ROLLBACK IrBM (No Fault Divorce)

Click on following link to understand MAD Bill 


MEN Killer PRS IrBM proposed in 2013




IrBM Comprehension You should know it





 Know your Speedy Divorce

IrBM Banner – Explanation & Side Effects



Marriage Amendment Bill 2010

(explained as per current media reports)

IrBM in 125 Seconds

Blog Link:

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Two Judgments Announced:
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006Before we part with this case, on the consideration of the totality of facts, this Court would like to recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce.
Ms. Jordan Diengdeh vs S.S. Chopra on 10 May, 1985It is thus seen that the law relating to judicial separation, divorce and nullity of marriage is far, far from uniform. Surely the time has now come for a complete reform of the law of marriage and make a uniform law applicable to all people irrespective of religion or caste. It appears to be necessary to introduce irretrievable break down of marriage and mutual consent as grounds of divorce in all cases.
While awarding Alimony under Hindu Marriage Act, the Judge takes into consideration on ONLY the Net Worth of the Husband, then why a new law required dividing the same assets? Isn’t that Double Jeopardy? Alimony decisions from the Hon’ble Courts are based only on Husband’s worth while wife’s assets are not even considered.
When Domestic Violence Law defines that Economic Violence as Husband not allowing wife to work, then if a wife is MAKING PERSONAL choice of not working, why should the Husband Pay?
This Bill even doubts the capabilities of the Courts of India and hence is pushing for the percentage of Division without allowing a Hon’ble Judge to use his/her wisdom.

DISCLAIMER: This Blog and Post is the Personal Opinion of the Writer and does not necessarily show or define our thought process.



Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage ( IrBM ) – Calculator






If each victim of law abuse of all the groups dare to talk about law abuse in general public forums, we could do 1 year’s awareness in just 10 days.

 Issue is we ourselves are sometimes hesitant to discuss issues of Law Misuse of Wrong Laws in making in open public, fearing, “what will people think?”

 We need to learn from few who, with full conviction, could talk in open forums about IrBM or the Law Misuse.

 What wrong are we discussing? What wrong are we saying? What wrong are we talking? NOTHING.

 If any of us is missing conviction in what we feel / reply / talk about Gender Biased Laws and IrBM, please read the ammunition already available on various blogs / forums of SIF.

 On IrBM, as per our info, here is the current Situation, as of TODAY (19th June 2013):

 1. IrBM is currently having Marital Property (by default), Pre-Marriage Husband’s property (by default) AND Inheritable and Inheritance property too.

 2. IrBM currently talks about NET WORTH of the Husband to be divided (moveable and immoveable assets)

  3. Currently it is with 11 Member GOM who have to sit, discuss and finalize the FINAL DRAFT before Monsoon Session of the Parliament.

 4. Though Monsoon Session of the Parliament starts on 26th July 2013, some parties is trying to prepone the session (and hence the voting on the Final Draft)








What needs to be done (more “ACTIONS” can be added)

 A.) Meet GOMs (with/without) appointment and tell them how is this Law dangerous

 B.) Meet your Local MLAs / MPs NOW (before they leave your local cities and fly to Delhi for Monsoon Session)

 C.) Send Letter, Postcards, SMS, Emails, FAX, Calls to GOMs with our demands

 D.) Send Letter, Postcards, SMS, Emails, FAX, Calls to ALL MPs & MLAs with our demands

 E.) Sign all the Online Petitions (Daily alerts coming on the groups)

 F.) File PIL against IrBM

 G.) File Petitions to stop IrBM with authorities

 H.) File RTIs with Law Commission, Law Ministry asking the current IrBM draft

 I.) Fill Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, Orkut, Google+, etc. etc.) against IrBM : ENSURE IT IS DONE TO GENERAL PUBLIC AS WITHIN OUR GROUPS, PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW

 J.) Few members can make small email teams and email continuously asking friends to sign our Online Petitions


 L.) Email, Letters, Meetings with Bankers, Financers who provide Home / Car / Personal Loans

