Marital Property Split – Last nail on ‘Hindu Marriage’ coffin

Parliamentary Committee on the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice, — headed by Congress Member of Parliament Jayanthi Natarajan has recommended marital property split to be added to protect the rights of women with respect to Hindu Marriage Act amendment. a.k.a THE MARRIAGE LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2010. I believe the said proposal needs an altogether different discussion than as part of the said bill. Apparently, it should be rephrased to "Marital Division" rather than “Marital PROPERTY division”. It is gross violation of natural justice to give wives a share of properties whereas husbands are left with the burden of all liabilities accumulated during the course of marriage. I hereby recommend to kindly consider the following points while drafting the new law regarding marital division.

ripoffreport kcVDr 22404

1. Assets as well as liabilities should be considered for marital division; where such a division of assets should be exactly proportionate to the monetary contribution made by the parties and division of liabilities should be exactly proportionate to the share of commitment towards the liabilities.

2. If the demand for considering Wife's contribution of time and energy to the family is to be counted, then Husband’s contribution of their time, energy and money towards the family should also be counted proportionately. It is a universal truth that a housewife spends her time inside the house and husband spends his time outside the house for bringing food shelter clothing and entertainment for entire family.

3. If feminazis are asking to evaluate contribution of pregnancy, then sole custody should be granted to the Husband if she chooses to go with marital division and there should not arise any question of child support as well. Sole custody is child abuse so I personally DO NOT recommend this option.

On the other hand if pregnancy is decided to be given a monetary value and husband has to pay that share, then he should be given his right to discuss and set that value before marriage through prenuptial agreement. Respective legislation should be brought in along with the said bill to give prenuptial agreement its legal validity.

4. No marital division should be made if the marriage is shorter than the length defined in IPC 304(B).

Section 113B of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 forces the judiciary not to apply its mind and presume a person had caused the dowry death whenever such a question arises. In other words Indian justice system recognizes a person as husband only after the term defined in IPC 304(B), until then marriage is not solemnized and he is PRESUMED to be a dowry killer.

5. Marital division and maintenance must be mutually exclusive.

6. Child support and custody should be split equally (if

pregnancy is not evaluated in marital division).

7. Maintenance should be limited to the number of years of cohabitation.

8. Maintenance should be calculated from 36% of spouse's gross income less all monthly debt payments. (64% should be left for taxes and to lead a decent life; pushing a person to the streets just because s/he "committed" a marriage is against natural justice!).These figures are followed as a thumb rule by most banks as "debt-to-income ratio of 28/36". This means that no more than 28 percent of your total monthly income (from all sources and before taxes) can go towards housing, and no more than 36 percent of your monthly income can go toward your total monthly debt. I humbly request to consider maintenance payment similar to debt payment.