Stand up for your rights

Marital Property Split – Last nail on ‘Hindu Marriage’ coffin

Posted on: March 31, 2011

Parliamentary Committee on the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice, — headed by Congress Member of Parliament Jayanthi Natarajan has recommended marital property split to be added to protect the rights of women with respect to Hindu Marriage Act amendment. a.k.a THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010. I believe the said proposal needs an altogether different discussion than as part of the said bill. Apparently, it should be rephrased to “Marital Division” rather than “Marital PROPERTY division”. It is gross violation of natural justice to give wives a share of properties whereas husbands are left with the burden of all liabilities accumulated during the course of marriage. I hereby recommend to kindly consider the following points while drafting the new law regarding marital division.

  1. Assets as well as liabilities should be considered for marital division; where such a division of assets should be exactly proportionate to the monetary contribution made by the parties and division of liabilities should be exactly proportionate to the share of commitment towards the liabilities.
  2. If the demand for considering Wife’s contribution of time and energy to the family is to be counted, then Husband’s contribution of their time, energy and money towards the family should also be counted proportionately. It is a universal truth that a housewife spends her time inside the house and husband spends his time outside the house for bringing food shelter clothing and entertainment for entire family.
  3. If feminazis are asking to evaluate contribution of pregnancy, then sole custody should be granted to the Husband if she chooses to go with marital division and there should not arise any question of child support as well. Sole custody is child abuse so I personally DO NOT recommend this option.
    On the other hand if pregnancy is decided to be given a monetary value and husband has to pay that share, then he should be given his right to discuss and set that value before marriage through prenuptial agreement. Respective legislation should be brought in along with the said bill to give prenuptial agreement its legal validity.
  4. No marital division should be made if the marriage is shorter than the length defined in IPC 304(B).

    Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 forces the judiciary not to apply its mind and presume a person had caused the dowry death whenever such a question arises. In other words Indian justice system recognizes a person as husband only after the term defined in IPC 304(B), until then marriage is not solemnized and he is PRESUMED to be a dowry killer.
  5. Marital division and maintenance must be mutually exclusive.
  6. Child support and custody should be split equally (if pregnancy is not evaluated in marital division).
  7. Maintenance should be limited to the number of years of cohabitation.
  8. Maintenance should be calculated from 36% of spouse’s gross income less all monthly debt payments. (64% should be left for taxes and to lead a decent life; pushing a person to the streets just because s/he “committed” a marriage is against natural justice!).These figures are followed as a thumb rule by most banks as “debt-to-income ratio of 28/36”. This means that no more than 28 percent of your total monthly income (from all sources and before taxes) can go towards housing, and no more than 36 percent of your monthly income can go toward your total monthly debt. I humbly request to consider maintenance payment similar to debt payment.

Those who want to send this to Law Commission or your MPs can download this printer friendly file


10 Responses to "Marital Property Split – Last nail on ‘Hindu Marriage’ coffin"

do you think this will pass in paliament given that the obc lobby will see this as the bahu taking over the ancestreal farmland in case of a divorce – does the congress have the numbers to push this through?

It depends on how effective the resistance of husbands from all walks of life would be. MPs are clueless about what to argue about. Please send it to as many MPs as possible also meet them personally if you can. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

It depends on how effective the resistance of husbands from all walks of life would be. MPs are clueless about what to argue about. Please send it to as many MPs as possible also meet them personally if you can. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

Nothing wrong in the proposal in view of the present Indian condition .. let the community grow to an extend to totally banning the dowry system and gender bias towards females .. till then this kind of legislation is essential only when our male dominated society will be changed…

Suresh – Thanks for reading. The change you are expecting has already achieved. Now, every 9 minutes one married man commit suicide. I said married man, if we consider entire male population, you will be scared to death. If you are interested you may read a 30page handbook published for International men’s day here It has figures fact and graphs; more over its free to download. After reading that please make more comments.

Join hands. Let us demand equality for MEN together. Join Community -> We need a community to raise our voice against injustice together.

‘Truth’ and ‘Logic’ are two things that makes a Feminazi mad!

women and feminists want only rights for themselves and not duties. You have made a very valid point. What about the loans and liabilities of the matrimonial house? Shouldn’t the woman have a share in loans and liabilities too when she can have a share in property? Moreover, what about the share of property for the husband in his in-laws [wife’s parent’s property. If wife is entitled to a share in her husband’s property and/or his parent’s/ancestor’s property, husband should also be entitled to an equal share in the wife’s property and/or her parent’s/ancestor’s property. Isn’t that about gender equality?

The rights to women of matrimonial property is gross injustice to men and their families since women are already entitled to equal share of property from their parents side and this new piece of legislation would lead to more and more divorces since women can make a killing by marrying and then divorcing at will. Men should oppose this as it violates their fundamental rights. If women are given rights in matrimonial property, men should also be given rights in the property that belongs to their in-laws (wife’s parents side) as this is equality of gender. When women are entitled to an equal share in their parent’s property, why should they be given another equal share from their husband’s property while men are not entitled to the same kinds of rights in property?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

News that you missed

Blog Stats

  • 50,079 hits
%d bloggers like this: