Why Indian women must shun sex to claim alimony

[royalscot]

Why Indian women must shun sex to claim alimony - BBC News

A court in southern India recently ruled that a woman divorced for being adulterous could not claim maintenance from her ex-husband. The ruling by Justice S Nagamuthu of the Madras high court may be legally sound, but the language of the judgement is worrying women's activists, writes the BBC's Geeta Pandey in Delhi.
Justice Nagamuthu's ruling that to claim alimony, a woman must maintain "discipline" - in other words, remain celibate - even after her divorce has kicked up a hornet's nest in India.
Indian law denies alimony to a wife "living in adultery".
The high court order said that since a ruling by the Family Court which had initially granted the divorce had accepted that the woman, identified as Kanimozhi in court documents, was adulterous, she was clearly not entitled to any maintenance from her ex-husband.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Not a bad idea. This could be a useful idea to consider to combat the epidemic of divorce and adultery in the West. Should apply same way for men though too in my opinion.

 

[royalscot]

Not a bad idea. This could be a useful idea to consider to combat the epidemic of divorce and adultery in the West. Should apply same way for men though too in my opinion.

that is the problem, why is the man, not restricted by the same law the women is. so is it, i do what i want(the man) and (the woman) , you do as i tell you. however this is not western law, and if your have never split with a wife, then how would this affect your opinion. how can this stop divorce, even with restrictions of law, even in jesus time on earth, there was divorce.

 

[Utah]

The smell of curry should make that discipline quite easy.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

that is the problem, why is the man, not restricted by the same law the women is. so is it, i do what i want(the man) and (the woman) , you do as i tell you. however this is not western law, and if your have never split with a wife, then how would this affect your opinion. how can this stop divorce, even with restrictions of law, even in jesus time on earth, there was divorce.

Why it is only for the woman, that I do not know. Perhaps something cultural pertaining to India? This be something to ask our brothers in India more about maybe.

I have never been married much less divorced, but this effects my opinion for the scourge of adultery and divorce is very prevalent in America. It is sadly so popular it is unavoidable. It affects the entirety of society very negatively in many ways from something as simple as finances and law to the very complicated such as culture, romance, and mental health.

Yea I suppose we can't stop it totally while the world continues, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try for the sake of the greater good. Even a slight reduction in the rampant divorce and adultery epidemics would be a major victory. For instance even just a slight reduction would of course help to foster a more moral culture, it would obviously put less people in the poor house, it would potentially reduce mental health problems in children and adults, and even in a legalistic manner a huge proportion of US law and court cases have to deal with divorce. Reducing adultery and divorce reduces problems on many fronts collectively.

 

[royalscot]

strange thought i had today, when the guy asked jesus about divorce , why did nobody ask, why can the king, like soloman , have over 700 wife,(and concubines) yet the average man can only have one wife. yet this practice is still happening in some parts of the world. ie king have more that one wife. etc

 

[royalscot]

Why it is only for the woman, that I do not know. Perhaps something cultural pertaining to India? This be something to ask our brothers in India more about maybe.

I have never been married much less divorced, but this effects my opinion for the scourge of adultery and divorce is very prevalent in America. It is sadly so popular it is unavoidable. It affects the entirety of society very negatively in many ways from something as simple as finances and law to the very complicated such as culture, romance, and mental health.

Yea I suppose we can't stop it totally while the world continues, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try for the sake of the greater good. Even a slight reduction in the rampant divorce and adultery epidemics would be a major victory. For instance even just a slight reduction would of course help to foster a more moral culture, it would obviously put less people in the poor house, it would potentially reduce mental health problems in children and adults, and even in a legalistic manner a huge proportion of US law and court cases have to deal with divorce. Reducing adultery and divorce reduces problems on many fronts collectively.

but, up until you are in the position of needing a divorce, then how to stop it, happening, is beyond humans ideas, because there are so many divorces in the west , its down to 3-1 who get married , it will end in divorce. in the west if i remember correct.


in simple terms, if your not in that position, then it is easy to speculate in what to do. if your in that position then it up to you how you get out of it. but even ,in the old covenant there was a get out clause for sin, animal to temple. etc

the report dose not say if it was an arranged marriage . more to the point , how different things are to the western way ie of divorce. etc

for example, she or he has meet someone else, so the other is left , because of there unfaithfulness.

unlike the west the woman is being punished more, that if it happen in the west. culture difference make differences to how we, in the west would see this etc.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

but, up until you are in the position of needing a divorce, then how to stop it, happening, is beyond humans ideas, because there are so many divorces in the west , its down to 3-1 who get married , it will end in divorce. in the west if i remember correct.


in simple terms, if your not in that position, then it is easy to speculate in what to do. if your in that position then it up to you how you get out of it. but even ,in the old covenant there was a get out clause for sin, animal to temple. etc

the report dose not say if it was an arranged marriage . more to the point , how different things are to the western way ie of divorce. etc

for example, she or he has meet someone else, so the other is left , because of there unfaithfulness.

unlike the west the woman is being punished more, that if it happen in the west. culture difference make differences to how we, in the west would see this etc.

