How in most cases mothers on the side of the bride are most interfering causing breakage of marriages

How mothers can break marriages

Aditi Gyanesh, TNN Jan 4, 2014, 11.06AM IST

LUDHIANA: Sanya married a well to do businessman one and a half years ago. But she felt lonely in her marital home as she did not talk much to her in-laws. However, she talked to her mother every night and updated her on every detail. Her mother encouraged her to adopt the tit for tat attitude.

Sanya's husband, Sumit, who remained busy in his business or the family, followed the advise of his mother, who kept a strict tab on when and where the couple went and what they talked about.

Interference of mothers on both sides led to fights between the couple and after one and half stormy years they were in court for divorce. None of the four were willing to adjust.

Sanya and Sumit are among the many couples in Ludhiana who suffered marital discord due to the interference of mothers on both sides. A whopping 50% of divorce cases in courts have come within two or three years of marriage. The main reason being the inability of couples to adjust in each other's families. Advocate Avtar Kaur Brar, who handles such cases in Ludhiana district court said, "We get many cases of mothers intruding upon the lives of married couples. Newly weds also don't understand the need to maintain a distance and follow their mothers, landing up for divorce eventually. In most cases, it has been found that mothers on the side of the bride are most interfering. Girls share everything with their mothers and instead of putting them on the path of marital happiness, mothers ask girls to adopt a confrontationist stance. Couples today lack understanding and file for divorce."

Although marital discord may also be prompted by factors like domestic violence, extra marital affairs and busy partners, interference of mothers is a constant on both sides. Members of Punjab Istri Sabha, an organization which counsels couples coming for divorce, say they encounter cases of parents interfering in the married life of their children every other day. Eventually, things come to such a pass that the couple's life is spoiled and she files for divorce.

"It is very sad that parents don't even tell their children to understand their partner and just go along with their decision to file for divorce. They are also keen to get them married again. What is the guarantee they will not interfere in the second marriage and take it to divorce? Marriage is not a small thing to dispose of anytime. A couple must understand the importance of maintaining distance," said president of Punjab Istri Sabha, Gurcharan Kochar.

After interference of mothers, marriages also hit rock bottom due to extramarital affairs, which are increasing in the city. If advocates are to be believed, many of these liaisons are the result of social networking sites like Facebook, Whatsapp and mobile phones. These distractions don't allow partners to spend the crucial initial time with each other after marriage. In about 25% of cases, couples don't understand each other because they don't spend much time with each other. Other reasons for breaking of marriages include domestic violence, too much arguing, lack of equality, infidelity, marrying too young and unrealistic expectations.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-04/ludhiana/45859866_1_divorce-cases-mothers-marital-discord

Custody disputes: Call for India to sign Hague Convention

Custody disputes: Call for India to sign Hague Convention

New Delhi, May 27 (IANS) A Supreme Court judgement affirming the jurisdiction of Indian courts to deal with disputes of children’s custody even if they are foreign citizens has raised demands for the government to accede to the Hague Convention dealing with such disputes and thus protect the rights of non-resident Indians.

In a judgement with far-reaching implications for Indians living abroad, the Supreme Court bench of Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Justice T.S. Thakur ruled that simply because a foreign court had passed an order, it did not mean that Indian courts should put off deciding on the issue.

“Simply because a foreign court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning the welfare of the minor, it is not enough for the courts in this country to shut out an independent consideration of the matter. Objectivity, and not abject surrender, is the mantra in such cases,” Justice Thakur wrote in the judgement.

This principle has been upheld by the apex court even earlier, but its reiteration in the recent judgement has raised demands for the government to take steps to accede to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

Bangalore-based Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting has called for the government to sign the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

In cases of one parent taking away the child to another country, the parent left behind is deprived of the custody of the child. The only solution for this crime is to sign the Hague Convention as it involves different aspects of private international law.

Supreme Court advocate Kirti Singh explained that Indian law does not recognise parental child abduction as a crime.

When one parent removes the child from the family home, or throws the mother out of the house – it is an offence against the child. The child is taken away to an alien atmosphere or is deprived of the presence of the mother and the child suffers due to the withdrawal from the familiar environment, Singh added.

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980, was a means of settling inter-country custody suits. India is not a party to the Hague Convention but with the large number of Indians living and working abroad, there is need to have amendments to the law to protect the rights of children in marital disputes.