 M.) Email, Letters, Meetings with Builders, Real Estate Website who provide residential / COMMERCIAL properties

 N.) Emails, Letters, Meetings with Industry groups (like CII / ASSOCHAM etc) on how will IrBM increase NPAs and hence effect India’s market and take it towards the biggest Mortgage crisis the way USA went few years back

 O.) Email, Letters, Meetings with Religious Leaders against IrBM destroying Marriages

 P.) Organize Local Dharna / Activities / Events / Campaigns / Pamphlet distribution to general public against IrBM

 Q.) Keep writing/talking/mentioning/spreading to MEDIA against IrBM

 R.) Keep commenting on online News Articles of famous newspapers and take logical discussions about IrBM

 S.) Keep participating in Public Meetings, Public Rallies with either Anti IrBM Banners or take the mic for questions about IrBM


 Hope, with this exhaustive list, members will NOT feel “WHAT CAN WE DO”.Please read this, spread this, Act on this OR DO WHATEVER YOU FEEL WOULD HELP ………….. BUT SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT BEFORE INDIAN HUSBANDS ARE SHOT (including you).

Also, I feel most of us are thinking that since IrBM is such a high priority, someone ELSE will surely be working on it. WHO IS, IF YOU ARE NOT?

 Officially announcing, stopping this law is NOT the job of few.

 Your property is your right and YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. You dont act, no one else is acting to save your property.

  RUN or keep Sleeping.

 Good Morning to those who are ready to take this up for THEMSELVES.

 Others, Good Night – you are sleeping in your coffin.



 Why IrBM should be rolled back

Consider a scenario, where someone accuses you of theft and you are bound by law to not contest the accusation.  In addition, the law compels the judge to award a part of your property to the accuser. If this situation seems preposterous, then better be warned, that a law exactly of this sort is being introduced. The only catch here is the victim who could be falsely accused is going to be the Hindu Married Male.

Marriage Law Amendment Bill (2010) is being pushed through this parliament session. This is a law which is the most undemocratic and draconian to have been introduced in India yet.

This law is being passed to introduce Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage(IrBM) as a new ground for divorce which would be completely anti-male and antifamily system:

1)       According to this law, both husband and wife can file for a divorce on the grounds that the marriage has been irretrievably broken down.

2)       The wife can contest a petition filed by husband on grounds of financial hardship

3)       A husband cannot contest a petition filed against him. It must be noted, that even dreaded terrorists get a chance to contest any petition against them, but this law forbids the right to contest a petition on a husband, thereby being in contradiction to the basic tenets of judicial system anywhere in the civilized world.

4)       The wife upon quoting ‘financial hardship’ will get 50% of husband’s residential property to take care of her needs.

5)       Financial position of the wife, her assets is not being considered at all, neither is her capability to earn nor her education. All this, when the husband cannot even contest the petition against him.

6)       While the distribution of assets has been allowed, the distribution of liabilities is not at all mentioned. So the husband keeps the loans & mortgages and wife keeps the assets.

7)       HMA Sec 24, where an unemployed husband can demand maintenance from his earning wife, was introduced to make law more gender neutral. This law is regressive in that aspect.

8)       The parliament has been trying to push this law without proper discussion & national debate. We oppose this tyrannical nature of governance and demand a Joint Parliamentary Committee probe into the manner in which the amendments to this law are being pushed.

In case the law is passed in its present format, then

1)       What happens to the parents of the husband whose responsibility lies on the husband?

2)       The responsibility of a husband towards his siblings is completely ignored and the imminent financial hardship imposed on them should also be considered.

3)       There have been multiple reports in media about gold-diggers, women who marry to usurp wealth of unsuspecting males. Where is the provision to discourage someone using this law as a tool to harass men and their families and become divorcee-millionaires?

4)       The grooms family will be wary of the possible hostile takeover by the to-be-wed bride. Will they not be tempted to secure themselves from such an eventuality & hence might ask the bride to also contribute in the grooms property? Will this not further encourage practice of dowry?

