New marriage law and its possible effects on Indian men
Are we heading towards another feminist law like the 498A (Law against Dowry)
whose rampant misuse has led Supreme Court to declare it as 'legal
terrorism'? Sure enough women have been discriminated against, been
tortured and suffered from times immemorial but does that justify the
fact that some of the major laws in our country taking a highly feminist
turn? The misuse of harassment laws has increased by 20 percent
cited Times of India on 16th April 2013. One can only imagine what the
numbers will be after the High Court ruling that declares premarital
consensual sex equivalent to marriage.
When two people decide to be indulging in a physical relationship, it is
their duty to be sure of what it means to both of them. It's imperative
for them to be on the same page and know whether it's casual or an act
of committing to each other for all their lives. It's a personal matter
that should be handled well at that level without any melodrama and
court intervention.
With the new law, it seems that every relationship gone wrong and any
woman with frustration can go to the court and ask the man for the
compensation for all lifelong. Imagine happy marriages turning sour with
women and men from past relationships claim that they were married
first because of the physical act they shared. For women of low earning
capacities, cases of fraudulence to use such laws to their benefits to
seek compensation are not rare. It's sad that laws that are made for
women's safety are becoming threat to innocent men while the men who are
really guilty of heinous crimes like rape are still on the loose with
numbers increasing every day.
Talking about this one may get reminded of the recent case of Manoj Kumar's suicide
due to the harassment by his wife and mother-in-law and threats of
getting him jailed under a false 498A (dowry). After this event, Save Indian Family Foundation
set up to address grievances of such victims and within about 3 months,
more than 500 cases have been registered. Such pitiable is the state of
men with the laws regarding dowry and domestic violence.
This new declaration which regards premarital sex as marriage has a lot
more negative sides than the what the people are looking at right now
and the less talked about subject of harassment of men is one of them.
Noted Tamil writer Jayamohan called it is a conservative ruling, since
it has taken into consideration only the sufferings of women and not
men, especially at a time when premarital sex is very common among the
economically independent. "The judgment is right in the sense that the
object of all our laws is to protect the interest of the women," he
said.
This law diminishes the strong bond of marriage that is much celebrated
and respected in India to just a physical bond. It's detrimental for
India which after declaration of this law remains stuck between the
western influence that makes premarital sex no big deal and Indian laws
that bind you with the person with the threads of matrimony.
http://www.coolage.in/2013/06/22/new-marriage-law-and-its-possible-effects-on-indian-men/
Some jurists and lawyers, chiding knee-jerk interpretations of the order, especially on social-networking portals, caution that the high court had not attempted to set down terms for a man-woman relationship outside marriage. Far from that. All it said, in fact, was that after a prolonged relationship as partners, a man or woman cannot relieve himself/herself from its consequences and liabilities, on the ground that it had not been registered or solemnised.
Advocate and matrimonial case specialist T K R Sudha, who is also treasurer of the Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA), said the order was almost in tune with umpteen orders of the Supreme Court and other high courts on the issue of live-in relationships. "Though matrimonial laws have not been amended adequately to accommodate and address the complexities of live-in affairs, there are apex court rulings which are laws of the land till a specific law is enacted. The soul of the judgment is in line with apex court rulings, only words are different," she said.
However, senior advocate and former high court judge, K Chandru said, "Matrimonial issues must be addressed on case-by-case, facts-by-facts and person-by-person basis," although the presumption of marriage is possible in cases of domestic violence cases, which have a specific provision dealing with household and live-in relationships. But in general, he warns against the tendency to make sweeping statements in family matters. Chandru feels the order is likely to be misunderstood by subordinate courts, which might force people into relationships merely because they have had sexual relations.
"Though perfectly all right when read in the context of the case in hand, certain phrases and words in the judgment do disturb me. Terms such as 'sexual consummation', 'sexual gratification' and 'sexual interaction' are not politically correct in this age. While higher judicial forums have adopted a holistic view of the live-in relationship and tried to maintain a fine balance between a usual marriage and an unusual marriage, this verdict tries to draw a black-and-white portrait," said a senior judicial officer.
Badar Sayeed, former additional advocate-general of Tamil Nadu, felt the court had attached too much value to the sexual aspect of a wedding. While agreeing with Justice C S Karnan's ruling that he had to presume that the parties to the case - Aysha and Ozir Hassan - were wife and husband because there was evidence to show they lived together for about five years and had two children during the period, she said the judge's views on primacy of sexual interaction between the couple as obiter dicta have no force of law.
As for the court's suggestion that either party may approach the family court for declaration of their marital rights, activist and advocate Geetha Ramaseshan said this would open a floodgate of litigation in the family court.
Former city public prosecutor of Chennai M Shahjahan said he was tempted to partly agree with the ruling, but wondered how such a view would square with other matrimonial issues such as right to property and separation. "How will the two living together separate and what will be the terms of separation?" he said. "Can the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC be invoked if the man or women in a live-in relationship or who had 'consummated' their sexual interaction has another parallel relationship? What about partition and property rights?"
Advocate and former special public prosecutor for the human-rights court V Kannadasan said Justice Karnan's order would squarely apply to the case he had handled alone. "It can never become a law, and be a precedent for all cases concerning live-in relationships or where a man of 21 and woman of 18 had 'consummated' their sexual interaction," he said.
Though it appears to have strengthened the right to choose one's own way of life, Monday's order has clearly added to the already tangled web of matrimonial laws and their interpretations.