yoda Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 First of all when one says ancestral property, are they talking about the one which the son already has inherited? If not, the guy has to give a share of something he doesn't even own yet? Dwelling on the amendments, the minister said courts would decide the "extent" of the wife's share in her husband's self-acquired property, both moveable and immoveable, in case of a divorce. While the wife will have no share in inherited property, its value will be taken into account by court while fixing the amount of compensation or alimony to her. "The judge will decide as per the facts and circumstances of each case," he said. How absurd. A guy may inherit a 5 crore house, wife gets 2 crores, guy has to find a way to pay wife 2 crores without even getting the 5 crore property in his possession. Excellent! I hope it still means that at least that the guy has already inherited the property. Seems like vote bank politics in full swing.
Detonator Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 First of all when one says ancestral property, are they talking about the one which the son already has inherited? If not, the guy has to give a share of something he doesn't even own yet? How absurd. A guy may inherit a 5 crore house, wife gets 2 crores, guy has to find a way to pay wife 2 crores without even getting the 5 crore property in his possession. Excellent! I hope it still means that at least that the guy has already inherited the property. Seems like vote bank politics in full swing. :(( :(( :(( :fear:
coffee_rules Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 First of all when one says ancestral property, are they talking about the one which the son already has inherited? If not, the guy has to give a share of something he doesn't even own yet? How absurd. A guy may inherit a 5 crore house, wife gets 2 crores, guy has to find a way to pay wife 2 crores without even getting the 5 crore property in his possession. Excellent! Seems like vote bank politics in full swing. compensation or alimony, not a 50% share. Let the judge decide. It is a patriarchal society where women generally get exploited. Only a few women will get to exercise this amendment, in general most will be forced not to go to courts out of fear.
Raghav_12 Posted August 26, 2013 Author Posted August 26, 2013 First of all when one says ancestral property, are they talking about the one which the son already has inherited? If not, the guy has to give a share of something he doesn't even own yet? How absurd. A guy may inherit a 5 crore house, wife gets 2 crores, guy has to find a way to pay wife 2 crores without even getting the 5 crore property in his possession. Excellent! I hope it still means that at least that the guy has already inherited the property. Seems like vote bank politics in full swing. Can anybody explained why wives property should not be considered? If logic is woman would not have property, than in any case it won't make any difference. Seems like a new sort of appeasement is raising head in country.
jusarrived Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 lol in my community its always been the opposite .Major chunk of ancestral property goes to women .
coffee_rules Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 Can anybody explained why wives property should not be considered? If logic is woman would not have property' date=' than in any case it won't make any difference. Seems like a new sort of appeasement is raising head in country.[/quote'] In most divorce cases in India, it is the women that has less income or is a home-maker. So, she needs financial support. The husband has to pay alimony. What's wrong in deciding the amount of alimony based on husband's total assets? How many divorces have the husband demanding alimony from the woman?
Raghav_12 Posted August 26, 2013 Author Posted August 26, 2013 In most divorce cases in India' date=' it is the women that has less income or is a home-maker. So, she needs financial support. The husband has to pay alimony. What's wrong in deciding the amount of alimony based on husband's total assets? How many divorces have the husband demanding alimony from the woman?[/quote'] You are not aware what you are talking about or what are existing rules. There are already rules to give women monthly maintenance based on the monthly income of husband. While giving maintenance amount, husband's monthly income is always considered and a significant amount of that is given to wife as part of monthly maintenance. That is what financial support that you are talking about. That I may agree with under assumption that wife would have enabled husband to earn that much salary. These are existing laws under different sections. But current law plans to give property to wife which wife has nothing to do with which is absolutely against natural justice and anti-system. Somebody would marry a guy, stay with couple of weeks and then say give me my property and I'll go away. Right to oppose has also been taken away from husband. and why do you bother, if there would be very few cases where husband can demand alimony? If very few let it be so. At least you can make laws about property division gender neutral as in most of the progressive country. But no, our government listens to who whines most.
coffee_rules Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 But current law plans to give property to wife which wife has nothing to do with which is absolutely against natural justice and anti-system. Somebody would marry a guy, stay with couple of weeks and then say give me my property and I'll go away. Right to oppose has also been taken away from husband. and why do you bother, if there would be very few cases where husband can demand alimony? If very few let it be so. At least you can make laws about property division gender neutral as in most of the progressive country. But no, our government listens to who whines most. While the wife will have no share in inherited property, its value will be taken into account by court while fixing the amount of compensation or alimony to her. I think the estranged wife can't get the property directly, but gets some value of it as part of alimony decided by a judge/court. I think a lot of husbands are showing little income and hencie less alimony. while most of the income is hidden as inheritance This law if applied to all women (including muslim) it will benefit those women in lower classes a lot. Muslim men can marry women and divorce without paying much for them.
Raghav_12 Posted August 26, 2013 Author Posted August 26, 2013 I think the estranged wife can't get the property directly' date=' but gets some value of it as part of alimony decided by a judge/court. [b']I think a lot of husbands are showing little income and hencie less alimony. while most of the income is hidden as inheritance This law if applied to all women (including muslim) it will benefit those women in lower classes a lot. Muslim men can marry women and divorce without paying much for them. What you think is wrong. You can't hide taxes that you filed. Any wife can get order from court to get tax filings of husband. But answer one simple thing. Why wive's property or income should not be part of consideration? Why should only husbands should be considered as ATM to fund a wife who may be leaving husband to pursue her other love interests.
Raghav_12 Posted August 26, 2013 Author Posted August 26, 2013 Sign a prenup. doesn't have legal validity in India. People in India consider that would be anti-female.
coffee_rules Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 What you think is wrong. You can't hide taxes that you filed. Any wife can get order from court to get tax filings of husband. But answer one simple thing. Why wive's property or income should not be part of consideration? Why should only husbands should be considered as ATM to fund a wife who may be leaving husband to pursue her other love interests. Laws are written/amended based on how many victims/cases have been registered/happening. Anti-Dowry laws were written based on how many brides were harassed. Ideally, there could be a case of husband demanding alimony if he is a home-maker before marriage and is now taking care of kids. But practically how many of this can happen for the law to be amended for. Even ANti-dowry laws are misused when a woman can accuse the in-laws / husband on false charges just because she can get out of a marriage (or want more money from the parents). That doesn't mean we can't have the laws amended just 'cause we fear it could be misused. In the same vein, your fear of a misuse of this new law is also not genuine.
Raghav_12 Posted August 26, 2013 Author Posted August 26, 2013 Laws are written/amended based on how many victims/cases have been registered/happening. Anti-Dowry laws were written based on how many brides were harassed. Ideally, there could be a case of husband demanding alimony if he is a home-maker before marriage and is now taking care of kids. But practically how many of this can happen for the law to be amended for. Even ANti-dowry laws are misused when a woman can accuse the in-laws / husband on false charges just because she can get out of a marriage (or want more money from the parents). That doesn't mean we can't have the laws amended just 'cause we fear it could be misused. In the same vein, your fear of a misuse of this new law is also not genuine. you didn't answer simple question. why wifes property shouldn't be considered? any logical justification? that happens in most of other countries. Madona had given close to 100 million in her settlement. let's not get into anti-dowry law and it's use and misuse.
surajmal Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 doesn't have legal validity in India. People in India consider that would be anti-female. Don't get married then. Frankly, young Indian (Hindu) men should be happy. This will stop their parents from badgering them all the time to get married.
coffee_rules Posted August 26, 2013 Posted August 26, 2013 you didn't answer simple question. why wifes property shouldn't be considered? any logical justification? that happens in most of other countries. Madona had given close to 100 million in her settlement. let's not get into anti-dowry law and it's use and misuse. That's the first sentence in my reply. There are not many cases of these in India for the wife's property to be considered.
Raghav_12 Posted August 26, 2013 Author Posted August 26, 2013 That's the first sentence in my reply. There are not many cases of these in India for the wife's property to be considered. that is your hypothesis. secondly even if there are few cases, you are okay with the law which force them to suffer? Why you want to support such unfair laws? Secondly you already had enough laws to give claims to wives in husbands income.
diga Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 Marriage law amended but only for hindus, Land acqusition rehauled, but WAKF property excluded Right to education - minority institutions excluded. Phir bi mera desh secular
Recommended Posts