"Darshan Bade or Naam Chote"
When I sat down to write this blog, above metaphor came to my mind. The Metaphor has been changed to fit the current situation.
Chota Naam : Delhi Dharna
Darshan Bade :
1. Duration : 5 Hours
2. Registered Members : About 400 (WOW!!)
3. Media Members : About 30 (WOW!! WOW!! WOW!!)
4. Coverage : For this OUTSHINING number, read the blog people.
Best Coverage : London Dharna (GREAT SHOW GUYS!!)======================================================
VIDEOs PLAYLIST OF DHARNA VIDEOS :======================================================
Main Objection To The Proposed “Marriage Laws (Amended) Bill, 2010, As Introduced In Rajya Sabha
We had already submitted our objections and suggestions to parliamentary committee, but the
present Law Minister totally ignored the same and even tampered the original bill even worse by
making new amendments, so we request to either make the Law Gender Neutral and respect
natural justice or roll back the same immediately as this will became a “extraction law” than giving any justice to people.
A. The Bill must be gender neutral, if a wife has contributions to husband’s property (movable or immovable), any property made by wife (movable or immovable) also has husband’s contributions. Even in USA-Texas Law the word used is “Spouse” instead of wife or husband. One sided law will create disharmony, increase crime and add huge number of litigations in the Court for property disputes.
B. The benefit of divorce can’t be equal to married relationship, as the obligations and responsibilities after divorce change for either of the spouse. In 2010, even China Supreme Court amended the law to do property division goto the spouse who made it. Such a law made havoc in court cases and people started using the marriage as property earning business than love or care for each others.
C. Proposed Amendment: 13D (1) “Where the wife is the respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13C, she may oppose the grant of decree on ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to her and that in all circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage…..”
Right to oppose should be given to both parties. The word wife to be replaced by the word “spouse”.
The line to be added: The Divorce degree will be awarded only when all other cases against each other are quashed or withdrawn and in future no cases can be filed against each other by either spouse. Otherwise the basic purpose of this law to reduce the litigation will be defeated.
Like: There are other provisions of maintenance HMA 24/25, CrPC 125, PWDVA 2005, adding another provision is duplication and a tool to harass the husband There will be rampant misuse of this section to harass the husbands.
As per 13C (2), if she is separated for 3 years, she would have already approached the Court in case of financial difficulties. Another attempt to extort husbands (as in 498a and DV Act) is being done.
Our Proposal: “The respondent to a petition for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under section 13C may oppose the grant of a decree on the ground that the dissolution of the marriage will result in grave financial hardship to them and that it would in all the circumstances be wrong to dissolve the marriage. All cases pending, between the parties would also be quashed before granting divorce under Section 13C”. All case like 498A, CrPC 125, PWDVA 2005 and other litigations should be quashed before the grant of decree.”
D. Proposed Amendment: 13F and 28D: (Special provisions relating to disposal of property in proceedings under 13C)
Without prejudice to any customs or usage or any other law for the time being in force, in any proceeding under section 13C, at the time of passing of the degree , the court may on a petition made by wife order that the husband shall pay for her and children as defined in section 13E, as financial support such gross sum or share in the movable or immovable residential property towards settlement of property rights as the court may deem it to be just and equitable and any such payment shall be secured , if necessary , by change on the immovable residential property of the husbands.
The word wife and husband to be replaced by “spouse” which is followed all over world. Even in USA-Texas the same is “spouse”.
If this law passed as per above, for example the wife have 1000 Crores (even if it is given by the husband only) and husband have only 10 lacks, but as per law, her 1000 Crores can’t be touched, but the husband’s 10 lacks will be divided and given to wife. This is absolute injustice and against any Principle of natural justice of the world.
The property accrued before marriage, either spouse should not have any right. As there is no contribution of the other spouse on that, the contribution should be considered only on the property made after marriage and any claim to others property to be allowed if only the marriage obligation is minimum 10 years.