The judgement was given on the appeal of a Delhi-based dentist against a Delhi High Court order overturning an interim order given by a city court in a custodial matter for her minor son.

The petitioner, mother of the 11-year-old son, had been awarded interim custody of the child by the trial court in Delhi.

The couple had been living in the US after their marriage, where their son was born. The appellant returned to India with her son in 2008 and filed an application for custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act.

Her US-based husband obtained a decree from a US court granting him custody of the child. He had further filed a case against his estranged wife for running away to India with their son despite a court decree granting him custody.

The Delhi High Court had set aside the trial court order, holding that an Indian court had no jurisdiction to decide on the matter as the father had been given custody of the child by a US court. The mother had appealed to the Supreme Court against the high court order.

The Supreme Court bench said since the interest and welfare of the child was of primary concern, a competent court in India was fully entitled and, indeed, duty-bound to examine the matter independently, taking the foreign judgment, if any, only as an input for its final adjudication. The apex court allowed the trial court to hear the mother’s application for custody of the child.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/article/07SmaRSeM78gP?q=India

Hazards of FATHERLESSNESS-Single parenting-p7 news on KAYDA KANOON-10oct10

Hazards of FATHERLESSNESS-Single parenting-p7 news on KAYDA KANOON -10oct10

 

Part 1/2

 

 

 

 

 

Part 2/2

 

Gone in 60 seconds-Ex-wives whisking away their children to undisclosed locations to prevent father's visitation rights-trend on the rise-Contempt of Court

Publication: Bangalore Mirror;
Date: Sep 7, 2010;
Section: City;
Page: 10

Gone in 60 seconds

Ex-wives whisking away their children to undisclosed locations in a bid to thwart their ex-husbands’ visiting rights is a trend that’s fast catching up in the city

Shyam Prasad shyam.prasad1@timesgroup.com
    Even though a family court in Bangalore granted Raghuram S the permission to visit his son Tarun once every 15 days, Raghuram woke up one fine day to the news that his ex-wife had relocated to Jaipur along with their four-yearold son, without informing him. He was informed of the development by his ex-wife Suma Hanumanthappa’s advocate, that too through e-mail.
    In another case, John Varghese went to visit his two children aged 14 and 8 only to be informed that they had moved to the US along with his ex-wife. “How do I contact them? I don’t even know which state they have relocated to. This, despite a court decree that gives me the right to visit my children,” said Varghese.
    Interestingly, both these cases were settled by the Mediation Centre after a referral from the respective family courts. The Bangalore Mediation Centre claims a success rate of 80.73 per cent out of the 5,094 cases it has handled so far. The average time taken to settle a divorce dispute is 259.35 minutes or just over four hours.
    ”The high-profile case of Adita Chandra whose parents went to the Supreme Court and finally to a court in the US, to fight over his custody, made headlines. But there are so many such cases in Bangalore. Nobody is ready to even acknowledge that it is the fathers who suffer in such cases,” said Kumar Jahgirdar of Children’s Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting (CRISP).
    Raghuram works in Hyderabad and used to visit his son once every fortnight in Bangalore. He was shocked to hear from his ex-wife’s advocate that she had moved to Jaipur along with their child. “Somebody informed me of my ex-wife’s intentions and I immediately moved court. The court said the case was maintainable and took it up. Weeks before the hearing, I came to meet the child and found the house vacated. Her phones were switched off and her advocate informed me through email that she had moved to Jaipur. How can I go to Jaipur twice a month? The court has been informed of this development,” he said.
    ”In cases where a dispute over a child’s custody is as yet to be settled, the court becomes the guardian of the child and not the father or mother. If the mother or father takes away the child to some other place during the hearing without informing the court or the other party, it legally amounts to abduction. But even otherwise, the custodial parent has to inform the other parent of the child’s whereabouts at all times,” said Jahgirdar.
    Kumar Jahgirdar said that cases of custodial parents whisking away their children to undisclosed locations without informing the other parent were on the rise. “Ever since the case of Aditya Chandra became big news, such incidents are on the rise. It is an abuse of the child’s rights when the other parent who is available and fit is not given the right to visit the child,” he said.

