Living-in legalities

(Article written by Pinky Anand, appeared on 15 Oct 2008 in Hindustan Times, Reproduced here to provide a comment. You can read my comment by clicking here)

Live-in relationships among urban, educated, upper-middle class young people began as a so-called declaration of independence, of a chosen elite condemning the ‘shackles’ of institutionalised set-up that is marriage and family which is the very corner stone of Indian society. Now, with the Maharashtra Government recommending legalising live-in relationsh-ips it has almost done away with the institution of marriage.

The Maharashtra Government in an attempt to appear liberal and ‘modern’ has questioned the sacrosanct relationship of marriage. The bigger question in all this debate is individual choice vs. state laws. Have we reached a stage where whims and fancies of each individual are going to govern us? What happened to the norms set by civil society? Customs and usages are sources of law, but here the proposed law is questioning the existence of the custom of marriage that has existed since time immemorial and which keeps the social fabric together.

The Maharashtra Government is seeking to claim modernisation and claiming improvement of status of women. Entire civil society militates against this “ultra-modern theme” What is it that we seek to achieve with a law that questions the very foundation of society and acts as a catalyst for the disintegration of the family and the social structure? With our younger generation getting the choice not to marry and entering into as many live-ins as desired by them, the family structure will surely disintegrate and lead to a promiscuous, unstructured and amorphous culture.

Double whammy:

That aside, this will lead to various complications in law and status of the live in partner qua the wife. With the proposed amendment in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, any women living with a man for a reasonable time shall be entitled to ask for maintenance from the man u/s 125 of CrPC. With a ‘second woman’ being given an equal status as a wife, it will complicate matters of inheritance and devolution of property.

These questions will arise because a child born out of this relationship will be a legitimate child and have the same rights as a child born from marriage. With regard to devolution of property, the amendment creates utter chaos as it treats the property of the ‘partners’ as a community property but such a concept does not exist in a marriage, hence how will the property be divided, is a vital question that has been left unanswered by the Government. In addition, there is no specified period for which the man and woman should be living together before the women can claim maintenance or the status of a “live-in”.

Strings attached?

There are some arguments presented by the supporters of the amendment. One of them being that it’s for the progression of women and will secure the pecuniary interest of the ‘other woman’. However, in this utopian situation we have forgotten that there maybe an existing wife also, who will suffer because of this proposed amendment. Therefore, promoting the interest of one woman against the other is antithetical to women and not for their benefit. Several people believe that the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Tulsa & Ors. V. Durghatiya & Ors. has given a legal sanction to live-in relationships. However this is incorrect and the judgment elucidates that there is a presumption in favour of marriage if a man and woman have lived together for a long time.In my view, the only reason the pro-choicers choose “live-in” as a way of life is on the assumption of “no strings” tied. If live-in is legalised, it has all the ingredients of marriage. Then why not marriage; a secure, defined, stable way of life for a family rather than a temporary, temporal, transient & unstable relationship. In conclusion all that can be said is that a ‘no-strings attached’ relationship is not the need of the hour but what is required is a mechanism to further strengthen the weakening family and social structure of society.

Chennai Slipper Meets Gang of Lawyers

On 7th February 2009, Deccan Chronicle carried an article about a woman who hit her adversary lawyer with slipper. You may read the article here

Feb. 6: An angry woman who came to the Madras high court premises on Friday for her divorce case hearing allegedly hit her husband’s lawyer with her slippers after the two had been involved in abusive verbal exchanges, near a family court on the second floor.

Many lawyers then ganged up and beat the woman in full public glare before she was arrested and remanded.

The woman identified as Gayathri, a resident of Sastri Nagar, was assaulted by advocates as she was dragged to the police station inside the high court premises.
The police registered a case of assault against the woman but have not initiated any action against the lawyers who had severely beaten her up.

It was only the magistrate at the seventh metropolitan court in George Town who noticed her swollen face and ordered that she be taken to the general hospital after remanding her.

In his complaint C. Balasubramanian, the lawyer who represented Gayathri’s husband, said that the woman had abused him and hit him on his face with her slipper. He also said that Gayatrhi and her father had threatened to kill him.

Gayathri’s lawyer, George William, told this newspaper on Friday evening that he heard the other advocate foul mouth his client.

“I went down to inform the police when the incident happened. Other lawyers asked me not to help my client. They never wanted me to support a woman who had assaulted a lawyer. She was also badly beaten up,” said George William.