So Our Proposal: 13F and 28D: (Special provisions relating to disposal of property accrued during subsistence of marriage in proceedings under 13C)
“Without prejudice to any customs or usage or any other law for the time being in force, in any proceeding under section 13C, at the time of passing of the degree , the court may on a petition made by “either spouse” order that the “other spouse” shall pay for “her/his” and children as defined in section 13E, as financial support such gross sum or share in the movable or immovable residential property towards settlement of property rights as the court may deem it to be just and equitable “considering the duration of marriage” and any such payment shall be secured, if necessary, by change on the immovable residential property of the other party. For any claim each others spouses residential property, the minimum marriage duration should be considered as 10 years.
E. The law should be equal and must follow the principle of natural justice and stop making assumption that all women born in Raja Harish Chandra family and all men are born in criminal family.
The person seeking Divorce on “No Fault” ground, should not get the same benefit, who seeks the divorce by proving other party’s fault. A person should not be punished for “No Fault” in the name of easy divorce nor his/her hard earned accrued property, movable or immovable, should be grabbed under any such biased law, which will create injustice and will create more disharmony in society which in result will increase the crime in India over all.
Protest to rollback amendments of Marriage Act
Amit Deshpande, New DelhiMen’s rights group protested today, demanding a rollback of the amendments in Hindu Marriage Act. The group received huge support nationwide.The groups protested at Jantar Mantar protesting against the draconian nature of the clause for new grounds of divorce, ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage’ to be introduced.
A group of about 3000 strong crowd was involved in the protest. Teams from various cities from across the nation participated in the peaceful protest. The activists displayed deep anguish against the government for the recently introduced amendments, terming them as anti-male. Amid cheers and support for the demands of rollback of the amendments, activists appealed to the government to consider the plight of men and issues related to them. They highlighted that more than 62000 married men commit suicide every year and all their suicides are considered to be due to economic reasons. In that case, stressing them more for financial reasons by awarding half of their properties to separating wives, without them being able to contest it would only increase the no. of people committing suicides.
Activist, Ankush Verma from Save Family Foundation, Delhi questioned the contribution of wives, in the claim of women’s organisation in the pre-marital property acquired by the husband. He also drew attention to the fact that a husband is legally bound to take care of his parents also and awarding half of his property to his wife, irrespective of his other responsibilities like welfare of parents or siblings, amounts to lack of vision on the part of the law-framers.
Mens groups protest Mge Amendment Act
Amit Deshpande, New Delhi/PuneMen’s rights group activists from all over India will assemble today at Jantar Mantar to highlight the inherent flaws in the Bill passed by the Cabinet amending the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Under the new law - passed by the Cabinet and awaiting to be cleared in the Rajya Sabha - new grounds of divorce are being introduced under the clause ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage’. Men’s rights groups say, the nature of the law being introduced is at the root of their protest.
An activist Amol Kurhe from Men’s rights Association, Pune explains, “The new law wants to award 50% of the husband’s property to his wife at the time of divorce. This is irrespective of the wife’s financial status, educational background or ability to earn, directly in contradiction of Supreme Court judgements. This new law does not even consider the duration of conjugal relationship between the couples, thereby leaving loopholes for misuse of law. This is a law favoring the Gold Diggers.”
Another activist, law-student Rukma Chary from Save Indian Family, Bangalore said, “The new law will not allow a husband to contest a petition for divorce filed against him by his wife. While, if a husband files a case, the wife can contest the petition stating financial hardships. This is not only a departure from the recent progressive trend of viewing offences with a gender neutral stance, it is also against the tenets of natural justice in a civilized world. Even terrorists are given a chance to contest petitions against them, but the new law wont give that opportunity to law-abiding citizens.’
The groups are demanding a rollback of the ‘Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage’ clause in the present condition. They have appealed the law-makers to intervene to take corrective measures.
Men’s Organisations to Protest in Delhi Against IRBM Amendment