A file photo of Raghuram with his son Tarun. The boy’s mother suddenly relocated to Jaipur without informing the father

Live-in lovin

A couple of generations ago the idea of a live-in relationship was practically unheard of. Today the institution of marriage is still fundamental to the very fabric of society -- holding together families, tradition and marking one of the most important moments in people’s lives -- but increasing numbers are choosing to live together without getting married. So much so, even the law now has a view on the matter. TOI-Crest explores

It drives me absolutely mad when Joe leaves his clothes lying on the floor!" Rebecca complains of her boyfriend of one year. "He also tends to have mood swings when he's very tired," she grumbles. Joe and Rebecca, 25, have been living together for the last six months. This period has given them a chance to find out each other's foibles before they decide whether to marry and commit to each other for life. "Living together for a bit is a great chance to test the water," says Rebecca. "Joe may have a few bad habits but I now know I can live with them. At least there'll be no surprises after we're married."

The live-in dream

Increasing numbers of couples around India are opting for the benefits of a live-in relationship over marriage. In some respects, living together offers couples the perfect relationship. It allows all the benefits of marriage - without the hassle of commitment. If things turn sour, either partner can always just walk away. Couples have the chance to get to know each other without the pressures of family, the law and formality getting in the way.

Relationship consultant Rachna Kothari explains: "A live-in relationship is like a trial marriage. It gives the couple a good graph on their compatibility. It's like a dream relationship, with no strings attached. If you need to end the live-in, you just walk out. Whereas if you need to end your marriage, the divorce procedure is long and hassling." Such are the benefits of living-in that some couples do not feel the need to switch to marriage at all.

Meena Shah, 63, and Dinubhai, 73, have been together for 25 years. They find being unwed a happy alternative to marriage and see no need to tie the knot. "Rather than fight and get a divorce, I knew it was better to live together and part ways if things soured," says Meena. "If a marriage does not work, it does not work. Law can force people to live together but happiness cannot be enforced."
Trouble in paradise

Live-ins may offer freedom and equality, but there is a gloomier side to choosing a relationship out of the boundaries of law and social conformity. What if things go wrong? Will the law offer any protection to either party? If a partner in a live-in decides to walk out, could the other be left homeless? Will children born into a live-in be recognised by the law? The answers to these questions seem to be changing on a regular basis.

Bar code

Despite couples like Meena and Dinubhai, the concept of live-in relationships is still relatively new in India, and the courts are still deciding how to treat them. The Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act - which acknowledges live-in relationships - was first introduced in 2005. It gives protection to the woman in case of the breakdown of a livein relationship.

Last week, the Delhi High Court ruled that there are no legal binds in a live-in relationship. Justice SN Dhingra described them as "walk in and walk out relationships" where there are "no strings attached". A few days later, the Supreme Court overruled this decision, stating that live-ins can be presumed as marriage if they are continued for a long time. With the courts interpreting differently, it can be hard for people in live-in relationships to understand what their rights are. So where do they stand at the moment? Gyanendra Misra, a practicing lawyer in Delhi High Court, explains that the law is very fluid on the issue of live-ins and there is no clarity on the issue of a child that is born out of such a relationship.

"Courts tend to take a different stand on this situation from time to time. A baby born to a couple who are not married is called a love-child. Such children are treated as illegitimate, and denied any legal rights from the father's side," says Misra, adding, that it's time for the law to give clarity on the status of these relationships. "With change in social fabric, the legislature should codify the law to remove all ambiguity, " he says. But with the different judgements coming out of various courts, Misra feels that this sort of ad-hoc approach is creating confusion and causing harm to the legal fabric rather than sorting out the issue. From a rights perspective, choosing live-in over marriage is a risky business. Should things go wrong, it is unclear whether children from the relationship will have any inheritance rights or whether either party will have any legal protection. For some, this is simply not the point.
For Murali and Jennifer, advertising professionals in Chennai, the latest court rulings won't make a blind bit of difference to their relationship of three years. "It is we who have decided to live together. We are both mature individuals and no court can come in between us on our decisions," says Jennifer. Some couples would be happier if the law kept its nose out of their relationship! "The point of living-in is to escape the legalities that have epitomised an institution like marriage," explains Nancy, who has been living with her partner Saawan for the past three years. She believes opting for a live-in relationship depends on the individual and people who go in for such a relationship are not really concerned about whether it gets legal sanction or not.

