Panelists include
Madhu Purnima Kishwar of Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)
Nalin Kohli, BJP spokesperson
Priya Hingorani, SC lawyer/Feminist
Prof. Vivek Kumar, Sociology, JNU
Anchored by Arafaan Khanam Sherwani
“According to the Cabinet Note, while a wife can oppose a
husband’s plea for a divorce under the new “irretrievable
breakdown of marriage” clause, the husband will have no such
rights to oppose if the wife moves court on the same grounds.”
“Also this bill will have a disastrous effect on the marriageability of non-working or low income men/women - as all women/men would like to marry high income men/women now. Will the govt. take responsibility to get these low-income or no-income men/women marrage? How is this bill useful when it helps high income men/women while at the same time makes the low-income men/women un-marriageable? This bill infact is contrary to women’s and men’s welfare”
But forget two wrong can’t make a right think. If women is suffering that is not due to husbands family , it is due to the girls at their own home had not given equal right and responsibility give to a boy, instead of correcting the same started putting all burden/blame to husbands family .
Do not forget more then 90% women who have a home in this country , they got from their husbands family , not from their own family, correct that first or the day the is not too far when we will be witness when a man will die, the bank will come and take over all his assets , which we witness in western country .
INDIAN GENDER JUSTICE - Madhu kishwar vs renuka chaudhary on CNNIBN @ 08 march 2011
Indian women ( FEMINISM) are themselves responsible for self commodification and disrespect in Indian Society
Indian men are far better than their western counter parts on CNNIBN @ 08 march 2011
NEW DELHI: Twenty-five citizens, including eminent persons, on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court daring it to initiate contempt proceedings against them as they were expressing solidarity with advocates Prashant and Shanti Bhushan, who had alleged that eight of the 16 former Chief Justices of India (CJIs) were corrupt.
The applicants included RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal, social activist Aruna Roy, National Advisory Council (NAC) member Harsh Mander, former IIM Ahmedabad director-in-charge Prof Jagdeep S Chhokar, Magsaysay Award winner Rajendra Singh, former IFS officer and social activist Madhu Bhaduri, JNU's professor emeritus Amit Bhaduri, former West Bengal additional chief secretary Kalyani Chaudhuri and social activist Madhu Kishwar.
Others included professionals ranging from engineers, journalists, RTI activists, a major general and an educationist. Appearing for them, senior advocate Vikas Singh requested a Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and H L Dattu that they be made parties in the contempt proceedings drawn against Prashant Bhushan for his views about corruption in judiciary published in a weekly magazine last year. With so many eminent persons seeking to be respondents in the case, the bench refused to take up the application.
PART 1/3
PART 2/3
PART 3/3
http://legalmanthan498adowrymisuse.blogspot.com/2010/08/sc-quash-misuse-of-498a-ipc-govt-to.html
The Union cabinet has cleared the way for couples to obtain a swift divorce in situations of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 seeks to amend two acts governing marriage – the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954.
Sometimes, couples decide to divorce on mutual consent but later one party does not come to court or wilfully avoids the court to keep the divorce proceedings inconclusive. The amended law will save the other party such unnecessary delays and harassment.
The Bill was approved on Thursday by the cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Bill has been prepared on the recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court that “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”should be incorporated as “another ground for grant of divorce”.
Welcoming this move, Jyotsna Chatterji, director of the Joint Women’s Programme said: “This will make it possible for couples who have decided on divorce by mutual consent to be granted a swift divorce. It will help prevent the retractions, lies, etc. which happens in case of long delays.”Chatterji who has earlier worked on the amendment to the Indian Divorce Act, added:
“There is the probability that the woman becomes the sufferer as Indian society doesn’t take too kindly to single women and that too divorced.”
But at the same time, she said a swift divorce at times would help women from agreeing to continue in a bad marriage. This new clause – the “irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”- will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce, which include adultery, cruelty, desertion, conversion to another religion, unsoundness of mind, virulent and incurable form of leprosy, venereal disease in a communicable form, renouncement of the world and not heard as being alive for a period of seven years.
Apart from this, Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act also provide for divorce by mutual consent as a ground for presenting a petition for divorce. Such a petition, if not withdrawn before six months after its presentation or not later than 18 months, then the court may, on being satisfied, grant decree of divorce by mutual consent.
In cases of mutual consent, it has often been found that one of the parties suddenly abstains himself or herself from court and keeps the divorce proceedings inconclusive, causing considerable hardship to the party. This will help such parties from the long drawn harassment in courts.
Ranjana Kumari of Woman Power Connect said: “Such a move would ordinarily be welcome. But in a patriarchal society where the decision to break a marriage largely rests with the man, he can also prove easily the irretrievable breakdown of marriage to suit himself. Moreover, most marriages in India are arranged marriages where the woman has no say. So before deciding to make this major change in the law, considerable thought needs to go into it and we must act with caution.”
