18th December, 2014
To,
Shri Arun Jaitley ji,
Hon’ble Finance Minister of India,
Office of the Finance Minister,
North Block, New Delhi – 110001
I would like to debunk the myths around this unconstitutional bill which has grave
consequences for our nation. Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi ji’s vision of Shrest Bharat,
Make in India, Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas will go for a toss if the Marriage Law (Amendment) Bill is
passed. Please don’t be hasty in passing a UPA bill.
Myth 1. This law is the recommendation of Supreme Court
Hon’ble SC wanted a new ground for divorce to be added such that District court which do not
have inherent powers, can use this ground to separate a warring couple, who are not willing to
settle through mutual consent divorce (13 B of HMA). The present bill poisons the intent of
Hon’ble SC by leaching it with property division provisions where a wife gets minimum 50% share
in husbands property (self-earned, before and after marriage) and ALSO unbelievably enough the
INHERITED AND INHERITABLE property.
THE PROPOSED BILL IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF DIVORCE BUT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND AND WAY OF MORE ALIMONY in the shape of PROPERTY SHARE. SC never needed another Alimony Law, HMA 24 and HMA 25 are sufficient for women.
Myth 2. So what, it is gender neutral anyway!
Completely wrong! Where the new ground can be invoked by any spouse the property share is
given only to wife!! A wife can oppose the divorce under this amendment on the ground of
financial hardship but a Husband cannot!! He would be forced to depart with his property and
would be shoved a divorce if the wife so wishes. THIS BILL IS LOADED AGAINST HINDU MEN AND INCENTIVIZES DIVORCE AMONG HINDU WOMEN. THIS WOULD BREAK FAMILIES AT THE DROP OF A HAT AND CREATE SOCIAL UNREST!!
Myth 3. The new provision would help to reduce the judicial back log
When the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IrBM) was used by Apex court as its special
inherent powers, all the Criminal (e.g., 498a), Quasi Criminal (Domestic Violence Act) and civil
(HMA 24, 25, CrPC 125 etc.,) were all disposed at one go and warring couple has no venue to
continue fight and/or go for appeal. With the new ground used by Family court, the divorce may
happen but warring couple may continue the war in criminal and other civil courts as Family
courts cannot direct the other courts in question. Also, the party aggrieved from this section
is free to go to the next court (High Court and Supreme Court) and spend another 20 years there.
Clearly this new law does not help reducing the back log at all and in contrary gives another
law/ground for people to create endless litigation and overloading the courts.
Myth 4. At least the couple would get a divorce and move on in life
Yes, the Wife can declare the marriage irretrievable, take divorce on this ground, usurp property,
and not care to end other cases on the ex-husband, marry another man and leave the ex-husband
high and dry.
On the other hand, the Husband would have lost his property in divorce and would still be running
around the courts proving his innocence in still pending false cases against him like 498a, CrPC
125, PWDVA etc. Can a Man running in courts move-on in his life?
Myth 5. After divorce, women come on the road, this way at-least they would have a house to
stay
If a women before marriage was not on the road it means that she has her parental house. After
marriage or divorce her share in her own parent’s property is still intact by Hindu Succession act
2009. Why would she be on road?
80% of Indian population need Food Security according to the Government and there is Food
security bill for that, how would these people give property to their estranged wives? The rest
20% only 15% are Hindus to which this amendment is applicable. What would happen to 85% of
the women?
Myth 6. Even after Alimony order the wives normally cannot get the order executed, this bill
would get them solid relief.
How would an order in this be different from that in HMA24 (interim maintenance) and HMA25
(permanent alimony)? Even if the order is made to share the property don’t you think that
mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers other heirs in the property would get into an endless litigation
against the order and women would have no other way but to work for those 20 years of
litigation? If she is not on road and does not starve for those 20 years why would she ever?
Law of nature demands a human to earn her/his bread. Women cannot live rest of her life on
someone else’s alms. They need to work.
Myth 7. I don’t care. It would empower the women somehow by pressurizing husbands
If after having the above Myths debunked, you still think that it would help, very little can be
done to enable you. I would still try:
As far as empowerment is concerned, it is never an outside virtue. It comes from within. None
can strengthen ones muscle by passive massage, what is needed is an active muscle building work
out – yes it needs hard work. One has to do it. Man or women. With these draconian laws are we
ready to have an army of able bodied young women who for the sake of getting the perceived
freebies don’t (want to) work? What is going to happen to our GDP? Are we true to ourselves
when we solicit in every developed country?