A safer alternative

Most people, however, decide not to take the risk. When weighing up the freedoms of a live-in relationship against the security of marriage, for most, tying the knot comes out on top. One such couple is Anamika and Rahul (names changed) from Kolkata. They toyed with the idea of living-in, but decided it was too risky. They have now been wed for two years. "Marriage is more secure," Anamika explains. "Also, I think people try harder to keep a relationship going when they are married instead of flippantly walking out." Clinical psychologist and psychotherapist Varkha Chulani agrees that couples will put in more effort to save a marriage than a live-in relationship. "Divorce still has many more social ramifications than the ending of a live-in, so marriage weighs couples down more. They think twice before separating and work harder at staying together."

Make your own rules

Of course, when considering something as personal as relationships, there can be no hard and fast rule. Ultimately it is impossible to generalise. As Kothari puts it: "It depends how devoted or committed the couple is, because that will determine the levels of trust and commitment. If an individual is fully into his partner, then the label of their relationship will not affect him."

Gay not happy

Some people are not at liberty to choose marriage over living-in. Although homosexuality among consenting adults cannot be treated as a crime in India, gay couples do not have the right to marry. This means their relationships do not have the protection that the law offers to heterosexual couples. "I don't know how I will be able to pick up life's threads now," broods Abhijeet Mukherjee (name changed). "My life depended on keeping house for Charles and creating recipes in my free time. Now there is just this unending feeling of emptiness." After nine years of living together at Charles' home, Charles told Abhijeet their interests were no longer alike. For Abhijeet, the option of marriage had not been available at all.

What lies ahead

Who knows what the experience of Charles and Abhijeet would be if they had been born a couple of decades later. Perhaps, in the future, couples like Charles and Abhijeet will be allowed to marry. Or, maybe the law will give the same standing to live-ins and marriage, reducing the incentive for people to wed and thus changing the very fabric of society.

However, the concept of marriage is so intrinsic to Indian society that any changes are likely to take a long time.
According to matrimonial lawyer Mrinali Deshmukh, societal views and the law evolve together. "As society has become more accepting of live-in relationships the law has changed to recognise them, and as the law acknowledges live-in relationships, so do society's attitudes start to adapt." However, attitudes vary so much around India from state to state, family to family, person to person, that Deshmukh's rule is not infallible. The law may change to accept live-in relationships, but some families never will.
Supratim and Ananya (names changed)), for example, are having a hard time convincing their parents to allow them to live together, Supreme Court acceptance or not. They have been dating for the past three years and their parents have been pressuring them to marry. "We are not very keen on marriage right now," says Supratim. "Perhaps we may ask our parents to find out more about the Supreme Court ruling so that we can start living under the same roof!"

The law on live-in relationships around the world

THE UK
No matter how long the relationship, unmarried couples do not have the same legal standing as those who are married
Both parents are financially responsible for their children regardless of whether they are married, co-habiting or separated
Partners in live-in relationships do not generally have inheritance rights over each other's property, unless they have been named in a will. This, however, can be contested.

Live-in couples are not legally obliged to support each other financially, even if they are sharing a home or raising a family together. Unlike married couples they are not entitled to receive maintenance payments from their partner, even if they have lived together for a number of years or given up their career to look after the home and children

CHINA
There is no legal procedure required in China to end a live-in relationship
Under Chinese law children born out of wedlock have equal rights to those born to parents who are married
Contracts can be made between couples in a live-in relationship

USA

Partners in a live-in relationship do not have the right to inherit each other's property, as is the case for married couples. However, property can be willed to each other

In the USA, the proportion of births outside of marriage has risen to almost 40%, according to recent federal data cited by USA Today Couples can agree to a Cohabitation Agreement, which outlines their financial responsibilities towards each other as well as remedies for a split

Some states have common-law marriage laws. These refer to legal marriage by default due to an unmarried couple's actions. These normally involve living together for more than a year and presenting themselves to the outside world as husband and wife
(Inputs from Radha Sharma and Ashleshaa Khurana in Ahmedabad, Swati Sengupta in Kolkata, Daniel P George in Chennai, Jayashree Nandi in Bangalore and Shikha Mishra in Delhi)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Live-in-lovin/articleshow/6386392.cms#ixzz0xEIb0UmX

Clear case of misuse of 498a- Lok Adalat reunites couple – husband and family was jailed for dowry harassment complaint which turned out to be TRIVIAL misunderstanding created by parents.

Clear case of misuse of 498a- Lok Adalat reunites couple – husband and family was jailed for dowry harassment complaint which turned out to be TRIVIAL misunderstanding created by parents.

BANGALORE: The Lok Adalat conducted by Bangalore Urban District Legal Service Authority turned into a marriage hall on Wednesday, as a couple who were separated over a domestic violence were reunited.