I think it is a weak argument to say you have to be going through, or have gone through, a divorce to understand it or to try to reduce and eliminate it. It be like saying you have to have been shot to understand gun violence or to want to stop guns. One doesn't have to be married and divorced to understand that divorce is quite bad and the negative effects thereof are numerous and apparent for anyone to see.

I don't see this as the woman being punished more than the man. It could be cultural, but then it could be as simple as the fact that it is typically the man that pays alimony. The effects of a divorce is punishment enough for both. I don't think a man or woman should have to pay because their spouse was unfaithful, that itself seems to be unjustly punishing the victim.

I suppose theory is that such a measure as this would serve to deter cheating, remarriage, and common scams wherein a man or woman simply are getting married and divorced for financial gain.

I agree there is no way to fully eradicate divorce and adultery in this terrible world, but any little reduction will have a cumulative effect of good for people both on the individual level and the whole of society. As where increases in divorce and adultery have a cumulative bad effect. Therefore I reason it be prudent at the least for consideration.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

strange thought i had today, when the guy asked jesus about divorce , why did nobody ask, why can the king, like soloman , have over 700 wife,(and concubines) yet the average man can only have one wife. yet this practice is still happening in some parts of the world. ie king have more that one wife. etc

Lol howbeit you live in a monarchy and don't understand the Way of Kings? Kings will do as they please, whether for right or for wrong.

Either way though, one can see clearly that Solomon's many wives were his bane. For they caused him to set up abominations and therefore God tore his kingdom in two.

 

[royalscot]

I think it is a weak argument to say you have to be going through, or have gone through, a divorce to understand it or to try to reduce and eliminate it. It be like saying you have to have been shot to understand gun violence or to want to stop guns. One doesn't have to be married and divorced to understand that divorce is quite bad and the negative effects thereof are numerous and apparent for anyone to see.

I don't see this as the woman being punished more than the man. It could be cultural, but then it could be as simple as the fact that it is typically the man that pays alimony. The effects of a divorce is punishment enough for both. I don't think a man or woman should have to pay because their spouse was unfaithful, that itself seems to be unjustly punishing the victim.

I suppose theory is that such a measure as this would serve to deter cheating, remarriage, and common scams wherein a man or woman simply are getting married and divorced for financial gain.

I agree there is no way to fully eradicate divorce and adultery in this terrible world, but any little reduction will have a cumulative effect of good for people both on the individual level and the whole of society. As where increases in divorce and adultery have a cumulative bad effect. Therefore I reason it be prudent at the least for consideration.

i dont have an argument, there is two different cultures, and the culture difference in this news topic, is out of my culture, yet the woman in the rerport culture, is getting emotional blackmailed, because of the law. and because of my culture seems unfair. etc
in simple terms, when can i answer, for what an other person dose. i can understand both sides. yet its still there choice, in how they go forward. the law however is a third party, that seems to chasten the woman, more that the man. so when is law equal to both etc

 

[royalscot]

Lol howbeit you live in a monarchy and don't understand the Way of Kings? Kings will do as they please, whether for right or for wrong.

Either way though, one can see clearly that Solomon's many wives were his bane. For they caused him to set up abominations and therefore God tore his kingdom in two.

all the kings, have more that one wife. (in the old testament)if all kings are men. then who said, they can have more than one. strange but true, lol

 

[GodIsSalvation]

i dont have an argument, there is two different cultures, and the culture difference in this news topic, is out of my culture, yet the woman in the rerport culture, is getting emotional blackmailed, because of the law. and because of my culture seems unfair. etc
in simple terms, when can i answer, for what an other person dose. i can understand both sides. yet its still there choice, in how they go forward. the law however is a third party, that seems to chasten the woman, more that the man. so when is law equal to both etc

I agree with much of this too, both in the principles and as reflective of a good part of modern British cultural view on the topic.

Though then one might be of the thought that if the government/law's involvement is problematic that the government shouldn't even have the ability to compel alimony or payments or many other measures at all. So one can see why divorce and adultery problems make up a substantial part of the culture and system because of their complexity. The overall goal should always be the hope for the best of both people as well as justice. In our shared Anglo-Western cultures the benefit is that the government is not so assertive in the matter, but most often serves as an arbiter and enforcer of what are essentially personal contracts. The problem with this though is it does not actually get to fixing the direct problems of divorce and adultery. It can pretty much only address the symptoms or the aftereffects.

The problem as you have shown with having the law and government more involved is that even though you could pretty effectively reduce the root problems the after effects could be handled harshly or unjustly, with the law having to come between the two people even if for say they were content to just go their ways quietly. Or by oppressing one person above what is all ready punishment enough being the divorce and adultery itself.

In a way a novel solution might be to cherry pick a little bit of both. Like keep the government in its more passive role in the matters of divorce serving as merely an overseer of a contract, but perhaps have them get a little harder; not punishing the people, but not giving them incentives either.