“Her lawyer had not filed any complaint though she was assaulted by a group of advocates. We will certainly initiate action against those who attacked her as well,” a city police official said.

There are many many important facets of this incident that I now unravel in this blog.

Before I start, however, I'd want to make it clear that whole incident clearly manifests the unethical and inappropriate behaviour of all concerned.

I'd state that Not one person physically involved in that altercation has behaved within their own respective limits.

• Advocate C. Balasubramanian the man assualted was representing the husband of the woman named Ms. Gayatri


• Advocate C. Balasubramanian was performing (presumably very well) in favour of husband giving motive for woman to assault him with her slippers


• If a woman can attack a strange and unrelated man (regardless of his legal stature and its consequences), what would she be doing to her husband behind the closed doors of her house and gravy of DV laws that are in her favour?


• Ms. Gayatri clearly overstepped all of her natural and social limits of her modesty as woman.


• Ms. Gayatri clearly represents league of women who are unashamed of being violent


• If Advocate C. Balasubramanian was gaining unfair advantage over Ms. Gayatri for her husband, she was within her rights to instruct her lawyer to stop the negotiations
.

• If Advocate C. Balasubramanian was successfully blocking her extortion scheme and attempts to obtain unfair advantage, he was honestly doing his job while she was trying to intimidate and use unlawful pressure


• Ms. Gayatri tried to use physical force and death threats probably to obtain a favorable decision or stall the unfavourable decision


• Advocate C. Balasubramanian obviously enjoyed respect of his peers judging from the fact that many other advocates ganged up to beat the woman


• Lawyer Gang who assaulted Ms. Gayatri also overstepped their professional, personal and social limits.


• The Police has registered the case against the woman. FAIR ENOUGH


• The Police have not registered the case against the group of lawyers but are promising to do so. We will have to watch.

FROM SIF perspective, contacting Advocate C. Balasubramanian is definitely worthwhile effort.

He is able to expose a violent woman that we all must be able to learn from.

ALIMONY === MORAL BANKRUPTCY.

Alimony generally means sum of money payable by man to a woman and in some rare occassions from a woman to man once they do not live together is a sign of moral bankruptcy. And here's why...

Marriage is striking similar to Employment.

Marriage is contractual Union between man and Woman.
Employment is contractual Union between Employer and Employee.

Marriage is Voluntary For Man and Woman.
Employment is Voluntary For Employer and Employee.

In a traditional role, Man brings in money while Woman manages the day-to-day activities of the household using money. Employee knows more low level details.

In a traditional role, Employer invests (brings in) money while Employee manages the day-to-day activities of the business/work using money. Woman knows more household details.

Often, Employer goes out and brings in new contracts that will earn money for the business while employee stays back and looks after.

Often, Man goes out and performs jobs and activities that earn money for the household while wife stays back and looks after.

Man provides the adequate funds to purchase material needs of woman.

Employer provides the adequate funds to purchase material needs of Employee.

Employee provides the services that save time and energy for Employer. e.g. organizing files.

Woman provides the services that save some time and energy for the man. e.g. cooking food

If all is well, Man and Woman unite bodies to have off-springs which serves to expand/grow the household. Children are oft-quoted purpose behind the Marriage.

If all is well, Employer and Employee unite minds to embark on Projects that expand/grow the business. Projects generally improve existing situations and oft-declared purpose behind the Employment.

Once the projects are started, Employee spends more time looking after every little detail and ensuring that project grows into a economically profitable project to the best of employee’s ability. Employee looks after the hardest aspects of project and those that need undivided attention and consume most of the business time of the employee.

Once the children are brought to life, Woman spends more time looking after every little detail and ensuring that children grows into the socially profitable human ever possible to the best of women’s ability. Woman looks after the hardest aspects of project and those that need undivided attention and consume most of the household time of the Woman.

Career Growth, designation and perks of the employee are directly linked to the fate of the project. Competent Employees manage the whole businesses.

Stature Growth, designation and perks of the woman are directly linked to the fate of the children. Competent woman manage the households.

In modern healthy households. both man and woman have to work just equally hard. They come up with their own rules of dividing work load amongst themselves and manage to thrive. Men do cook when needed.

In modern healthy businesses, both employer and employee have to work just equally hard. They come up with their own rules of dividing work load amongst themselves and manage to thrive. Employers do manage files when needed.

This kind of Similarity list can go on and on.

As is evident in the above comparisons, both marriage and employment are synergy of two with complementary capabilities.