The Lok Adalat headed by City Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Ravindranath, convinced the couple Vadiraj (29) and Thripthi (28) to live together with their one-and-half-year-old son Ramaskanda.

The court hall turned into a mini marriage ceremony, after the couple decided to reunite and pleased judges also arranged a small programme to celebrate their ‘remarriage’. The couple’s advocate KC Gnanamurthy  said, “We advocates must do this kind of service and not separate families, just to get cases.”

The mood at the Lok Adalat suddenly changed with the news and staff distributed sweets, while the couple exchanged garlands and took blessings of the CMM.

Vadiraj, who works as Assistant General Manager, in a private company married Thripthi on July 11, 2008. Soon after their marriage, Thripthi alleged harassment by her in laws and decided to go back to her parent’s house. Gnanamurthy said Thripthi was pregnant during the incident and stated that the misunderstanding between the couple was due to a trivial reason, created by their parents.

Gnanamurthy said, Thripthi filed a dowry harassment case with the Yelahanka New Town Police station on October 22, 2009 based on which Vadiraj and four of his relatives spent 14 days in jail. But the couple have finally decided to reconsider and Thripthi withdrew all the cases she had filed against Vadiraj and his family

http://expressbuzz.com/cities/bangalore/lok-adalat-reunites-couple/199601.html

Press Release – SIFF announces 3rd Annual Men’s Right Conference on 15th August 2010

Press Release – SIFF announces 3rd Annual Men’s Right Conference on 15th August 2010

Friday, 06 August 2010 11:33

PRESS RELEASE

Sub: SIFF announces 3^rd Annual Men’s Right Conference on 15^th August 2010

About SIFF:

Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), Bangalore, a men’s rights organization fighting against misuse of dowry laws, domestic violence act and other anti-male and unconstitutional laws, comprises of around 30,000 people all over the country and abroad. SIFF came into existence in 2005 and since then it has been aggressively fighting misandry (male hatred) by creating awareness about men’s issues in the society.

About Annual Men’s Rights Conference:

SIFF, under the aegis of the Save Indian Family movement has been participating in men’s rights conference since 2008. This year, SIFF is organizing the 3^rd Men’s Rights Conference at Yercaud in Tamil Nadu, a small hill station 32 Kms, from Salem on the 15^th of August, 2010. Over 100 men’s rights activists from all over India, representing about 15 different NGOs working for men’s rights, will be participating in the conference to intensify the movement of men’s rights in India.

Theme of the Conference:

SIFF and its allied NGOs, under the aegis of the Save Indian Family movement, are calling for a “Sugarless Independence Day”, this year. Men’s rights activists attending the conference have decided to have sugarless tea/coffee on observance of the 15^th of August, 2010 and also not to have any other sweets. This is an exhibition of epitome of the bitterness caused in the lives of men who are living in a society where there are only expectations from them and no acceptance for them.

Why men’s rights conference:

This men’s rights conference is being conducted to discuss and intensify the awareness campaign of the various problems and trampling of rights as faced by men in India as sons, brothers, husbands and fathers. Some of such problems are,

1. Skyrocketing suicide rates by men, especially married men. As per National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB),

   1. Approx. Fifty Eight Thousand (58,000) married men are committing suicides every year vis-à-vis approx. Thirty Thousand (30,000) married women.
   2. From 1996 – 2008, One Lac Seventy Thousand (170,000) married men have committed suicide directly due to Domestic Violence.
2. Men pay more income tax compared to women at the same educational levels and same salary.
3. Not a single rupee has been allocated for men’s welfare in the Union Budget in the last 63 years of independence.
4. Not a single study has been conducted by the Govt. of India to study men’s issues.
5. Men do not even have a welfare ministry of their own, whereas even animals have.
6. In the last 5 years close to Fifteen Lac (1500, 000) men have lost their jobs.
7. Marital laws like Section 498A of the IPC, the Domestic Violence Act, the maintenance laws, the child custody provisions are heavily misused against men with false allegations of abuse and the same being used as tools of legal extortion against men. As per NCRB, from 2004-2008, Five Lac Fifty Thousand (550,000) men have been arrested without trial or investigation under Section 498A, merely on the basis of a complaint from their wives.
8. Mothers and sisters of men face hostile situations as their human rights are routinely violated due to the male hatred unleashed by feminist organizations via media. As per NCRB from 2004-2008, One Lac Sixty Thousand (160, 000) innocent mothers and sisters of men have been arrested without trial or investigation under Section 498A, merely on the basis of a complaint from the wives of their brothers/sons.
9. Men, having children, and entangled in marital disputes with their wives are not only alienated from meeting their children – as a social norm – but also face the fallacy of their own children being poisoned against them. Such unfortunate fathers are treated worst than a visitor in their child’s life and are used as FREE ATM MACHINES and SPERM DONORS.
10. At the behest of men, a fatherless society is being created which will lead to increase in crime, jeopardize national security and create a bleak future for the children of tomorrow.

These problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Other than these men are facing many other problems in India like having to do the most menial/dirty jobs, taking a lot of risk on their lives in order to protect their family members, having no recognition for their efforts, face rampant castration right from the age of 6, so that they can become ruthless protectors and providers.

Why 15^th August as the date of Conference:

1. We organize the men’s rights conference on the 15^th of August every year because the unfinished agenda is also to recognize and promote the men’s right on the observance of  August 15th as Independence Day, as it will be in accordance to the wishes of  all the national heroes who sacrificed their lives for this country. Though our country got independence on the 15^th of August, 1947 from the British rule, men are yet to be get freedom from their mundane roles of a forced Protector (read Unpaid Bodyguard) and forced Provider (read FREE ATM MACHINE).
2. Hence, men’s rights activist feel that the road to freedom for men is still under construction and hence men’s rights activists have decided not to observe “Independence Day” till their problems are resolved by the Govt. of India.
3. Moreover, this year the Honorable Supreme Court also drove the nail in the coffin with their controversial remarks on the 11^th June, 2010. The Honorable Supreme Court, comprising a bench by Justice Deepak Verma and Justice K S Radhakrishnan, Clearly made a remark that men should forget freedom as husbands.
4. Observed Justice Deepak Verma, “Whenever a man is married, there is no question of independence” revisiting Justice Markanday Katju’s remarks last year that, “Men should bow down before their wives in marriages”.

These statements clearly elucidate the social expectations from men in marriages. Hence, when men have no right to freedom in marriages, men’s rights activists in India see the observation of Independence Day as an unfinished business and hence this year they would embark on observing a “Sugarless Independence Day” by having sugarless tea/coffee and not having sweets on the 15^th August, 2010.

Last 15^th August began a second freedom struggle; this year the struggle continues – the struggle for freedom and rights for men who are being denied many basic rights and equal protection in laws.

Click here to see the Press Invite

http://www.saveindianfamily.org/about-us/press-releases/1095-press-release--siff-announces-3rd-annual-mens-right-conference-on-15th-august-2010.html

Single mothers need easy laws for adoption

 

Single mothers need easy adoption laws

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/bengaluru/single-mothers-need-easy-laws-004

July 4: Former Miss Universe and actor Sushmita Sen made waves by her decision to adopt not one but two baby girls as a single parent. But she has hardly set off a trend as women like her are still few and far between in the country. Santhosh Vas, former chairperson, Child Welfare Committee (CWC), says she has not come across many single women in Karnataka adopting children although there are plenty of abandoned babies in the state.

But could this situation be about to change? Are we likely to see more single mothers with the government likely to amend the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to bring in more gender equality in matters of adoption? Legal experts, who report that an increasing number of girls are filing for divorce today, bolstered by their more financially independant status, feel it’s only a matter of time before they begin to want the joys of motherhood too without a husband in tow.

While there is already a provision under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance act, 1956, for a woman who is not married, or whose marriage has been dissolved or who is a widow to adopt a child, the new amendment, among other things, allows married women fighting lengthy divorce battles to adopt children without their partner’s consent, in the years between.

Noted advocate, Hemalatha Mahishi feels that the new law is bound to help women as many more of them are opting for divorce today since they are financially independent and unable to accept traditional male dominance. “They can no longer accept insults or humiliation and as parents too are supportive today, more of them see divorce as a way out of unhappy marriages. Now with the planned amendment allowing them to adopt a child even before the divorce gets through, they could opt for it so as to not miss the joys of motherhood while waiting to be free of their spouses,” she says. Former chairperson of the state women’s commission Pramila Nesargi too thinks that with marriage no longer being the only goal of women these days and as they are usually able to support themselves, more of them may opt to adopt children while still single in their quest to find an heir for their property and also enjoy the joys of parenthood. “With girls delaying marriage in pursuit of a career, more of them could adopt children even when not married,” agrees filmmaker Kavitha Lankesh, a single mother herself.

