2) Almost all relationship laws in India are so so drafted that they can be easily abused. No clear guidelines. No clear definitions.
3) You cannot ask courts to strike down such laws because ithey are likely to be abused or misused.
Because, courts will say, possible abuse or misuse is no ground to strike down a law. Courts and you, both are helpless here against tyrannical laws.
4) When Supreme Court had asked Govt to pass some new law to a) Add irrepairable breakdown of marriage as ground of divorce b) And to reduce waiting period for divorce under mutual consent, if legislature goes beyond these directions and brings out an entirely a new law, repealing all other grounds of divorces also, under guise of Supreme Court judgements, is usurping judicial orders.
In the proposed law, earlier all grounds of divorces are overruled by laying down "No Money - No Divorce- Even on any other grounds"
And what a man has to pay to get divorce on any ground?
A share in his inherited properties plus something from his 'heritable in future' properties of his relatives.
How much share? ? ?
Law is silent. Some judge may grant 20% share and some judge may grant 80% share. For next 20 years, parties will keep fighting upto Supreme Court to argue whether the amount is just or proper. Imagine the agony of parties because of vagueness in law.
5) And If Husband has no property?
No problem. A charge or attachment on his heritable properties will be created - in other words properties of relatives of husband could be put under a siege until husband pays up.
6) The people live on perceptions.
The wide and vague language of proposed law is bound to frighten youth.
They will start looking for options.
First option is to convert to some other religion and to go to a religion where divorce is easy.
Second option is, start living as "Live-in-Relationship" without any marriage. Then provisions of IrBM law may not apply.
The choice is between two most unpleasant options.
How much share? ? ?
Law is silent. Some judge may grant 20% share and some judge may grant 80% share. For next 20 years, parties will keep fighting upto Supreme Court to argue whether the amount is just or proper. Imagine the agony of parties because of vagueness in law.
5) And If Husband has no property?
No problem. A charge or attachment on his heritable properties will be created - in other words properties of relatives of husband could be put under a siege until husband pays up.
6) The people live on perceptions.
The wide and vague language of proposed law is bound to frighten youth.
They will start looking for options.
First option is to convert to some other religion and to go to a religion where divorce is easy.
Second option is, start living as "Live-in-Relationship" without any marriage. Then provisions of IrBM law may not apply.
The choice is between two most unpleasant options.
The Insitution of marriage is likely to break down. Probably no one has thought about long term damages of this proposed law.
7) When husband is put under so much vulnerable position in new marriage law, once a dispute arises, no question of compromise. Wife's lawyers will focus on property of husband, his heritable properties and how to get maximum share for wife. The family litigation will convert into property litigation.
8) Sad. No voice so far heard from so called jurists and legal luminaries on what is in this law. Probably, they will study it when it is challenged in court.
9) If you are a youth in a marriageable age, I can only offer my sympathy to you.
Haresh Raichura
1201
7) When husband is put under so much vulnerable position in new marriage law, once a dispute arises, no question of compromise. Wife's lawyers will focus on property of husband, his heritable properties and how to get maximum share for wife. The family litigation will convert into property litigation.
8) Sad. No voice so far heard from so called jurists and legal luminaries on what is in this law. Probably, they will study it when it is challenged in court.
9) If you are a youth in a marriageable age, I can only offer my sympathy to you.
I can only hope that Legislative Wisdom has considered long term effacts of law.
Haresh Raichura
1201