Indian Flag

India’s “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Law”

Recently there has been a spate of discussions in the media on the upcoming Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Law (IrBM). Some important highlights of the proposed bill are:

  • Divorce can now be filed as a ‘No-fault Divorce’ stating that marriage has broken down irretrievably;
  • Husbands do not have the right to oppose the divorce petition filed by their wives, whereas the wives can oppose the divorce petition filed by the husbands. Hence, the irretrievable break down of marriage can only be claimed by a wife and not the husband as husband’s petition can be challenged by the wife;
  • All the property of the husband that he currently owns and his ancestral property (inherited or inheritable) will be divided between the husband and the wife.

Some arguments that have been promulgated for supporting this bill during media debates are:

1) Poverty is a gender issue and it is primarily women who are poor in India: This is a baseless argument as the data shows just the opposite. Two most important features of poverty are malnutrition and substandard healthcare due to which the life expectancy reduces and deaths due to diseases increase respectively.

  • Average Life Expectancy of women in India is higher than males at 65, compared to males at 62. This implies that women live longer and healthier, hence have lower malnutrition[i];
  • Health care facilities are better for women than compared to males. WHO data shows that deaths due to diseases and injuries for males is 883.2 as compared to women as 788.7 (per 100,000). Hence, women have better access to healthcare as compared to the male counterparts[ii].

Therefore based on the above facts it is the men who live a substandard life as compared to women.

2) Stigma of Single women- they cannot rent a house in cities: How does inability to rent a house have anything to do with property rights and divorce laws. If housing societies do not allow single women to buy/rent flats then an amendment in Co-operative Housing Society Act is required and not the passing of IrBM. These two points and issues are completely unrelated.

3) Price of Love and Price of Care that women invest in a relationship should be paid: This point has come in various debates and in various forms. Treating marriage like an economic relationship is completely incorrect. Even if we assume that the feminists are treating marriage as an economic relationship, then the wife’s due was paid by her husband during the marriage by way of providing love and care to his wife. The husband also provided for necessities like food, clothing, shelter, vacations etc… Post-divorce, there is no love or care given by the wife hence, no payment is required by the man. Any payment to wife post marriage is an ‘unjust enrichment’ to the wife.

4) It is important for the woman to have a home as 80% of women keep children: Some important questions brought up in this point are:

  • No source has been quoted of this 80% number;
  • Why is it only important for the woman to have a home? Why is it not important for a man to have a home? Are men disposable or are they second citizens?
  • Why can’t the women work are create their own home? Are they not able bodied?

Baseless reasoning such as this promotes parasitism, which is not healthy for any living organism or society.

5) For the past 5000 years women were treated as second class citizens and hence taking into account their increased development and literacy rates (etc) over the past 15 years is deemed invalid: We should all note that laws are passed keeping in mind the situation as of the present date – not 5000 years back. As of the current date women are empowered, and their status 5000 years back (which we do not know much about) has no bearing on the present situation. Therefore this argument does not hold water.

6) Parents do not give any property to their daughter: If parents don’t give a share of their property to their daughters then a law should be passed to enforce women’s share at their maternal homes. Why pass IrBM for that? If is akin to saying that if company ‘A’ does not pay salary to their employees then company ‘B’ is liable to pay it. This is an illogical and unfair argument in support of this bill.

7) Women give birth to babies therefore they should get the property: Every female mammal on this earth gives birth to a baby, which is how nature has made them. Asking for property rights because women give birth to babies is preposterous. Such arguments should not even be entertained by the debate show hosts.

8) In the past women were treated like chattels (property): In the past laws were not as well developed as they are today. There were no human rights or any such thing. We had crude laws and property laws were the only laws that were more or less enforceable. Hence, women might have been treated like chattels to protect them in the society. Further, men were not even treated like chattel. In case of any contingency they were supposed to lay down their lives to protect their property ie. Men were SECOND to chattel. Feminists have not been able to provide any evidence to support any claim that in stable societies women were treated badly. Further, again we are discussing things of the past, today we have well established human rights and personal laws and no person is treated as chattel. Laws are to be made taking into account today’s situations and not the situation which existed 5000 years back.