In lieu, of the above stated facts, in the larger interest of the nation this law should be withdrawn, all parties affected by this should be consulted and then a law must be formed, instead of imposing a biased law on the society.





If we look at History of IrBM:
START : 2010

STAGE 1: Supreme Court of India advises Law Commission to enact the Law in name of Divorce under IrBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) or Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage under HMA.

STAGE 2: NCW (National Commission of Wives) with Law Commission comes up with a draft of IrBM which has NO MENTION of Property distribution but does talk about only Wife having the right to say NO to Divorce under IrBM.

STAGE 3: Parliamentary Committee is formed which asks for inputs and representation from Public.

STAGE 4: SIFF & Group NGO’s present their concerns to the Parliamentary Committee.

STAGE 5: All concerns and suggestions against format of the Law are turned down because as per NCW, they “dont have the mandate to save men”

STAGE 6: Bill reaches Cabinet (by then silently, Marital Property clause is added).

STAGE 7: Bill is cleared by Cabinet

STAGE 8: Law Ministry under unknown pressure (HAHAHA!! UNKNOWN) changes the “marital property division” to “EQUAL” (meaning 50%)

STAGE 9: Law Ministry under further unknown pressure changes the “Marital Property” with only “Property” (meaning, property even if bought before / during marriage or during ongoing cases)

STAGE 10: Law Ministry under further unknown pressure changes “Property” to “Movable or Immovable Property” (meaning, just not house but flat / cars / wrist watch / frequent flyer points / Fixed Deposits / Insurance returns / etc. etc will be shared)

STAGE 11: Law Ministry again comes under UNKNOWN pressure holds the bill because UNKNOWN pressure groups say that 50% is too less as wife needs to take care of children too (as if Husbands have not been seen filing and fighting cases for Child Custody)







 A sneak peek into Marriage Laws Amendment Bill


By way of Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010 the Govt. of India seeks to introduce a new ground for divorce.

This ground called as the “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” shall provide for No-Fault divorce if a couple is separated for more than 3 years.

This bill was introduced after the Honorable Supreme Court of India recommended the above ground to make divorce easier in Neetu Kohli vs. Naveen Kohli.

After the bill was introduced and debated in the media, due to interference by women NGOs, clauses for grabbing property of husband were introduced.

These clauses made the bill extremely controversial which was met with severe criticism from men’s NGOs.

This article is intended to summarize the views, objections and recommendations of the men’s NGOs.

Salient Features:

The bill has provisions for wife to oppose the divorce on grounds of “Financial Hardship”, however, husband does not have the same right.

Under the guise of “Financial Hardship”, husband’s property will be given to wife.

However, wife’s property won’t be considered.

The bill is silent on child custody related matters.

The bill does not give any significance to various factors like duration of marriage, contribution of wife towards building the property while dividing it.

The bill does not respect pre-nuptials like western countries.

The bill also talks of diving ancestral, inherited and inheritable property of husband in which wife would have provided no contribution towards building it.

The bill is also silent on the status/stature of other matrimonial sections like 498A IPC, Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC, if already filed by the wife on the husband.

The bill does not guarantee either immunity or automatic closure of other litigations, as mentioned above, should divorce be granted under the new ground.

The bill does not contain any safeguards for husband from false cases but does guarantee that he will lose his hard-earned property.

The bill provides provision for quick divorce with wife getting a lot to gain by breaking the marriage.

Major Objections:

Husband does not have right to oppose divorce like a wife can.

Only husband’s property is being considered for division and that too not necessarily jointly acquired marital property.

Property owned by wife is not being considered for division.

Wife’s contribution to property is not being considered at all.

Judiciary has been vested with the power to divide properties despite the known fact that judiciary is anti-male making the bill extremely precarious for men.

Care hasn’t been taken to end long-dragged matrimonial litigation, only quick divorce is being mooted.

Bill is silent on safeguarding husbands from other laws like 498A, Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 etc.

Such lacunae won’t necessarily reduce matrimonial litigation as claimed by the Govt. of India.

