Amendment in property rights of women draws mixed responses
Pune
The Union Cabinet had earlier come out with a law stating
that woman enjoyed a share in all the immovable property owned by the
husband in case of a divorce.
However, with a recent amendment, a
woman now gets a clearly defined share but only from the residential
immovable assets of her husband, which includes just the residential
property rather than all the immovable assets.
“The most important
aspect of the amendment is that in the eventuality of a divorce, women
will be entitled to a share in the property or assets acquired by the
couple after marriage. According to the prevailing law, the husband pays
the woman a monthly maintenance or a one-time settlement, both of
which, in most cases, are a pittance,” says Ashok Kumar, Principal and
MD, Cresa Partners, India.
According to Om Ahuja, CEO –
Residential Services, Jones Lang LaSalle India, the amendment will go a
long way in providing women a higher degree of financial security after
divorce. “In the majority of cases, residential property tends to be the
largest single asset that an individual holds. As against the earlier
ambiguity in terms of rights and entitlement, the amendment now
specifies clearly an assured share in the residential property. By all
accounts, this is a far more empowering compensation than the rather
patronizing payment of maintenance,” adds Ahuja.
Additionally, a
clause in the proposed amendment, gives the courts the right to reduce
or waive the six months cooling period prior to the grant of a divorce.
The waiving off on grounds of irretrievable breakdown, says Kumar, is
significant as it will make the process much less stressful for couples
who clearly do not want to be together.
Though the amendment has
been lauded by many, other experts feel that this step is unfair and can
disturb the economic security of women.
Says Advocate Asim
Sarode, “With the new amendment, the economic security of the women is
disturbed. The initial law wherein the wife would get a share in all the
immovable property was quite fair. Now there will be a burden on women
to gain economic support. The law should have ensured equal
distributions of wealth in case of a divorce.”
Furthermore, the
country currently needs to empower women which they say is not
encouraged with the new law. Shashi Sharma, Chairperson, Women for Good
Governance says, “If the woman is inclined to fight for her rights,
family members stop her. There are emotional barriers for her while
implementing her rights. The laws which increase her importance in the
house and society at large and ultimately lead to her empowerment must
be implemented.”
Avers Darshana Parmar Jain, Deputy Managing
Director, iParmar Group, “In a country where empowering women is the
order of the day, there are talks of reservations for women and
education for girls; this move will not ensure equality. The law would
adversely affect the rural population mainly.”
Additionally, it is
also believed that the country is not ready for such a law. “This move
is not the right thing to do at this stage. Probably 20 years from now
when the country has progressed enough and women start getting equal
opportunity in all fields should they think about such amendment. India,
currently, is not ready for such a move,” Jain says.
Agrees Roopa
Mudliar, Executive Director (Sales, Marketing and Business
Development), Vascon Engineers Ltd, “When women come shoulder to
shoulder with men, probably we won’t need this law at all. If both get
equal status then women should not ask for any special thing. But
looking at the current scenario where women work at home and men work
out to earn a living, the women deserve a share in both moveable and
immovable assets.”
In all fairness, Jain also points out the other
side. “There is a very small percentage of women who take advantage and
hence, in the interest of larger audience, I do not support such an
amendment.”
According to Mudliar, men may take advantage of this
move. “Men may take advantage of the fact that women has rights only on
the immovable property and thus convert all the immovable property to
movable property to avoid giving a share to their women which they
deserve,” she says.
Moreover, as is the case with most progressive
legislations, the main challenge lies in their implementation. Surabhi
Arora, MRICS, Associate Director- Research, Colliers International says,
“There is no clarity about the law as the terms are not clearly
defined. Before implementing any kind of law, one should look at its
implications on society as there will be an increase in number of court
cases or there would be a need to set up separate court for these kind
of cases.”
Sarode concludes, “There is a need for a law that is
fair and applicable to all. The new amendment is not logical. We are
sending letters to the law commissioner condemning this amendment. The
concerned authorities ought to address this issue.”
http://content.magicbricks.com/amendment-in-property-rights-of-women-draws-mixed-responses/
In a significant verdict, the Gujarat high court has said a husband is
entitled to divorce if his wife does not allow his parents to stay with
them and also prevents him from taking care of the parents.
The bench of chief justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya and justice JB
Pardiwala on Monday granted divorce to a Surat-based doctor saying that
the behaviour of his wife, also a doctor, amounted to ‘mental cruelty’.
The petition for divorce was filed by the husband who had sought
dissolution of their 15-year-old marriage.
"The court granted divorce, holding that the wife’s actions amounted to
mental cruelty towards the husband,” said AY Kogje, counsel for the
husband.
“We had sought dissolution of the marriage as the wife did not want her
in-laws to stay with them and also prevented her husband from keeping
any contact with his parents. The court ruled that such action can be
covered under the definition of mental cruelty,” the lawyer said.
Milind Dave (name changed) had filed for divorce from Mitali (name
changed) on the ground that his wife had not allowed his father and
mother to stay with them.
Not only that, the wife had also prevented him from keeping his mother with them after his father died of blood cancer.
According to the petition, in 2007 too the husband had filed for
divorce in the Surat family court on the ground of mental cruelty caused
by his wife by refusing to allow his parents to stay with them at their
house in Surat. However, the court in 2012 rejected the husband’s plea.
Milind then filed an appeal in the high court. He put several grounds and evidence against his doctor-wife.
According to the petition, the wife had not only objected to his
parents staying with them, she had also objected to his going to
Ahmedabad to take care of his father who was then suffering from blood
cancer. Milind’s parents were then living in Ahmedabad.
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1825890/report-man-entitled-to-divorce-if-wife-doesn-t-let-his-parents-stay-with-them-rules-hc