9) India is a male dominated society: This argument has many different versions such as patriarchy, no representation and oppression. How do we define domination? One method of defining domination is by looking at the political representation of the group. A group with a higher political representation controls the making of laws and is the dominant group in a democracy. This is because the elected representatives need to do as directed by electorate. As per the Election Commission of India, the voters of India were:

Year

Men (% votes)

Women (% votes)

Source

1999

40.01%

59.99%

  [iii]

2004

41.93%

58.07%

  [iv]

2009

45.8%

54.2%

  [v]

The dominant group from the above data is clearly the women of India, as they are nearly 60% of the voters, and not the men. Therefore stating that India is a male dominated society is incorrect, as the data speaks otherwise.

The bill is unfair, unjust, and gender biased because:

  • Only women have been given a right to oppose a divorce. Men cannot oppose a divorce petition filed by women. This clause seems to clearly discriminate against men;
  • Only property (ancestral or owned) of men is to be divided. Property of women is not to be considered;
  • In case of a no-fault divorce, other cases such as domestic violence and 498A can continue. If it is no-fault divorce then how can other cases based on fault continue?
  • Men are still liable to pay maintenance and alimony to women under other sections of various acts;
  • The bill seems to be against gender equality promised by the Indian Constitution under article 15;
  • Liabilities of men are not considered in the case of division of property. Assume a house was bought on a bank loan, and in case of divorce, 50% of the house will be given to the woman but the man is still liable to pay the entire loan amount. This tantamount to taking away the future assets of the husband. Further, it is yet to be seen how the banking sector would react to this as it is a risk to their security (ie. house) which is mortgaged against the loan.

In other developed countries laws are gender neutral and have the word ‘spouse’ in their language and not ‘wife’ as the case in India. In developed nations each spouse shall be responsible for his or her own support. This has been kept to deter parasitism in their culture.

For example in Sweden maintenance is given when a spouse has difficulty in supporting himself or herself for a transitional period following the divorce. Such transitional maintenance provides the needy spouse with opportunities to seek gainful employment or retraining. Section 7 of Chapter 6 (Maintenance) of the Swedish Marriage Code (Aktenskapsbalken) is: “Following a divorce, each spouse shall be responsible for his or her own support. If a contribution towards the maintenance of either spouse is needed for a transitional period, that spouse shall be entitled to receive maintenance payments from the other spouse on the basis of what is reasonable in view of the latter’s ability and other circumstances.”  

Further, Sweden has a concept of personal property and marital property. Property jointly acquired by the spouses is treated as marital property. An exception is there, if only one spouse acquires property, then his/her personal property may be treated as marital property.

Further, post the division of marital property, the maintenance and alimony is reduced. (ie. the clauses are not mutually exclusive) [vi].

For example in Germany: A spouse must provide for their own maintenance after divorce (Sections 1569, 1577 BGB). Maintenance may only be granted for an intermittent period till the other spouse retrains so as to be employable. Further, the net worth of the spouses at the time of marriage and after the marriage is calculated. The difference is treated as marital property and property of both spouses is equally divided. An exception is there that if a spouse does not contribute in promoting the economic gain in marital property, he/she is not eligible for anything. Further, adultery and cruelty is given weightage.

In essence, both developed nations treat the property of husband and wife separately and only joint contributed property as marital property. This comes from the tenet that all able bodied persons should be liable for their own upkeep[vii].


[vii] http://www.ejcl.org/123/art123-4.pdf

Please Note: If you have any concerns with any part of this article, do feel free to comment. Your concerns will be appropriately addressed and/or modifications to the article will be made.