A comparison of International Laws:

Rebuttal of Feminist Arguments:

Feminst Argument Rebuttal
Women are dependent on men. No one asked women to be dependent, it’s their choice.
Women sacrifice for family. Men sacrifice much more for family than women, yet they do not enjoy this luxury of free money/property
Women are deserted by men and are left with no means. It’s just women’s version, reality, we haven’t seen women on roads, but men are to be seen when they are thrown off their own houses. Even the Domestic Violence Act has this provision to throw them out of their own house.
It’s a woman’s right. Living off someone can never be a rightful right.
It’s a man’s responsibility. It’s everyone’s responsibility to feed oneself. Feeding others can be a choice at most, it cannot be imposed.
There aren’t enough jobs for women. It’s Govt’s responsibility to create employment for one and all, the husband cannot be burdened with that.
It’s difficult for a woman to eke out a living for herself. It’s a myth spread by feminists, there are enough women earning but not enough taking financial responsibility.



This bill must not be tabled in its current form in the parliament.

Either both the parties should have unobstructed right to oppose divorce or none should have.

Property division should not be a blanket clause, there can be provisions for it with enough safety riders built in.

The bill must not incentivize divorce and marriage breaking.

For the purpose of property division, only property acquired post marriage must be considered.

For calculating share, Govt. must come up with a formula for calculating contribution of each spouse taking into account, duration of marriage, number of children, financial status and earning potential of both husband and wife.

Govt. must rope in Law Commission and the men’s rights activists to derive this formula.

Custody of children and shared parenting must be given due significance and Father’s Rights groups must be consulted for the same.

Women must be first given property share in their father’s property as per Hindu Succession Act.

The bill must have safeguards against other matrimonial litigation like Section 498A, Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 CrPC which are liable to be filed against husband.

If property is being divided then no other mode of payment in the form of maintenance, alimony or one-time settlement should be allowed.

Earning/Educated women should be categorically denied any sort of financial assistance.

In case of housewife with long break in career, assistance can be provided to obtain livelihood but not lifetime alimony or blind property share.


Whichever country has introduced property division clauses in their divorce laws have seen dramatic drop in marriage rates.

There also has been a serious and detrimental dip in demand for real estate in such countries as men have stopped investing in property considering it to be too risky.

Same thing will happen in India should we blindly introduce clauses to enrich parting wife at the cost of husband.

A sneak peek into Marriage Laws Amendment Bill


 A Comparative analysis of property division on divorce in different countries

This analysis is done on divorce laws and specially Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IRBM) and property division on divorce in nations leading in women empowerment denoted by an index called Gender Inequality Index (GII). To find more details on different factors that contribute to calculation of GII please see this short and simple analysis –

Human Development and Gender Equality in India

Netherlands (#1)

In Netherlands the following two conditions need to be satisfied with evidence in order to file a divorce under this section –

a.Continuation of marital cohabitation has become unbearable
b.NO prospects exist for re-establishing a marital relationship to any extent

When both spouses move to court under this act, divorce is granted immediately and no further enquiry or reconciliation is made or attempted by court.

When only one spouse move to court under this section court do not make any inquiry and grants immediate divorce when –

I.Defendant acknowledges of irretrievable breakdown of marriage
II.If the defendant defers to the judgment of the court, and
III.If within six weeks no defense is lodged

Court interferes only when there is objection from one spouse and then the other spouse need to prove marriage breakdown. Also if one spouse can prove grave financial hardship on divorce the couple will be given chance to come to an agreement between themselves. There is no fixed percentage of property share that goes to one spouse. One more interesting fact is any child 12 years or older can oppose any agreement between his parents. Children are also assisted with lawyer services.

Maintenance – While deciding maintenance of a spouse court considers pension from matrimonial property and other factors like his / her ability to maintain self etc. Maintenance is limited to 12 years only for marriages with children and 5 years only for brief marriage and marriages without children.

In Netherlands property acquired by both the spouses including those acquired before marriage is considered as community property and is divided equally on divorce unless agreed otherwise in a pre-nup. Any gifts, inherited property is kept outside this division.

