Why marriage is a losing game for urban men?

The social reality for any kind of marriage has changed in India, I think after year 2001 or so. (Maybe it coincided with large scale job creation for middle classes).

Now, a woman who earns 1/3rd income of husband and gets housework done through maids etc paid for by husband; still thinks she is in some way superior to husband.  This is the effect of financial freedom (read parasitic freedom) and easy social environment for women in large cities at least.

Some women may actually be doing good work in managing both career and household, but the point I am making is not about contribution to family, but about respect for both spouses in marriage.

For example these days in urban areas, if a woman earns 5K per month, hubby earns 15K per month.  The power equation is not same as if woman earned 0, and hubby earned 10K.

Taking another example, a woman earns 15K per month, hubby earns 45K per month.  The power equation is not same as if woman earned 0, and hubby earned 30K.

In all such cases, woman has become more powerful, due to influence of like minded earning-women, and constant media talk of woman empowerment.  The gender biased laws are the final weapons for unscrupulous women which give them that audacity to go out to police and courts, and create havoc.  Much larger is the number of women who do not openly threaten their husbands but are simply dominating, and disrespectful to their men.  Men at the receiving end of such relationships may continue to suffer the abuse because:

1. They are used to the marriage, marriage is a one in a lifetime affair for most Indians, and no one is prepared to even think about life after a broken marriage.
2. Men with children fear for future and upbringing of children in a broken marriage.
3. Many men are somewhat aware of the gender biased laws which wives/in-laws can use and make men run around courts, lawyers for long time to come, given pathetically slow justice in India.
4. Men have the burden of manhood thrust on them by society.  A broken marriage casts automatic suspicion on man of being not manly enough in some way to be able to ‘control’ his wife.  Imbecile may be too strong a word, but many men worry about being labelled something close to that if their wife leaves them

========================================
Coming back to the analysis, how is a woman earning 15K vs hubby earning 45 K /mth become more powerful than hubby?
========================================

Well if she is one of feminist supremacists, she is.

She can file for DV, maintenance etc and expect to get 12-15K per month as maintenance.  Or more likely she will get hubby to knees by threat of legal and criminal cases and extort some financial favour and property etc.

So after maintenance case wife's income: 15K + 12K = 27K
And hubby's income: 45K - 12K = 33 K

Now they have come close to each other in terms of income.  And woman still has sympathy of society because no one is ready to believe yet that Indian women will tell outright lies about marriage.

If she has child with her, she can extract more in name of child, so she now becomes financially equally powerful as husband.

Most Indian courts will give custody to mothers unless the mother does not want custody and leaves child(ren) with husband.  So a man is set to lose both money, property, and children in case a woman is determined even a little bit to stick it to him.  The rest is taken care of by greedy lawyers, corruptible mediators, and a meek judiciary who cannot bear to stand up to women organisations’ (read feminists’) propaganda.

The laws and social reality in cities has tilted in favour of married women who want to bend the system to their will.  The system is ostensibly created to support needy and oppressed women, but in reality laws like Domestic violence act (PWDVA) etc were always meant to be abused to favour female supremacists’ agenda and create income for lawyers.

See how Indian judges don’t allow perjury on women!

This judgment below is just one example how the Indian judges treat women as precious commodity.  Read the sentences in bold below to see how the trial court blankly refused to prosecute a woman for perjury in her maintenance case.  The ostensible reason given is so that the parties can avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute.  As if people come to court to hug each other!

 

    CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                       CHANDIGARH

                               CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)

                               Date of decision: 25-1-2010

 Sunny Bhumbla .........Appellant Vs

Shashi .........Respondent   CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant.  HARBANS LAL, J.

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008  Annexure
P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)  Saheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved  under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights  leaving the parties to
bear their own costs and rejected the application  moved under Section 195/340
Cr.P.C.

            I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides
perusing the record with due care and circumspection.  The learned counsel for
the appellant has submitted with great  eloquence that after the respondent
admitted in her cross-examination about  her employment, salary and inheritance
of the landed property, she again  placed on record another affidavit dated
27.8.2008 solemnly affirming  therein that she had inadvertently not mentioned
about the source of income  as well as employment in the earlier affidavit dated
14.8.2008. Thereafter  the appellant moved an application under Section 195 of
Cr.P.C. for  initiating proceedings against the respondent for submitting a
false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2  before the learned trial Court,
in order to get more maintenance from the  appellant. The learned trial Court
had assured the appellant that his said  application shall be decided alongwith
the main case. While deciding the  main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the
judgment it has been observed that  "in support of her claim for interim
maintenance under Section 24 of the  Hindu Marriage Act, the
respondent/applicant had made certain assertions,  which were found to be
totally false and the same had apparently been done  by her in a deliberate
manner. Consequently even an application for  initiating suitable proceedings
against her on account of her having  submitted a false affidavit was also filed
by the petitioner on 3.9.2008.  Thereafter, the respondent did not press her
claim for interim maintenance,  but the same did not absolve her of the
liability of the aforesaid lapse. This  court, however, does not wish to
initiate any such proceedings against the  respondent with the hope that sooner
or later, the parties may be in a  position to resolve their dispute or else
this young couple may adopt such  other means so that they can part their ways
in a peaceful manner and  therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of
the matrimonial  dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false
affidavit etc.  is being initiated against the respondent."

             It is further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked
the fact that the respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial
proceedings. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating,
forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by  the
learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195  read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.

 CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3  I have given a deep and thoughtful
consideration to these  submissions.

            A careful perusal of the observations rendered by the learned  trial
Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment would reveal that  there is
not even a shred of reference to the application moved under  Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons  have been apportioned
for not initiating the action on the basis of the  alleged affidavit. The said
application having been moved under the  provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was required to be disposed  of separately. It was not desirable on
the part of the learned trial Court to  decide the said application in a slip
shod manner by making mere passing  reference to the alleged affidavit. In the
application moved under Section  340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit,the
inquiry has to be held whereas  in the present one, the impugned order is
absolutely silent as to whether or  not inquiry was held. There is specific
procedure which is to be followed  while disposing of an application moved under
Section 340 of the Criminal  Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code reads as  under:-

            "340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195--(1) When, upon  an
application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court  is of the opinion
that it is expedient in the interest of justice that  an inquiry should be made
into any offence referred to to in cl  (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195,
which appears to have  been committed in or in relation to to a proceeding in
that  Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a document  produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it  thinks necessary.

         (a) record a finding to that effect.

         (b) make a complaint thereof in writing

         (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having  jurisdiction.

         (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused  before
such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-  bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send  the accused in custody to such Magistrate;
and  (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before  such
Magistrate.

         (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in  respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court has  neither made a complaint under
sub-section (1) in respect of  that offence nor rejected an application for the
making of such  complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former  Court
is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of  Sec.195.

               (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed  (a)
where the Court making complaint is a High Court,  by such officer of the Court
as the Court may  appoint.

               (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the  Court,
and

               (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in CRA No.
197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 5  Sec.195."

            A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the  learned
trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340  Cr.P.C. The
approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome  and is depreciable.
The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the  application has been
dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons.  In consequence of the preceding
discussion the trial Court is  directed to decide the application under
discussion in accordance with law.  This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

   (HARBANS LAL)

                                                      JUDGE

   January 25, 2010

RSK

NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No