Latest news

Saturday 7 September 2013

Bill unfair on men

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which was recently passed by the Rajya Sabha is inegalitarian and regressive. If passed by the Lok Sabha, it would be draconian as it would be oppressive for men.
If it is passed into law, it should be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality to both men and women.
The proposed law is certainly gender-biased. There is no rationale whatsoever why the law should benefit women, and not men. It is absurd that in cases of “irretrievable breakdown” of marriage, half the self-acquired property of the husband can be claimed by the woman. It would be sensible to make changes in the proposed law so that only matrimonial property is divided, that is, the property acquired during the course of the marriage.
In most developed countries, the laws concerning divorce say that only the property acquired by the husband during the course of the marriage can be claimed by the wife.
In today’s time, there are marriages that last only a few weeks and at times a few days. In those cases it wouldn’t be fair to give half of the self-acquired property of the man to the wife.
This law would lead to fraud marriages. It will spoil the fabric of marriage. Men will become suspicious of women; a man would think the prospective wife is only after his property and will divorce him soon. This could encourage men to stay away from wedlock and get into live-in relations, which in India are covered under the law on domestic violence, but are not considered equivalent to marriage. This will create further problems for women.
Statistics suggest that more women are defrauded than men. In such cases, maintenance to the distressed woman should be sufficient and the proposed law should be changed accordingly. It doesn’t make sense to give maintenance to the woman if a marriage lasts just a few weeks.
In cases where a woman leaves her husband for another man and the children remain with the father, it would be really illogical to give the man’s property or even maintenance to her. If a woman is a housewife and the husband has been earning, she should rightly be entitled to the property acquired by them/him during the course of the marriage.
It will, however, be unfair if she gets the property acquired by the husband before the marriage or inherited by him. If passed, the new law will spoil the fabric of marriage.
This Bill says that though the courts will keep in mind the husband’s inherited property while deciding compensation amount, especially if children are involved, the share in the husband’s inherited property will not be given to the wife in case of divorce.
Why would the court not treat the wife’s property with the same yardstick? Would an aggrieved husband be entitled to the self-acquired property of his wife? This law is not gender neutral. By bringing these amendments, the government thinks that it is doing service to the pro-woman sentiment. But no one seems to have thought about the law. It needs to have some rationale behind it.
Geeta Luthra is a senior advocate (As told to Ridhima Malhotra)

http://www.asianage.com/ideas/bill-unfair-men-585#comment-47450 

Daughters-in-law abuse elderly more, says HelpAge India study

Daughters-in-law abuse elderly more, says HelpAge India study

Daughters-in-law are the worst abusers of the elderly in homes in Thiruvananthapuram, a study conducted by HelpAge India says.
The study, covering 24 cities including the Kerala capital, released here on Friday, says that daughters-in-law constituted 44 per cent of the abusers, followed by daughters (32 per cent) and sons (24 per cent). The study was released to mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day on Saturday.
The report says that the elders’ perception of abuse constituted neglect (38 per cent), economic exploitation (27 per cent), and disrespect (35 per cent). Among the abused, 24 per cent made an attempt to report it, their first choice being a community leader. Their second choice was the local police and the third choice relatives, friends, and NGOs.
Those who did not report abuse did so in order to maintain confidentiality of family matters; ignorance about the best way to deal with the problem; or lack of confidence in the ability of the person or agency.
Twenty two per cent of those surveyed reported experiencing abuse, 34 per cent of them experienced abuse for three to five years. For 33 per cent of the respondents, abuse was a daily experience. Among those who reported abuse, 89 per cent of the elderly belong to age group of 60-70 years, 10 per cent to 71-80 years. The mean age of those who reported abuse was 65 years. Forty five per cent of respondents were postgraduates, 25 per cent graduates. Among them, 85 per cent were married and 14 per cent were widows or widowers, the study says.

Bombay high court questions early release of women jailed for murder

Bombay high court questions early release of women jailed for murder

MUMBAI: Can a person sentenced to life imprisonment for murder face less punishment just because she is a woman? The Bombay high court on Tuesday questioned the gender discrimination in the state government's new prison rules.

"This is a dangerous trend," a division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice Gautam Patel said. "Reservations [for women] can be understood, but showing leniency in punishment on the basis of gender cannot be accepted."