Sweden (#2)

Swedish laws accepts unilateral divorce so even one spouse can move to court based on ‘no-fault’ divorce and the divorce will be granted. Fault has no relevance in Swedish divorce laws.

Here the maintenance granted to one spouse is only for a transitional period and it is assumed that the spouses are supposed to maintain themselves and all financial ties end with their divorce. Also the matrimonial property divided between the spouses has some bearing in the calculation of one’s maintenance needs.

In terms of division of matrimonial assets (property acquired after marriage) is divided after deducting the debts. Also if the property value is less or if one spouse will be in severe disadvantaged position after divorce the property may go to that spouse depending on different conditions. Gifts, inherited property etc are not considered for division.

Switzerland (#3)

In Swiss laws Irretrievable breakdown is a prerequisite in all different provisions of divorce. Generally if a couple lives apart for four years it is considered that the marriage is broken down irretrievably.

Regarding settlement of most of the issues including the spouses are given choice to enter into agreement but in matters relating to children court will interfere and check the best interests for the child.

Maintenance is need based and in terms of division of matrimonial assets, assets of both the spouses are considered and also one’s property worth is considered while calculating the need for maintenance etc.

Denmark (#4)

Any one spouse can seek to live separately without stating any reason and after two years of separation they get divorce under this act.

Maintenance is normally granted for a maximum of 10 years irrespective of how long the couple was married. There is only one type of maintenance payment possible in the form of monthly payments. Maintenance amount is calculated based on claimant’s need for maintenance, other spouse’s ability to pay maintenance, duration of marriage and the need of financial support for education and the like. Also maintenance period depends on number of years of cohabitation.

Danish law determines the deferred community of property (the net estate) to be divided under the principle of equal division of property. It is considered that the wife will get equal share in husband’s property earned during the matrimonial period. Unequal division of property is possible if equal division is unjust i.e. when the marriage is short duration or considering the contribution and economic circumstances of the spouse etc.

Norway (#5)

In Norway any spouse can seek divorce after one year of separation or two years of non cohabitation even without any reason. Here a housewife is given equal share in husband’s property acquired after marriage for her care for the house. However, when it leads to very unfair result court may apply its discretion to divide the property acquired after marriage.

Maintenance is granted in rare cases and only for limited period. Each spouse is expected to maintain themselves after divorce. However, if one spouse have lost / sacrificed career for the children one is entitled for maintenance for a limited period.

Germany (#6)

Any one of the couple can move to court under this provision if either they are separated for three years or they jointly move to court under this act after one year separation.

In this country too the couple’s accrued gains during the matrimonial period is considered and then divided equally. Also one’s contribution to marital property and other matrimonial faults (if any) will be considered while deciding the proportion of division.

Finland (#7)

Finnish law on divorce is based on mutual consent and the concept of irretrievable breakdown is not applicable there. Here on normal divorce maintenance is granted to any spouse based on need and only per court’s sole discretion. However, property transferred through any gift / will, or any property that is personal in nature like pension rights or copyrights of unpublished work etc. is not divided.

Even though spouses themselves are responsible for property or debt acquired by them before or during marriage, any debt taken for the family is equally divided. Here property division is considered with one’s property acquired before or after marriage. Any such division of property in most cases agreed in pre nuptial or other agreements between the spouses.

Slovenia (#8)

In Slovenia upon divorce only the joint property is divided either based on a mutual agreement between the spouses or with court’s interference. Normally it is considered that the assets acquired within the span of marriage the share had been equal unless any spouse proves otherwise. Also prior to decide on any share in property the debts accrued in marriage is taken care of and only after all debts of the couple is taken care of property is divided.

Also during such division if there is any asset that is important for one spouse to conduct his / her income, those assets are given to the spouse in question based on his / her request.

Normal gifts given during or before marriage need not be returned but other gifts that are not proportionate to the property state of the giver must be returned. If the original gifts are not in place equivalent value need to be returned.