“LAWS MUST BE MADE ON NATURAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES AND NOT ON UNFOUNDED PREJUDICES”
Jai Hind! Vande Mataram,
To,
Shri Arun Jaitley ji,
Hon’ble Finance Minister of India,
Office of the Finance Minister,
North Block, New Delhi – 110001
Sub: Marriage Law (Amendment) Bill, 2014
Respected Sir,I would like to debunk the myths around this unconstitutional bill which has grave
consequences for our nation. Prime Minister Shri. Narendra Modi ji’s vision of Shrest Bharat,
Make in India, Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas will go for a toss if the Marriage Law (Amendment) Bill is
passed. Please don’t be hasty in passing a UPA bill.
Myth 1. This law is the recommendation of Supreme Court
Hon’ble SC wanted a new ground for divorce to be added such that District court which do not
have inherent powers, can use this ground to separate a warring couple, who are not willing to
settle through mutual consent divorce (13 B of HMA). The present bill poisons the intent of
Hon’ble SC by leaching it with property division provisions where a wife gets minimum 50% share
in husbands property (self-earned, before and after marriage) and ALSO unbelievably enough the
INHERITED AND INHERITABLE property.
THE PROPOSED BILL IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF DIVORCE BUT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND AND WAY OF MORE ALIMONY in the shape of PROPERTY SHARE. SC never needed another Alimony Law, HMA 24 and HMA 25 are sufficient for women.
Myth 2. So what, it is gender neutral anyway!
Completely wrong! Where the new ground can be invoked by any spouse the property share is
given only to wife!! A wife can oppose the divorce under this amendment on the ground of
financial hardship but a Husband cannot!! He would be forced to depart with his property and
would be shoved a divorce if the wife so wishes. THIS BILL IS LOADED AGAINST HINDU MEN AND INCENTIVIZES DIVORCE AMONG HINDU WOMEN. THIS WOULD BREAK FAMILIES AT THE DROP OF A HAT AND CREATE SOCIAL UNREST!!
Myth 3. The new provision would help to reduce the judicial back log
When the Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IrBM) was used by Apex court as its special
inherent powers, all the Criminal (e.g., 498a), Quasi Criminal (Domestic Violence Act) and civil
(HMA 24, 25, CrPC 125 etc.,) were all disposed at one go and warring couple has no venue to
continue fight and/or go for appeal. With the new ground used by Family court, the divorce may
happen but warring couple may continue the war in criminal and other civil courts as Family
courts cannot direct the other courts in question. Also, the party aggrieved from this section
is free to go to the next court (High Court and Supreme Court) and spend another 20 years there.
Clearly this new law does not help reducing the back log at all and in contrary gives another
law/ground for people to create endless litigation and overloading the courts.
Myth 4. At least the couple would get a divorce and move on in life
Yes, the Wife can declare the marriage irretrievable, take divorce on this ground, usurp property,
and not care to end other cases on the ex-husband, marry another man and leave the ex-husband
high and dry.
On the other hand, the Husband would have lost his property in divorce and would still be running
around the courts proving his innocence in still pending false cases against him like 498a, CrPC
125, PWDVA etc. Can a Man running in courts move-on in his life?
Myth 5. After divorce, women come on the road, this way at-least they would have a house to
stay
If a women before marriage was not on the road it means that she has her parental house. After
marriage or divorce her share in her own parent’s property is still intact by Hindu Succession act
2009. Why would she be on road?
80% of Indian population need Food Security according to the Government and there is Food
security bill for that, how would these people give property to their estranged wives? The rest
20% only 15% are Hindus to which this amendment is applicable. What would happen to 85% of
the women?
Myth 6. Even after Alimony order the wives normally cannot get the order executed, this bill
would get them solid relief.
How would an order in this be different from that in HMA24 (interim maintenance) and HMA25
(permanent alimony)? Even if the order is made to share the property don’t you think that
mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers other heirs in the property would get into an endless litigation
against the order and women would have no other way but to work for those 20 years of
litigation? If she is not on road and does not starve for those 20 years why would she ever?
Law of nature demands a human to earn her/his bread. Women cannot live rest of her life on
someone else’s alms. They need to work.
Myth 7. I don’t care. It would empower the women somehow by pressurizing husbands
If after having the above Myths debunked, you still think that it would help, very little can be
done to enable you. I would still try:
As far as empowerment is concerned, it is never an outside virtue. It comes from within. None
can strengthen ones muscle by passive massage, what is needed is an active muscle building work
out – yes it needs hard work. One has to do it. Man or women. With these draconian laws are we
ready to have an army of able bodied young women who for the sake of getting the perceived
freebies don’t (want to) work? What is going to happen to our GDP? Are we true to ourselves
when we solicit in every developed country?
“LAWS MUST BE MADE ON NATURAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES AND NOT ON UNFOUNDED PREJUDICES”
Jai Hind! Vande Mataram,
No comments:
Post a Comment