Home > Press_Coverage > NFHS opposes Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill-webindia

NFHS opposes Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill-webindia

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20100806/1560234.html

NFHS opposes Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill
Bangalore | Friday, Aug 6 2010 IST
 

// // //

A group promoting cause of family harmony and gender equality has strongly opposed the proposed Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill due to its ‘anti-husband’ component.

With this proposed law, Union Minister for Law and Justice Veerappa Moily had violated his own promise of making laws gender neutral, Mr P Suresh, President of National Family Harmony Society (NFHS), which is working in support of the ‘harassed husbands’, said in a press release here today.

The bill, recently introduced in Rajya Sabha, dealt with ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ and was against the interests of husbands, he alleged.

”NFHS registers its strong protest against certain section of the Marriage Law Amendment Bill, which according to us again expose the husband to the whims and fancies of his wifes decision and lead to this law being misused in collusion with the other gender laws of India like section 498A IPC and the DV Act,” he said.

The ‘irretrievable breakdown’ ground should not be viewed as merely adding yet another clause to section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Rather, it should be viewed as a disruptive change to the structural edifice of family law in India, he said.

Irretrievable breakdown changes the terms of divorce from a ‘fault’ basis to a ‘no-fault’ basis. That means either of the two adults in a marriage can unilaterally terminate it for any reason they please, he alleged.

”Government-backed abuse against Indian husbands, Indian Gender laws in particular, are so badly drafted that they outrightly exclude the possibility of a woman being the cause of any sort of marital discord,” he opined.

He said some sections of the Bill were in clear violation of Article 15 of the Constitution that prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion and sex.

— (UNI)l

Advertisements
Categories: Press_Coverage
  1. anandangan
    August 10, 2010 at 5:12 am

    The Report 71 (year 1978) of law commission is simply cut pasted in this bill, the report 71 was outrightly rejected by then INC ruling party as ‘junk’ and inappropriate

    The report had lost its significance since it was assessed 30 years back. That time a woman living apart from the husband for 3 years was an achievement in itself, and ‘3 year’ separation in those days was a sufficient ‘proof’ to assume irretrievable breakdown of marriage. But that is NOT the case in year 2010.

    Now a days man and woman working in different shifts (days and nights) or on deputation to different cities. or one spouse missing for 3 years or in hospital or in coma etc or for whatsoever reason, mere a proof of ‘3 years separation’ without FIXING the BLAME who was responsible for the separation is going to create erroneous interpretations and one ‘can’ take advantage of the law and taking advantage of law is not ‘taking advantage of one’s own wrongs’

    By this bill, Section 23 of HMA is also being amended to exclude Section 13C from the fault theory.

    What is the need to revet back to report71? especially if another report217 was submitted which analysed report 71 and made enhacements to reccomendations in Report 71 that: Irretrievable breakdown be made part of ‘fault theory’ not as convincing proof but from whole facts and overall conduct of the parties if they are litigating for years and making allegations on each other to a very ‘severe’ extent.

    This report was also rejected by the govt. But just b’cos of lobbying of few political leaders or for their daughters this bill is brought apparently.

    The required proof, to conclude about ‘Irretrievable breakdown’ in a case, is deliberately and inadvertantly made VERY simple that one may just call it a farce and may reduce to a mere registraton of ‘breakdown’ in family court.

    This is going to increase the activity in high courts and supreme courts that it might require to set up new ‘family high courts’ and a new ‘family supreme court’ and dismantle ‘family district courts’ !!!

    Is it too late to oppose the bill now? as it is already presented in rajyasabha for approval and debate etc.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: