plz help her

https://www.facebook.com/keshavi38/posts/498103870283725

https://www.facebook.com/abh1ishek/posts/498103870283725?notif_t=like

https://www.facebook.com/abh1ishek/posts/498103870283725?notif_t=like

PLZ HELP HER

DIVORSE

DOES GETTING DIVORSE AFTER MARRIAGE IS GOOD ?

DO PEOPLE REALY THINK THAT ITS A GAME TO GET MARRIED AND GET DIVORSED /?

TYPES OF DIVORSE

Despite this, in some countries (or states of the United States), the courts will seldom apply principles of fault, but might willingly hold a party liable for a breach of a fiduciary duty to his or her spouse (for example, see Family Code Sections 720 and 1100 of the California Family Code).

In most jurisdictions, a divorce must be certified (or ordered by a Judge) by a court of law to come into effect. The terms of the divorce are usually determined by the courts, though they may take into account prenuptial agreements or post-nuptial agreements, or simply ratify terms that the spouses may have agreed to privately (this is not true in the United States, where agreements related to the marriage typically have to be rendered in writing to be enforceable). In absence of agreement, a contested divorce may be stressful to the spouses. Contested divorces mean that one of several issues are required to be heard by a judge at trial level—this is more expensive, and the parties will have to pay for a lawyer's time and preparation. Less adversarial approaches to divorce settlements have recently emerged, such as mediation and collaborative divorce settlement, which negotiate mutually acceptable resolution to conflicts. This principle in the United States is called 'Alternative Dispute Resolution' and continues to gain popularity.

In some other countries,^[where?] when the spouses agree to divorce and to the terms of the divorce, it can be certified by a non-judiciary administrative entity. The effect of a divorce is that both parties are free to marry again.

FAMILY .... A BOND

Family is the most important primary group in society. Family and marriage are considered to be the two pillars of any society and as such they are the two most important societal institutions.

 In India, traditionally and from time immemorial, marriage has been hallowed as sacred; and marriage for most Indians is not merely a sacrament but is sacrosanct. Once the couple enters into the bond of marriage, the relationship is considered perpetual—till death does them apart. In other words, marriage used to be for life and it worked as a bulwark against social vulnerabilities. 

It had an inbuilt system of checks and balances, and roles and priorities were defined by the society for the couple. What distinguished marriage in India from marriage in the West was the sanctity attached to marriage, a sense of perpetual bonding and an element of divinity in it.

HAPPY JANMASHTAMI

THE UGLY TRUTH OF INDIAN SYSTEM

This story was first published in March 2012 as part of a ‘Good Reads’ curation of a piece that appeared in the New York Times India Ink blog. However given the cabinet decision to pass a proposal giving divorced women a share of the man’s ancestral property, we have decided to republish it as we feel the story highlights why such a law is important. 

Media stories on divorce in recent years have gained a certain rote-like predictability. The divorce rates are up. The stigma against divorce is fading. And all this because the kids these days aren’t alright: they want more, compromise less often, and are quick to take the easy way out. Not surprisingly, almost all the examples offered are upwardly mobile urban professionals. No one cares about what’s happening in other, less trendy quarters.

Two recent articles offer an important corrective to this elitist skew. First is an India Ink piece by Pamposh Raina headlined, “For Indian Women, Divorce Is a Raw Deal.” [You can read it here] For all the hand-wringing about more affluent big city sections of the population, the reality is that the divorce rate has not increased very much: “National statistics don’t exist on divorce in India, but some local records do show a rise. Still, some experts say the divorce rate in India continues to be artificially low, because of how biased the system is against women, who can be left financially destitute even if their husband is wealthy.”

The end of even the worst marriage usually spells disaster for the average Indian woman. The reasons are straight-forward. One, there is no concept of joint marital property. The assets (vehicles, houses etc.) remain with the person who holds the title, most often the man. Two, when the woman has a case, she often can’t afford the extended legal battle required to secure her rights.

AFP

And three, while Indian laws make provision for alimony and child support, these rarely offer relief in the real world:

In India, where tax authorities estimate just 3 percent of the population pays personal income tax, and “black money” or under-the-table cash is common, the man’s actual earnings are often hidden, Ms. Singh says. Additionally, the wife may not have access to documents that prove what her husband earns, Ms. Singh says. Even if she does, the maintenance amounts are tiny. Citing courtroom experience, Ms. Singh says judges generally fix a share of 2 percent to 10 percent of the husband’s annual earnings for maintenance amounts.

The result: most women prefer to stay and suffer.

Where Raina’s article covers the required bases, Stephanie Nolen writing for the Canadian newspaper Globe & Mail offers a far richer version of the same story. [Read this excellent piece here] We see, for example, how these laws punish someone like Rajesha Hamar who fled an abusive husband, a man who routinely beat, throttled, and sexually asssaulted her in front of his relatives. She took her baby with her but left behind all her dowry, including a motorbike, and jewellery.

He does not pay a single rupee in support, leaving Rajesha to support her toddler with the money she earns as a maid. She lives with her mother and brother in a one-room tenement, sleeping on the floor under their bed with her child.

In comparison to the statistics for divorce, the financial numbers for divorced and separated women are far more alarming. According to a recent survey of women of all income groups, 46 percent of the women never received their awarded maintenance, “and of those who received them, 60 percent said the funds did not come on time.” In terms of dowry, a paltry 30 percent recover any part of the assets given by their parents. The survey also “found that 75 percent of women return to their “natal family” – parents or brothers. Nearly half reported they had no income, and 28 percent earned less than $50 a month.”

The kicker: If the woman files for a divorce, she “has virtually zero chance of obtaining a financial settlement of any kind.”

The data also points to an overlooked problem with Indian divorce laws. We can — and likely will — fix the marital property laws at some point. The government has announced plans to introduce a limited corrective that will allow the courts to award the woman a share in the matrimonial property if she has contributed to the same.

But if we can’t enforce existing alimony laws, any new amendment is likely to be as meaningless in practice. The reality is that unless we fix our broken judicial process and change a corrosive societal mindset, there is little legal redress for women trapped in abusive marriages.

Where more affluent women can and will continue to survive these lopsided laws, what is a woman like Rajesha to do? Her solution: “If I don’t go back, I’ve got nothing. I’ll never have anything.”