Madhu Kishwar of ‘Manushi’ – a women’s rights group – welcoming the move, added a note of caution. “What if one partner feels there is an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage but the other does not?”
http://www.theindiadaily.com/divorce-made-easy-for-incompatible-couples/
Moily started with Molding a Ganesha (sec 13 C HMA) and ended up with a Monkey (Sec 13 D).
Supreme Court honestly wanted to end long battles of Matrimonial dispute pending before Courts and requested a law to end marriages on the ground of Irretrivable Break down. . Both spouses can get out of marriage and still fight for Custody or Alimony. Law commission approved it.
The govt was not bothered and kept silent ! . SC went ahead ordered divorce in many cases. When Harish Salve demanded Divorce for Ms. Shinde the SC woke up and said Pass the LAW. Now it has become Clash of TITANs!!
Now Moily is forced to appease woman activists included 13D giving right to Wife to oppose IBM. Women empowerment is always about paying money to Wives from the Husbands Chest ( Why not Govt Pay Divorced women Pension? if they are seriously concerned)
Actually 13 D is reduntant as Sec 25 HMA takes care of Alimony and Custody at the time of passing any order under the ACT!
The funniest part is the definition for IBM ! ie" not living under same roof for 3 years" No estrangement or reasoning is needed!
A husband living abroad even without any estrangement can file IBM just by throwing money on his wife and get rid of her. We can only pity Hindu Wives!!
With this law neither the Courts nor the Wives are benefitted. On the contraray this law create more confusion and out Judges will have field day adjouring matters as usual.
Marriages don't break just because of lapse of 3 years time!!
IBM happens due many other serious reasons like incompetability, avarciousness, ego among others.
I am sure Ms Shinde won't get divorce! Harish Salve is failing Mr. Shinde!
CITHARA PAUL
New Delhi, July 28: Disclosure on its mind, an umbrella group of male rights NGOs has demanded that the sexual harassment at workplace bill be rewritten and made gender-neutral to protect men from harassment.
The Save Indian Family Foundation claims the bill has been prepared on the flawed premise that “women never lie and all the men are born a criminal” at a time men are also becoming victims of sexual exploitation.
The argument has echoes of the 1994 Hollywood thriller in which Michael Douglas’s character sues a colleague, played by Demi Moore, over sexual harassment.
The bill, prepared by the women and child development ministry and in the pipeline for the past five years, is to be introduced in the current session of Parliament.
The male rights NGOs under the foundation want the bill discarded and a fresh gender-neutral draft prepared. They have alleged that the women and child ministry, now headed by the Congress’s Krishna Tirath, is “sexist” and should be taken out of the picture. The new blueprint should be jointly drafted by a group of ministries, the NGOs have said and even demanded a separate ministry for men’s welfare.
“The bill must be reviewed and amended immediately to make it gender-neutral. In its present form, it is a violation of Article 15 (of the Constitution), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion or sex,” said foundation general secretary Niladri Shekhar Das. He plans to write to the Prime Minister with the demands.
The main grouse of male rights activists who are part of the foundation is that women have been given “unnecessary legal powers” and that the bill is in its current form is “unacceptable for a sane and just society”.
The bill says offices must have committees on sexual harassment, with the majority of their members women, including the chief. But the activists want such committees to have equal number of men and women. Such panels already exist but were set up following a Supreme Court judgment over a decade ago. The bill seeks to put in place the legal framework for the committees’ formation and functioning.
Students, research scholars, patients and women in the unorganised sector have been brought within the ambit of the proposed law. These segments were not specifically listed in the apex court order.
The activists have objected to one of the pre-qualifications required for a person to be a member of the office sexual harassment panels: that he or she shall be committed to the cause of women. “How can a male expect justice when he is being judged by a bunch of feminists,” asked Bishnu Pradhan, who is part of the foundation.
According to Pradhan, the bill overlooks the fact that women can be perpetrators too, and absolves them from prosecution for committing the same offence that it seeks to prevent men from committing.
Men are increasingly becoming victims of sexual crimes by women and drafting laws based on hallucinated assumptions can lead to disastrous social consequences, the activists have contended.
They have criticised the women and child development ministry’s stance that “the overwhelming nature of sexual harassment is against women and that the harassment of men cannot be put on the same footing, character-wise or incidence-wise”. “Since the laws drafted by the women’s ministry will only lead to gender imbalances, it must be removed from the process,” another activist said.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100729/jsp/nation/story_12744214.jsp
As usual, the doctor appeared quite confident of his success. And why wouldn’t he? One of the perks that came with a professional life that boasted of successfully handling thousands of such ‘critical’ cases over the last 10 years or more was confidence. Only the place and predicament were different this time. Standing firmly in the witness box, he was used to the public gaze that never unnerved him. But there was somebody sitting in the front row of the room, constantly staring at the him; quite discomforting for him. Finally, the judge delivers the verdict. The doctor has lost the case. Standing stunned for a few minutes, he suddenly turns into a picture of contrast.