The court asked advocate general Darius Khambata to assist the court on the matter when it hears the case on September 19. The court was hearing a plea for early release from prison by a woman convicted of murdering her husband on the basis of the rules introduced by the government in 2010.

While a woman murder convict sent to prison for life faces minimum imprisonment of between 18 years and 20 years in jail with remissions, men face 20 years to 30 years, depending on the gravity of the crime. Remissions are extra days credited for each day spent in jail.

"Prima facie, we do not see any positive discrimination [in the rules to benefit female convicts] which either improves the dignity or status of women in society," the judges said.

The court pointed out that they had observed many reports in newspapers about women committing serious crimes, including being involved in sexual assault cases. "While the new rules introduce stringent punishment for crimes against women, in the same breath someone who has wronged another woman can get off lightly because of her gender," the judges said.

The court questioned the state on the justification for such a classification on the basis of gender.

"A case-to-case-basis decision on the prison term can be taken by going into the circumstances, but a classification solely on the basis of gender is a dangerous trend," the court said. "The rules do not meet the purpose that they will not be encouraged to commit crimes. Instead, it gives a licence to women that because of their DNA they can get off easily even if they commit a serious crime."

In 2010, the state government had introduced changes to the guidelines for premature release of prisoners under the 14-year rule. According to law, a punishment of life imprisonment awarded to an accused means jail till death. Yet, depending on the severity of the crime, the rules allow a person to be released early from prison once he completes 14 years of actual imprisonment.

The new rules created a new category for women convicts. Those who had committed murder were eligible for release from jail once they had served 18 years, including remissions. If the murder was premeditated, they could be released after 20 years with remissions.
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Bombay-high-court-questions-early-release-of-women-jailed-for-murder/articleshow/22304543.cms 

Marriage law amendment bill 2010 and the Murder of Democracy

26th August 2013 is a day that will live in infamy for Indian democracy when the country witnessed the broad daylight murder of democracy and principles of natural justice on the very floors of Indian Parliament. This is the day when the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 was cleared by the Rajya Sabha even after the opposition from men’s rights groups and some members of the House. The shocking aspect of the whole debate was the Minister of Law and justice Shri Kapil SIbal made statements in support of this law, which were grossly misleading and downright incorrect. The minister in his desire to get this law passed was generous with misleading statements and very economical with the truth.
The ground reality &repercussions of the law are severe on husbands and their families.
1. Husbands will lose their hard-earned property (self-acquired, inherited or inheritable) if their marriage breaks.
2. Husbands will still face other false cases under Section 498A, Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, etc. and get extorted further.
3. Husbands will lose your children to their estranged wife who will poison them against you and the Govt. would aid her in doing so.
4. Husbands will become bankrupt if their wife decides to leave you or you are unhappy in the marriage.
5. Husbands would have no right to appeal as now your extortion is codified in the law and power has been wrested with the insensitive and anti-male Indian judiciary.
The Govt. chose to brush aide the aforementioned concerns of men’s welfare groups giving a clear message that the Govt. in India is not interested to work in men’s favor to even an iota’s extent. It’s up to the men now to realize as to whether they should vote for such political parties or even pay tax to such a Govt.
Some of  the arguments that were used by Honourable Minister of Law and Justice, Shri Kapil Sibal to help build a case for this law were grossly misleading and totally inaccurate . His statements and our counters are as below.
1. India is a patriarchal society; hence laws must be pro-women.

This is a big myth which is conveniently used to pass any anti-male law. If the society was indeed patriarchal, then in that case, the laws would have protected a man’s right. Why would a patriarchal society even bother about women and pass so many anti-male laws just to appease women? Actually Indian society has never been patriarchal. Life has always been tougher for men compared to women. Men have always been expected to take more pains and make more sacrifices compared to women and when men try to speak about their rights, their own fellow men work against them and suppress them. It is just a convenient argument to support anti-male laws so that men can be continuously harassed and tortured in order to make them work for the betterment of the society.
2. World over 2% of assets are owned by women, so since 98% of property is owned by 50% of the population i.e. men, hence women must get free property at the cost of men.
This is another grossly incorrect statement propagated by feminists and is not true because till date no authentic data source has been traced to, which scientifically proves the contention and it’s virtually impossible to do so as no one has access to this level of global data. And any amount of sample study done won’t suffice because no statistical model can simulate data for the entire globe with dynamics so varying and so complex. Secondly, even if we hypothetically assume that the contention is true, even then, men own those assets by sheer virtue of their grit, determination and hard work. No law was ever framed to have men a free run on properties by virtue of their relationship status that would enrich themselves. Then, why do we want to enrich women by robbing things off men? And such a mathematically weak argument coming from an eminent lawyer and a graduate from Harvard Law School is equally shamming for India.
3. This law is gender-neutral as both husband and wife can apply for divorce.
This a grossly misleading and untrue statement When it comes to property division, only husband’s property will be considered and even if wife owns property she can keep it, while claim a share in husband’s property.
4. We are only considering post-marital property but will take into account inherited and inheritable property.
This is a big grossly misleading statement. SIFF has seen the draft of the bill, which clearly mentions that any property owned by the husband at the time of divorce, whether it is inherited, inheritable or self-acquired, shall be considered for division. However, our learned law minster chose to mislead and said we are talking of only post marital property, however, inherited and inheritable property shall be taken into account while deciding the case. Does this mean this was deliberate attempt at misleading the members of the parliament to get this bill passed ?
Money and Property Transactions in Courts will lead to massive corruption and extortion. Lawyers have something to be happy about this IRBM law. But, the common man will suffer very badly. We have to wake up to the new reality that most men are losing faith on Indian Family court system and judiciary.
Leaving the whole issue to Judiciary is not good idea. There may be some good judges, but that does not mean enoromous powers and distrition of wresting someone’s property be vested with lower judiciary. Most poor people will lose their property running around courts for years and paying lawyer fees.
We will see lawyers welcoming laws that give more and more power to law enforcement systems, because they are bound to gain a lot from people’s misery. When Govt planned to amend Criminal Procedure Code to reduce arrests under 498a to stop its misuse, lawyers protested against this move claiming they will not be able to make big money from bail fees from men and their families.
Rajya Sabha member Pyarimohan Mahapatra said during that debate that according to Transparency International 36% of Indian Judiciary is corrupt. Now, the same corrupt Judiciary will decide how to divide the property of husband and his parents to give to  the wife.
Law Minister Kapil Sibal has nothing to say about forcing parents to give a share of their property to daughters, when people are not following this law. Yet, he is interested in giving someone’s property to daughter-in-law, if she decides get divorced for their son. In fact, their son can not even oppose the divorce, that she files.
Kapil Sibal has made the women’s empowerment into a zero sum win lose game. He believes if women have to gain, men have to lose badly. This will not auger well for Indian society on a long run.
We hereby most respectfully demand that the marriage law amendment bill not be introduced in Loksabha in this form and that he Honourable Minister of Law and justice call for an open debate on the pros and cons of this law and clarify the reasons why he chose to be generous with misleading statements and so economical with the truth.

http://www.theindiapost.com/articles/marriage-law-amendment-bill-2010-murder-democracy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theindiapost%2FwkLb+%28The+India+Post%29 

I enjoyed my stay in jail: James Vasanthan

I enjoyed my stay in jail: James Vasanthan

Popular music director/anchor James Vasanthan was recently arrested for allegedly abusing his 63-year-old neighbour. Now, he is out on bail, and, he opened up to Chennai Times about his arrest. He says, "It was around 3.30 pm on Sunday when cops came into our house. Though initially I was not told about the arrest, later I was informed that I would be held. They didn't even tell me on what charge they were arresting me. Following that, I was imprisoned in Puzhal jail for two days."

He was accused by the woman for displaying indecent gestures in public. Reacting to the allegations, he says, "Some women take the sexual harassment law to their advantage and target innocent men like me. This is not the first case that has been forced on me. I know very well that this woman does everything with the support of the top cop in the city."
Trouble started for the composer when he bought a house in Palavakkam in 2011. "Since then, this neighbour is causing trouble. Her intention is to get our place which she asked us to sell to her when we first bought it. At first, she filed an attempt-to-murder case and now, she lodges a sexual harassment case. I will legally disprove all these false allegations."
James has spent nearly 48 hours in the prison. He says, "I have a positive approach to life; so, I enjoyed my stay in the jail. My wife has been my pillar of strength during this crisis. I will strive hard for justice."

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-09/news-interviews/41237107_1_james-vasanthan-sexual-harassment-case-neighbour