But Ms Mahishi warns that single mothers in their quest for parenthood, must not forget to legally adopt the child as otherwise he or she will not be able to inherit property. “They must make sure the adoption is legal in the interest of the children they bring into their lives,” she cautions

------------------------

the law may be about to make it easier for women to adopt children while saying goodbye to their spouses, but it's obviously a step that cannot be taken without careful thought.
"Will a woman going through a divorce be in a state of mind to take on the additional responsibility of an adopted child when she is going through her own trauma," asks filmmaker Kavitha Lankesh, a single mother herself.
Kumar Jahgirdhar, president, Child Rights Initiative for Shared Parenting, comes up with yet another pitfall. In his view a woman who adopts a child during her divorce, may find it difficult to patch things up with her husband, should she want to do so later, as he may not want to take on the additionally responsibility thrust on him without his consent.
"Adopting a child is a life time responsibility," warns Ms Lankesh, explaining that women will need some family support, and a fatherly figure for their adopted child to be able to raise him or her successfully. "They may find that grandparents may be happy to play with the child, but not help them take care of it," she says..
"My entire career changed after Isha was born. I work late in the night after she sleeps and still need to be fresh when she wakes up. How much ever you do, a mother always feels that something more needs to be done. But women are good at multi-tasking, and as they usually handle most of the responsibility of bringing up children even in a normal family, single mothers are certainly upto the job, " she adds.
Dr Sathyanarayana, a psychiatrist, suggests that as the child needs both parents for all round development, a single woman should try to see there is someone her adopted child can look upto as a father figure.
Senior advocate Hemalatha Mahishi feels that if creches are provided at the workplace and if employers are more flexibile in their outlook single women will find it easier to bring up their children.
---------------------------------------
With the government mooting the amendment of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the state is likely to witness an increase in the number of single women opting for adoption. Experts too feel that with marriage no longer being the priority of career driven, financially stable women these days, more may go in for adoption to find an heir for their property and also enjoy the joys of parenthood, reports Shilpa P.Former Miss Universe and actor

-----------------------

Women may get adoption rights

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/national/women-may-get-adoption-rights-857

Chennai, June 19: A Bill seeking to make it easier for women to adopt children is likely to be tabled in the Monsoon Session of Parliament.

Some amendments have been proposed to remove discrimination against women, especially unmarried women and widows, said Ms Jayanthi Natarajan, chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on personnel, public grievances and law and justice, on Saturday.

Amendments would be brought to the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 and Hindu Guardians and Wards Act to remove the discrimination, she said.

Speaking to mediapersons after chairing the meeting of the committee here, Ms Natarajan said the amendments would facilitate the appointment of women as “guardians” of children. Stating that most states favoured the proposed amendment, she was hopeful that the Bill would be passed in the Monsoon Session.

On Saturday’s meeting, she said the committee was entrusted with the job of conducting a nationwide study about the status of women employees, with a specific mandate to assess aspects like women employees’ promotion in public sector undertakings.

A policy has been proposed for women employees and public sector units have assured to consider the suggestions.

--------------------------

Adoption to get gender neutral

 

It’s good news for women who want to adopt a child in our country sans a man as a guardian of the child. According to a recent report, the Union Cabinet is contemplating amendments to the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GAWA) and Hindu Adoption Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

As per the current adoption laws, when any couple adopts a child, it is the man who is the guardian. These amendments will make the status of the guardian gender neutral. These changes will also make adoption easier for men and women who have separated from their spouse. Women welcome this move to make changes in the existing adoption laws.
The proposed amendments for adoption laws aim to make the tedious procedure of guardianship more amicable for single women. Soumya Chandran, a PR professional who wants to adopt a child in the future, says, “With these amendments, single women in our patriarchal society can also raise a child on their own. It will be a great change and strengthen women power because now they won’t need a man anymore to raise a child.”

Earlier, for women who had separated from their husbands due to conflict or personal disputes, getting legal guardianship of their children from the father was a Herculean task.

Smita Sinha (name changed on request), an IT professional and a mother of a 10-year-old boy expresses her delight at this decision. She says, “I am happy that the laws for adoption and guardianship are being amended. A few years ago, when I was getting divorced, I had a tough time getting my son’s custody. Now I think women won’t have to fight and go through the tedious procedures in the court to get legal rights of their own children.”