About Burt Phoenix

Burt hails from his native India, where he is an accountant by profession. He got fed up of the twisted facts, statistics and analysis presented in the media. He finally joined a men’s human right movement. He loves writing, especially when backed by hard data and honest statistics.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • gateman

    I see several certain unintended outcomes from these sexist laws :

    1- men will avoid marriage altogether and many will GTOW
    2 – some men will choose violence as a means of ending their unwanted marriage (if she refuses the divorce or the divorce effectively enslaves him for the rest of his life)
    3 – parents will no longer transfer wealth to their children as they risk losing it all
    4 – birth rates will decline as marriage becomes unattractive and unaffordable for men
    5 – out-of-wedlock births will rise

    • feeriker

      I’m not sure that these are necessarily “unintended” consequences. Assuming that India is now in the grip of some version of the bankster-military-industrial complex that rules the western world, and that these people have the same goal in mind for India as for the rest of the world:

      Point Number 1: Marriage provides stable families that are the ultimate source of power and influence in a person’s life. Such influence and power represents a direct threat to TPTB and the dystopian society that they wish to impose upon the world. Destroy the incentives for marriage and you destroy the family.

      Point Number 2: The State –or, more accurately, those who control the levers of power– delight in fomenting violence. Violence serves as a justification for the State to arrogate more power to itself in order to “fix” the very problem it caused/encouraged in the first place.

      Point Number 3: Parents will probably lose most, if not all of their wealth anyway, through a combination of confiscatory taxation, monetary inflation, forfeiture/expropriation, and economic collapse, to name just a few causes.

      Point Number 4: In countries such as India and China, where overpopulation has always been a threat, a declining birthrate is in TPTB’s best interests. This is mostly because a smaller population is easier to control and manipulate (refer back to point number 1).

      Point Number 5: Again, see my explanation for point number 1. The family represents the biggest existential threat to TPTB. If, in a society in which reproduction is discouraged, what few children are born are born into bastardy, the family is threatened with extinction, thereby rendering children most susceptible to control, influence, and indoctrination by the State and those who control it.

    • se_men

      “out-of-wedlock births” in India is counted as ”Marriage’, also any living relationship is also counted as marriage and the woman will be given the rights of wife, before and after break-up. Men will simply have to go with dolls / prostitutes and childless.

  • confusion

    I for one applaud the Indian judiciary for helping to break the strong religious and social norms pressuring men to marry by making it completely unfeasible and a very clear and obvious danger to Indian men.
    Sounds like it already was, so the more obvious the disincentives the better.

  • Deucalion

    I never did like India as a nation. Won’t go into specifics as to why, but this just makes me dislike them even more.

    • Bewildered

      How are you different from the feminists ? What does liking or hating a nation even mean ?
      LOL! when it comes to India you have about billion choices and if you say you hate them what does that make you?

      • Deucalion

        “How are you different from the feminists?”
        A question that stupid deserves no response.

        But let me just say I find a country that seems to continually be either on the brink of a golden age or a dark age just irks me. I mean, they churn out amazing people from their universities and yet have rampant poverty.
        I just cannot tell if their nation is coming or going.
        Then again half the world seems to be like that, so the list of “nations I dislike” does not begin, nor end, with India. Have no problem with the people, just the nation they’ve created. Same for America (Which I’m sad to admit I’m a citizen of).
        And I never said I hate the people, that’s you acting like a feminist and twisting words. Congratulations.

        • Deucalion

          And actually, now that I’ve thought about it… I don’t think I “Like” any nation… I tried to think “What nations do I actually like?” And came back with nothing! All nations are is a big circlejerk based on the geographical location of habitation. Just another wall to divide us, really. But in the case of India, I think it’s the same problem I have with the USA. But again, when it comes down to it, I don’t think I like even the idea of a nation…

  • Jared Spencer

    This really isn’t making the marital view any more attractive. I suppose there will just be more single folks and fewer productive families, in the end.

    • Bewildered

      Probably it’s an ingenious way of keeping the population under control !

      • feeriker

        That’s it exactly.