However, now come the parts where marriage tilts in favour of the women

Employers contribute for future financial support (Pension) of the employee. Employees accrue it during their working life and only get after they've stayed in Employment for certain number of years.

Man contributes for future financial support of the woman. Large number of Women demand 60%-70% of total assets as their entitlement from the day one of entering into the marriage.
In most places of employments, both employer and employee work. Employee usually does the harder work but employer keeps bigger parts of earnings since he/she took more risks in first place by hiring the employee.

In most marriages, both man and woman work. Man usually does the harder or more difficult work. Man is not entitled to keeps bigger parts of earnings even when he is taking more risks in first place by marrying the woman.

Let us for sake of argument, asssume that in modern marriages both man and woman work equally hard and contribute same magnitude of resources into the marriage. Woman usually strives to protect her entire contribution while dividing man's contribution in two unequal halves. Woman wants to keep bigger half.

If the employee resigns or is fired, employee may be eligible for severance pay to cover his short term/immediate needs (usually a month or two). Severance is not related to the earning potential of the employer or the assets in the business regardless of who worked to acquire them. Severance is provided to those employees who gives adequate notice and there is no act of treason or all the projects/ documents are in acceptable state. Employee does the work. Employer looks after basic needs of employee with few perks. Severance is determined on worth of employee.

If the woman abandons or is divorced, woman is almost certainly eligible for alimony amounts that may be enough to cover needs for rest of her life. Alimony is demanded even if woman gives no notice whatsoever, commits multiple acts of treason, treacherously jeopardizes and deliberately destroys the projects and the household.
Alimony is determined on earning capacity of Man.

If the employee after resigning from the employer is unable to take care of self, it is not employer's headache. Even when employee apologises

If the woman after divorcing from the man is unable to take care of self, it is shame and headache for the man. Man has to go on apologising to woman.

Employee is not allowed to take away projects from Employer once he resigns even though he may have spent lot of labor, love and have endured pain.

Woman is allowed to take away Children from man once she divorces even though Man also may have spent lot of time, love and effort for Children.

This Comparison can also be expanded.

In Conclusion, If laws were changed such that Employment contracts were treated identically and made them tilt in favour of Employees, many employees will resign dreaming to get money without work while many employers will go out of business or have to file bankruptcies. Countries and economies would be ruined.

The constitution of India under article 14 guarantees the right to equality before law to both man and woman.

Oddly enough, there are many laws where women are treated more favourably than men. First example is the alimony laws that reaps windfall from woman who want to divorce.

A woman can claim alimony under 4 different laws - two sections under the Hindu marriage act, the alimony act, and the domestic violence act, 2005.

On the other hand, the men cannot claim alimony under the laws except under a particular section of the Hindu marriage act which is never implemented by the judiciary. Women have the same opportunities as men, in terms of education and employment.

Second Example of Law that is prejudiced towards women is tax law. The tax is lower for women and many concessions are granted to women. Men end up paying higher taxes and have to compete with women usually for equal salaries.

Alimony from man to woman or from woman to man once they do not live together is sign of morally bankruptcy.

Let us collectively abolish the whole concept of Alimony.

============================================================

This blog page is in response to midday article of Nirmal Rao

Two Faces of Striking Lawyers ...

On 8th Jan 2009, Times of India carried an article that ferrets out Lawyer's greed
as a reason for the strike.

You may read the article at 2009 01 08 Article on TOI Lawyers Strike ... Actual text of the TOI article is reproduced here for posterity after the above link goes stale.

The Article reveals that Lawyers who went on strike wanted to have easy income at the expense of suffering of innocent people. It is just like a doctor making money by unnecessarily prolonging the disease.

The lawyer Dwimurti becomes evident in all their public posturing and indignation against the CrPC amendments. On surface Striking Lawyers claim to be agitated by loss of discretionary powers with the police in making an arrests. TOI believes that Lawyers privately admit their opposition to it because the changed law will reduce bail cases.

Lawyers strike to bail themselves out
NEW DELHI: For all their public posturing and indignation against the
CrPC amendment vesting greater discretionary powers with the police in
making an arrest, lawyers privately admit their opposition to it
because the changed law will reduce bail cases.

Though loathe to come on record, lawyers across various district bar
associations in Delhi which struck work on Wednesday predicted a
drastic fall in bail cases due to the CrPC amendment. Since it gives
greater leeway to an investigating officer (IO) to decide if an arrest
is warranted or not in offences which carry a maximum sentence of
seven years' imprisonment, observers say number of arrests for such
crimes is likely to come down and so will the corresponding bail
matters ending up before courts.

The bar associations, however, have wrapped their grievances in dire
warnings of lawlessness and increased crimes against women, since a
molester can now walk away secure in the knowledge that he might not
be arrested. Still, was going on strike the solution, given that every
judicial authority from the Supreme Court to Delhi High Court has
repeatedly directed lawyers to refrain from this option?

"It isn't a strike on principle and policy,'' says senior lawyer
Kamini Jaiswal, referring to Wednesday's protest. She said it was the
loss of clients due to less bail pleas that was causing heartburn to
most district lawyers, "Litigant had nothing to do with the amendment
but it is he who suffers the most because of such strikes. Even when
SC has termed strike as `gross misconduct' lawyers resort to it, this
is extremely unfortunate. If we take a fee we are dutybound to provide
legal service to our clients,'' she said.

While the bar associations claim the amendment will lead to increase
in crimes like kidnapping, stabbing, forgery etc, lawyers like Ashok
Arora see nothing wrong in the amendment, concluding it will in fact
"help administration of justice''. He added, "Whether bail matters
will be reduced or not shouldn't be concern of any profession. As
lawyers our aim should be to help in administration of justice.''

Even the judges, speaking on condition of anonymity, maintained the
bar striking work at the drop of a hat on every issue was
unacceptable. "In district courts, many lawyers are dependent on
fighting cases for anticipatory or interim bail. Therefore this
amendment has left them fuming,'' added an HC judge familiar with the
workings of lower courts.

It was left to Delhi High Court Bar Association president K C Mittal
to stand by his lower court counterparts and back their demands.
"Amendment does suffer from many defects which will have consequences
like escalation of crime. Giving discretion to police to arrest or not
means there will be no deterrence,' ' Mittal told TOI. When asked if
going on strike was a good way to protest against this change, Mittal
claimed it was being done only to warn the public of what trouble lies
ahead due to the changed CrPC. "How do we raise a point? We keep
shouting, sending representations, letters, etc but no one listens.''


=======
Initial Notification & Inspiration for this blog by: gorky

Domestic Violence in Hindi Movies

Recently, I started watching Hindi movies properly after a gap of over 20 years.
I used to avoid Hindi movies since I became adult and no longer forced to go with my parents as I used to dismiss them as emotional melodramatic Fights, Songs and Dances.

The theme of this blog is that the Hindi Movies have indeed been describing violence against men and women and possibly at equal magnitudes all along. They have shown equal amount of negative female and male characters in thousands of movies. They also show that the main person who inflicts violence on a woman is rarely her husband.

I wish to focus on movies that are reasonably successful and they depict violence, deception against the male playing a role of boyfriend or a husband.

With this blog, I am starting a list of Hindi movies that contain very specific and direct actions of violence against the husband in a matriomonial relationship. With some luck, we can get the digital videos and then create a collage of all these Hit movie using snippets from all of this. Please help me make this into a formidable collection.

First movie that I'd like to list is King Uncle, 1993
In King Uncle, a wife and a mother of 3 children is shown abandoning her husband for sake of her love life with a rich boyfriend and is the pivotal moment of the story.

SECOND Movie is Rishtey, 2002

Here the WIFE is shown as gullible and manipulated by conniving Father IN LAW who is
out to do everything within his power to kill his poor son in law and destroy his marriage.

Anil Kapoor plays role of boxer named Suraj who is forced to leave boxing due to injury. He is married to Karishma Kapoor, who is daughter of rich man Amrish Puri.
Amrish Puri harasses him for a period of about 7 years forcibly separating his daughter from him using fabricated evidence. Anil Kapoor somehow fights and manages to revive health of his child, who was born with physical deficiency.

Other Movies in this Category are Gadar, DDLJ...

I am told that Govinda has been perennial disliked son-in-law but I stay away from his movies.

Third Movie is Mera Naam Joker, 1970

It is a classic Raj Kapoor movie. Raj Kapoor gets cheated and misled in love by three women, his teacher, a circus artist and a street tramp with dreams of becoming actress. I've been told that the story resonates Raj Kapoor's own life.

Fourth Movie is Dhoom 2

Abhishek Bacchan is rebuked by his pregnant wife and his sidekick about his capability of getting married on his own. It was a light banter of talk and overall designed to humilate the husband.

There is also a Fight Sequence in start of the movie where wive's and girl friends call to harass Abhishek and his sidekick with some demands which seems bit unreal only cause they are in middle of shoot out. Wives talking in that manner is not too believable.


Fifth is Akele Hum Akele Tum,1995

Role of Husband and wife played by Aamir Khan and Manisha Koirala. Someone from SIF has told me that this movie has something to do with life of Gulzar.

Once again financially stronger Father in Law persistently objects and creates rift in married life leading husband to go through separation, single parenting, court battle eventually to lose the custody of the child. Movie does end in a reunion.

Sixth is Zubaida, 2001

I have a very deep connection with this movie. I saw this movie in whole when my wife was pregnant and for reason I still never can fathom, my infant son used to sleep within minutes of me playing a song from this movie.

Here Karishma plays the lead role of a Mother who abandons her child. It is well balanced movie.

This is what some other review said for this movie

The main character, Zubeidaa, has overlapping shades to it. Zubeidaa has fiery feminist instincts and is rebellious and tempestuous until the end. At the same time she's feminine, vulnerable and very young. She chooses to live her life the way she wants to. After giving into paternal authority once in her first marriage, she isn't willing to throw away her chance for happiness the second time. Fully aware of the prince's previous marriage and family, she's ready to accept a strange environment and a different religion for the sake of love. She makes her choices and sacrifices willingly and knowingly. Karisma has surpassed herself as the passionate, defiant, willful and troubled Zubeidaa, the truly modern woman

Seventh is Hum Hain Rahi Pyar Ke,1993

This is a movie that has lot of female roles with many overlapping and conflicting roles. Aamir Khan plays role of Rahul who ends up taking responsibility of struggling business and three kids.

There is a song sequence "Chikni Soorat..." depicting sexual molestation of by female workers of his garment factory.

In same movie, two other actors Badlani and Maya (played by ?, Navneet Nishan) cause havoc in life of Aamir in their desperate attempts to make him marry Maya. Badlani is Sindhi Merchant who refused credit until he realised Maya wanted to marry him and then he was overly generous and manipulative.

There is also a sequence in which Juhi fakes role of his wife to prevent engagement. It is very clearly depicted that there were people who knew Juhi was lying openly but no one spoke to support Aamir as he was falsely humilated. In that particular narrative however, it was later revealed that drama of Juhi was justified since she loved him.

Further, in the same movie, it is noteworthy that Juhi refused domination of her father into deciding her marriage and ran off providing the love triangle in story.

To be expanded..... Waiting for tips....

Invitation to Dharna Against Legal Terrorism

Is the pain of a mother lesser when her son dies relative to when her daughter dies?

Is the pain of a sister lesser when her brother dies relative to when her sister dies?

Save Indian Family Foundation invites you to a peaceful gathering to protest against the rampant and blatant misuse of pro-women marital laws against men which are resulting in large scale suicides amongst married men.

Our IMMEDIATE Demands ARE :-

1. Clear the Pending cases in the Family Courts ASAP.

2. Allocate more experienced judges and increase the Family Courts.

3. Eliminate all gender biased in marital laws making them Gender Neutral.

4. Implements Checks within the system to prevent misuse of these laws.

5. Stop the treatment Men as FREE ATM MACHINES

6. Provide Services to Curtail High Rate of suicides of married men.

7. Establish National Commission for Men, and

8. Establish Men’s Welfare Ministry,

Please come to the gathering with your friends to share your views and to address the above or any related problems.

Date: 14th February 2009
Time: 9: 30 AM to 2: 00 PM
Venue: In front of Gandhi Statue on M.G. Road, Bangalore
Invitees: All citizens of India.
Proudly Supported by:-

1. Save Family Foundation, Delhi
2. MyNation Foundation, Delhi
3. Gender Human Rights Society, Delhi
4. Rakshak Foundation, Delhi
5. Mother’s and Sister’s Initiative, Delhi
6. Protect Indian Family Foundation, Mumbai
7. Indiya Kudumba Pathukappu Iyakkam Chennai
8. All India Forgotten Women, Hyderabad
9. Rishtey, Hyderabad
10. Save Indian Family Foundation, Nagpur
11. Bharat Bachao Sangathan, Kolkata.

Volunteers you may Contact:
Virag - 99863 78801 (English)
Panduranga Katti - 94328 53272 (English)
Shiva Shankara - 97431 83369 (Kannada)
Prakash - 98804 36929 (Kannada)
93428 53272

http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ 98451 43274

Free Soup Kitchen in A Five Star Hotel

Few days ago, I came across the site that talked about the Empowerment of Women. The Proposed Bill succinctly said wants to increase the representation of Women in Lok sabha, Rajya Sabha and other such hallowed political circles.