Many women feel that these revisions in the existing adoption laws will bring them at par with their male counterparts and give them equal rights.

Sutapa Sen, a GIS analyst at a private firm is thrilled with this move. “These amendments seem to be good and if implemented, this would go on to become a milestone in the history of women’s empowerment. It will also be beneficial to the child, since he/she will not face any legal problem regarding custody and guardianship if the couple is getting divorced,” she says.

Child custody disputes: Whose interest is paramount?

 

By S Susheela Chinthamani

Disputes between spouses for the custody of their child is taking the form of a battle fought with vengeance inside and outside the court rooms.

In the midst of groups of fathers, mothers, lawyers and the judges — talking, screaming, shouting, listening and ordering — the children are seen hearing about their ‘paramount interest’ being discussed at length.
Someday, these children will look back and question what was their ‘paramount interest?’ Was it independent of the interest of the father, mother, lawyers or the judge? Why were they not allowed to enjoy their childhood and left to be unsafe? Was it not interference with their rights in the guise of protection of their ‘paramount interest?’ The troubling answer may make them lose respect for society, including their parents.

Each of the separated parents suffering from ‘parent  alienation syndrome’ tries to have exclusive custody of the child, highlighting how dangerous it is for the child to be with the other parent. Children are asked to tell lies, forced to write letters to judges about their unwillingness to go with the other parent, compelled to give their opinions about their choice of a parent, etc. The volition of the children are given more importance than their actual paramount interest.
The parent, having limited custody rights, tries to play the role of an ‘entertainment-provider’ for the child in order to attract the child. The children are compelled to pose for hectic photo and video sessions to collect evidence to be placed before the courts. They are lured by expensive gifts and foreign trips, excellent holidays provided by a parent as against the other with whom they have to stay, study, be disciplined and learn the hard lessons of life. Without giving much thought, the children often express their wish to stay with the ‘entertainment providers.’

Children are treated as joint properties and demand for shared parenting and equal rights is common. The situation is worse when both the parents are busy with their career goals and the children stay with care-takers or grandparents. Grandparents, who develop attachment to the young children, fight for custody through their children. Everyone is focusing on parenting rights — rights of parents, of father, of mother, sentiments of grandparents, duty of a judge, etc — brushing aside ‘the paramount interest of the child.’

The child’s rights over parents begins with its birth. No one, much less a parent, can curtail this right over the other parent. The child has a right not to choose between the parents, not to judge its parents. It has a right to live in its little world full of fun, play, enjoyment, studies and unobstructed growth, unmindful of the mutual dislike and hatred between the parents. No one has a right to trespass and encroach upon their rights. Who can compensate the mother’s sweet kiss, screams, scoldings, warnings or the father’s hugs, kicks, or shouts?

Subjects of dispute

Frequent shuttling of children between the parents under the directions of the court, repeated contempt petitions between the parents alleging ‘disobedience’ instill a sense of panic among the children who do understand that they are made the subjects of dispute between their parents, and that the fight was against each other through them.

Only in the absence of dispute between the parents can the child stay happily with one of the parents, understanding it as a family arrangement. Each disputing parent fails to understand the indispensable need of the contribution of the other for the welfare of the child.

They forget that they are the only ones standing together who can safeguard the paramount interest of the child. When one of them doubts the bonafide of the other and suspects that the other would not stick to the accepted terms, problems arise. It is in this scenario, that the role of courts becomes indispensable in giving a binding force for the arrangements regarding the custody rights between the disputing parents.

The legislature in its wisdom has left the solution uncovered in the statutes. Even the courts find it difficult to choose between the equally capable and responsible parents of the unfortunate children. Any order passed by the court irritates either of the parents. Judges are often called ‘pro-women’ or ‘anti-women’ or those addressing to please the gallery.

It is high time the parents move from their interest towards the paramount interest of the child. All that a parent has to consider without prejudice is “is the company of the other parent dangerous to my child?” Shared parenting is a misnomer. Parenting cannot be shared with any one much less with the other parent. Each parent plays a unique role in the life of a child.
Ultimately, both the parents need to understand that notwithstanding their relationship as husband and wife no longer being cordial or having come to an end, they continue to be a father and a mother for the child and no statute can change that status.
(The writer is an advocate at the Karnataka High Court)

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/78894/