  • http://themrmglossary.blogspot.com/ dhanu

    Allow me to expose some of the bald-faced lies in the feminist claims. Those claims might cause confusion in the minds of people from other countries because they’ve mostly known about India from the feminist-biased media sources. I’ve constantly seen the Western mainstream media referring to India as a male-dominated country, and so the people have the same kind of mentality toward it. This is not surprising. However, what’s surprising is that even some of the red-pillers from the Anglosphere seem to believe that shit! Here’s some truth for the unfamiliar.

    ” If housing societies do not allow single women to buy/rent flats then an amendment in Co-operative Housing Society Act is required and not the passing of IrBM. These two points and issues are completely unrelated.”

    What? Can someone believe the any Housing Agency would do that? Not only is this untrue, but there are special government and non-government accommodation facilities for the single women, for example, hostels for working women (who come to work from another city) in every city, but not a single one for working men. Many hotels, inns, and even the landlords in the cities won’t allow single men, bet are pefectly happy to allow single women. (In order to get the accommodation, men must be accompanied by a woman who is a relative of his and not just any woman.)

    “It is important for the woman to have a home as 80% of women keep children.”

    Even if this number is correct, that only shows how the Indian Kangaroo courts are biased against the men in the cases of child custody, just like any other countries’. So first snatch away men’s children from them and then demand extra facilities for the women in the name of “best interest of the child”? Good trick.

    “Parents do not give any property to their daughter: If parents don’t give a share of their property to their daughters then a law should be passed to enforce women’s share at their maternal homes.”

    There already is a law. Does someone believe there’s not? The parents’ property is divided equally among their children, male and female (including the married ones). So the above point is another feminist lie.

  • KeanoReeves

    People will find this difficult to believe, but groom kidnapping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groom_kidnapping) where men are forced to marry women against their will. This will only increase.

    People will hide their assets. Tax collection will plummet

    • Bombay

      I just put this video on hold at the library. Thanks.

  • Turbo

    That bill really is sickening. This is not “no-fault” divorce, this is “his fault” divorce.

    In what is a close competition for the most misandric country in the world, India must now be very close to the top. Actually, I should say bottom, because this certainly is a race to the bottom for men’s human rights.

    I will say one thing for the Indian feminist bureaucracy. They do not seem to feel that they must use gender neutral language, they just come right out and legislate that men are sub human. Unlike western feminist bureaucracies which hide behind gender neutral language whilst shafting men in reality.

  • MRaChetan

    It is one more blind and biased law which will:
    1. kill men
    2. bring pros culture in society
    3.harassment to old age parents.
    4.spread Legal terrorism worst then 498a and DV
    5.Unrest in family and society
    6.Incapacitating intentionally by fraud women.
    7.crime in country will increase

  • Xayadvara

    Thanks AVfM for giving this much needed boost – Might as well expect a surge in Indian hits here now.

  • Bewildered

    In developed nations each spouse shall be responsible for his or her own support. This has been kept to deter parasitism in their culture.

    But parasites are very hardy creatures ,you just can’t keep them out with laws which have gaping loop holes !
    So expect deadlier parasites in India and realize why people need to wake the fuck up .

  • kartik_chau

    Thank you for the article . Really appreciate help in this fight . Can you also pin this link http://t.co/sO1hqamH3n on your website and forward it to users.

    Mostly men lose out because we are bad at registering our voice and make up numbers in such protest . This petition http://t.co/sO1hqamH3n intends to exactly take care of that by getting each individual dissenting voice to govt. Will you help us ???

  • Bharat Darshan

    For 1999,
    http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf

    Page 8: Total Number of Voters 371,669,104
    Page 144: Total Women Voters 164,539,004

    Hence Men Voters : Women Voters = 55.73 : 44.27

  • Bharat Darshan

    For 2004.
    http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_2004/Vol_I_LS_2004.pdf

    Page 10: Total Number of Voters 671,487,930
    Page 167: Total Women Voters 389,948,330
    Hence, Men Voters : Women Voters = 55.71 : 44.29