Monday, February 09, 2009

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.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

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.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, February 05, 2009

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

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 02, 2009

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

Labels: , , , ,