gave this ruling while granting divorce to Vishwanath Agrawal who sought to break with Sarla for causing him ‘mental cruelty’ — she used to crumple his ironed clothes and sometimes hide them and hide his motorcycle keys to prevent him from going to his factory; gave a false advertisement in a newspaper that he was a womaniser and addicted to liquor and also filed a criminal case against him.
Rejecting the findings of the trial court and the Bombay High Court that there was no direct evidence and that the grounds complained of by Mr. Agrawal were only childish acts on the part of Sarla, the Bench said: “It does not require Solomon’s wisdom to understand the embarrassment and harassment that might have been felt by the husband. The level of disappointment on his part can well be visualised like a moon in a cloudless sky.”
The Bench said: “That apart, in the application for grant of interim maintenance, she had pleaded that the husband was a womaniser and drunkard. This pleading was wholly unwarranted and, in fact, amounts to a deliberate assault on his character. Thus, we have no scintilla of doubt that the uncalled-for allegations are bound to create mental agony and anguish in the mind of the husband. The factual matrix would reveal that the husband comes from a respectable family engaged in business. At the time of publication of the notice, the sons were quite grown up. The respondent-wife did not bother to think what impact it would have on the reputation of the husband and what mental discomfort it would cause [him]. It is manifest from the material on record that the children were staying with the father. They were studying in school and the father was taking care of everything. Such a publication in the newspaper having good circulation can cause trauma, agony and anguish in the mind of any reasonable man. In fact, it can decidedly be said that it was mala fide and the motive was to demolish the reputation of the husband in society.”
The Bench said: “The cruel behaviour of the wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright candle of feeling of the husband because he has been treated as an unperson. Thus, analysed, it is abundantly clear that with this mental pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her.”
The Bench directed the appellant to pay her Rs. 50 lakh as permanent alimony and allowed his appeal.