Confidence gave way to anxiety; hands, which were always firm in wielding the scalpel, started trembling; eyes, which had never exhibited emotions, became moist. He collapses and breaks down in tears.
The ‘somebody’ sitting in the front row seat was his daughter. Dr Anand Parekh had not met Shruti for a year, and had been fighting for her custody since last six years.
Now, he has lost all—his daughter as well as interest in life. While the world will celebrate Father’s Day this Sunday, for many like Dr Parekh it will be a day to mourn. “What’s the point in being a father when you are deprived of your child,” said a devastated Dr Parekh. “Just because I didn’t give birth to her, doesn’t mean I can’t bring her up properly. A father can also be a mother.”
Fast-food culture, fast-paced life and fast disintegrating families — India has seen all in the last decade or so. The only two things that have not changed perhaps are the excruciatingly slow pace of justice, and a notion that man can’t play the role of a mother.
“It’s an old notion and goes back to the time when women didn’t have a professional life and took care of the family,” said S Susheela, a Bangalore-based advocate practising in the Karnataka High Court.
“So, it was thought that she could bring up the children in a more proper manner and spend more quality time with them. But now such a notion no longer holds true.” These days both the parents are working and can equally bring up the child, she adds. “For a child, both the parents are equally important and his/her isolation from either of them should be condemned.”
Most of the child custody battles in the country, unfortunately, have become a man versus woman fight, a fight in which the child is used as a pawn.
“We had a divorce by mutual consent and it was decided that my five-year-old son would stay with me. But after seven months, my wife files a case in the court saying that she is the natural guardian and court grants her permission to take away my son,” says Sunil Dabas, who works as a manager in one of the MNC banks in New Delhi.
“I used to bathe my little son, prepare his school lunch box, drop him to the school and play cricket with him every evening. And one fine day I am told that I can’t bring up my child properly because that can be done in a better way by a woman!,” says Sunil with a choked voice.
CRISP (Children’s rights initiative for shared parenting), a Bangalore-based NGO formed by parents, mostly fathers, fighting for the custody of their children, has been advocating the need for speedy justice and shared parenting. “My daughter was studying in 1st standard when I got separated from her.
Now she is in 10th and I am still fighting for her,” says Kumar V. Jahgirdar, founder of CRISP, who has been engaged in a legal battle with her former wife since 1999. “Can I get back those golden 10 years of my daughter’s life when she was growing up,” asks an aggrieved Kumar who still feels that he would get justice.
The tardy legal system has in fact turned India into a hot destination for NRI parents, especially mothers, escaping with their children as they know that Indian judicial system will take too long in deciding the case.
“There has been a dramatic jump in the number of such NRI cases,” says PBA Srinivasan, a New Delhi-based advocate practicing in the Supreme Court. “And the motive in most of such cases is either extracting money from the estranged partner or settling an ego battle.”
While the NRIs may be taking advantage of the legal system, millions in India have lost hope in the judiciary. “Lucky are those who are embedded in closely-bonded communities with well functioning and responsible biradari/jati (lineage/caste) panchayats because they do not need to depend on sarkari (state) courts to resolve their marital disputes and the future of their children,” said Madhu Kishwar, a human rights activist and professor at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.
“If our judicial system can’t give justice to the Bhopal victims, do you think it can handle in a sensitive manner the fates of traumatised children who are at the centre of custody battles?”
Indeed, custody battles are not only about the hapless fathers who are deprived of the love and affection of their children and are at the receiving end of the judicial system.
It’s also about another silent victim — the child. In the US, it has been found after extensive scientific research that children from broken families without a father are: 14 times more likely to commit rape; 5 times more likely to commit suicide; 20 times more likely to end up in prison; 10 times more likely to take drugs; 32 times more likely to run away from home; 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders; 9 times more likely to drop out of school; 9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution.
However, in India no such studies have been conducted but the results of a fatherless society could be devastating. “Father is the epitome of security, authority and support,” says Dr Jayanti Dutta, a consultant clinical psychologist.
“And if the father is not there, for whatever reason, that sense of security is gone. A mother may take on paternal role along with the other roles that she is playing simultaneously. But there is likely to be a role conflict,” adds Dr Dutta. “Just by wearing a western outfit, a woman doesn’t become a man.”
Sandhya Bajaj, member, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), says: “It’s ultimately the child who is the loser. As long as parents play dirty games against each other and use the child as a pawn to settle scores, no solution could be found.”
At the end of the day, it’s the children who pay the biggest price for the irresponsibility of their parents. “Very few people ask themselves whether they are really fit to be parents. They end up producing children simply because they are biologically capable and it is a thing to be done,” says Ms Kishwar.
“One should avoid producing children if one can’t provide them a stable secure family life.” A thought for the day, come Sunday