Have a read for it yourselves at and then proceed into rest of this blog.

The Women (Empowerment for equal participation) Bill, 2005

Somewhere within the bowels of the document (page 4), you will discover something. For sakeof convenience, let us call it the ______ (something) that hides in the DETAIL.
It reads and I quote
Women despite being nearly half of the country's population, still remain socially neglected and economically dependent on others who may be parents, husband or children, are educationally backward and an exploited lot. Majority of them are confined to their houses looking after their children and household chores. Many of them are still superstitious, orthodox and backward because literacy among them and more so in rural areas is very low. Now only more awakening has begun amongst women and they have started playing a vital role in the polity of the nation right from village Panchayat to Parliament of the nation.

Regardless of whether you browse, sprint, scroll or read character by character, you will realise that the above mentioned ______ (something) that hides in the DETAIL. is the justification presented for the need of the bill ...

Inspite of being just an ordinary mortal, I am hazarding a guess that I will not be the only one that finds the justification baseless, completely vague and filled with ambigious statements.

Let us take the hazardous route and start dissecting the article, Shall we?

The very first thing that you (and every one) ought to realise is that the women for whom the reservation are purportedly being proposed fall into at least one of these categories

• Educationally backward
• Economically Dependent
• Socially Neglected
• Confined to house
• Looking after Children & domestic chores.

You are free to imagine any everyday Indian women who would be able to survive past any one of these criterions:
Lets start at the low end, say a woman with very little Economical Standing and who does have a man in her life on whom she can fall back upon. Lets take the Zaaduwali bai in your building. To keep the example simple, let us endow her with marriage but no children yet.

Do you honestly believe that when the Zaaduwali bai is informed of this reservation made for people in her category, will jump up and down in a thrilled state and then run off to grab her entitlement?

I can't possibly imagine. NO!

All right, Ok, let us keep climbing up the economic ladder. How about the barely literate Salesgirl with lousy English at the corner shop who sold you your television set?

Will She be happy with the reservation and join the queue to grab her entitlement?

I can't possibly imagine. NO!

Ok, let us keep improving the woman of our imaginations who will fit the above categories and still be willing to run for the Rajya Sabha? Let us fast forward

How about a Doctor with first class Medical Degree currently having 3 kids aged 18, 16 and 12? Kids are not too old, not too young and can be expected to manage on their own for few hours. She does have a Servant to help her with domestic chores. Such a lady happens to be my aunt and is considered very ambitious and as such well endowed. She likes to express her opinions loudly, firmly and then stick to her guns. She could possibly do well as a Politician.

She ain't exactly Educationally Backward. She was confined to her house because of the children although she can now be considered somewhat free. She is well off in average Mumbai terms. She runs a good practice but not exactly thriving so she may be economically dependent on her husband for the major part. She is not Socially Neglected.

I asked her to consider this proposal of reservation and she told me a reply that actually summed up the whole problem very neatly for me (and us)
No, If I wanted to do good for society and freed up from all of my ties, I'd rather go and work in a hospital or a Jail as a Doctor rather than deal with politicians.

She is happy to deal with Convicts in a prison or impoverished in a hospital rather than politicians.

I give up, folks!!!

I cannot imagine a woman who will fall into any of the above categories and still be willing to fill such a position can express such exploited state?

Let us reverse the situation. Let us imagine a woman who would want to take advantage of this roles. These role may bring in certain amount of power and so strive upon power hungry men and women.

Clearly the women who will be queing up to get those seats will fall in neither of the categores above. Maybe they will be mothers but they will certainly not confined to the house because of the children or household chores.

As it stands, the DEVIL is indeed inside the Detail

It is like throwing up a Free Soup Kitchen inside a Five Star hotel.

For those who are unaware with the phrase soup kitchen, it is usually a community run service that gives bowl of hot nutritious(?) soup with a loaf of bread to all those people in society who'd starve otherwise as they cannot afford to pay for it on their own. Soup and bread are normally given for free.

No beggars or truly impoverished will be allowed inside the five star hotel anyway.
Those who can afford or even think of entering the hotel and do partake free soup and bread will certainly be able to pay for it at a five star rates.

The one thing that is, at the time of writing this unanswered is that what happens to unreserved positions. Are only men allowed on remaining unallocated seats?If No, What measures are present within the bill to prevent all-female Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha?.