France (#9)

In France the concept of IRBM is not in place but their Articles 237 and 238 of French Civil Code has provisions similar to this. Under these sections any spouse can move an application under this section if –

I. When the spouses have live separately for six years
II. One partner claims that the mental health of other spouse has changed so much that a conjugal life is no longer possible

Maintenance can be paid to one spouse based on change in social condition due to divorce. Maintenance is also adjusted against division of community property if any and keeping in view the deterioration of living standards of the weaker spouse. This law also authorizes the state to transfer property in the name of one spouse to the other based on conditions.
In France if one spouse is moving to court based on six years separation one has to maintain the other spouse financially. This can be terminated if the other spouse is living with another partner outside their marriage.

Iceland (#10)

Iceland is known as the happiest country in the world. In Iceland laws regarding divorce and division of property are simple in nature. Normally the couple decides the division of property beforehand through a matrimonial contract but in absence of such a contract the matrimonial assets are divided into half.

Any person is responsible for his / her debts individually and only the debts taken for common good is shared equally.

India (#132)

We all think India is shining and very soon we will catch up with the western nations in terms of development. While the previous analysis on different factors concerning Human Development and Gender Equality shows that we have hardly looked into the real factors of development and hence we are comparable only to African nations in terms of development today.

The proposed legislation which is brought in the name of women empowerment says any duration of marriage can come under this purview if there is a separation of three years. Only the wife is given right to oppose to such a divorce under ‘grave financial danger’. The proposal is that the property acquired by only the husband during the course of marriage and all his inherited, inheritable and shared property comes for division. Property acquired by the wife or her ancestral property or any of her shared property is not taken into consideration for division.

The bias in terms of extortion of men is very clearly visible in these provisions.

Unlike the developed nations, in India we do not have any concept of pre-nuptial agreement or community property where both spouses contribute and hence on divorce they get equivalent share back from their contribution. Also as evident in different other countries legislation states that expensive gifts etc exchanged between the spouses are also returned on divorce. In India however there is no provision for that (so men will think many times before they buy that diamond necklace or flat for her). Moreover in all other countries gifts or any other property that is personal in nature remains with the owner, but we don’t have any provision like that here.

In absence of so many vital parameters like pre-nupital agreement, concept of community property etc and with overwhelming bias against any female contribution to a matrimonial union (this is considered as dowry and the husband and family is booked under different criminal provisions) makes our marriages completely with zero contribution from the wife. Even if the wife is working and earning money she is not entitled to pay anything to the family and if the husband asks for money from her that is considered as domestic violence and again becomes punishable offence. The provisions made in this legislation are completely biased and rather regressive in nature. This legislation will not only refrain men in the country from entering into matrimonial union but this will also stop them from investing in any property and it will become the responsibility of the woman to buy property instead. The women who can not afford to buy any property will not get married.

Also there is no provision to check if the wife has really taken care of the home or the husband was forced to keep domestic helps to help her. Under normal circumstances, all of us have some domestic duties to perform. If the wife cooks, or takes care of children at home, husband also has non-documented duties like bringing grocery, taking care of household maintenance, taking kids to school or may simply provide for wife’s jewelry and make-up. There are many husbands who help their wives in many other domestic duties as well including nurturing the baby but there is no provision to pay them for that.

A husband works in a very competitive environment, under pressure situations with constant fear of losing a job under changing market conditions. Whereas a wife who has no competition from anyone, she has no checks and balances to perform in her job and in Indian system she one can not be forced to do any domestic duty there is practically no equity that can be brought in.

Many developed countries in the west have concept of spousal duty in marriage which is absent in India. We consider marriage as holy bond and not a contract but in this holy bond we are making provisions of extortion for men and making it dirty in nature.

If this legislation is brought in, in present form and not overhauled completely to make it gender neutral, take away any incentive for divorce and also make pre-nupital agreement and a contribution (financially as well as duty wise) must from the wife in any marriage, we will very soon see a situation of disturbance in India, as illustrated in this article –

Marriage Law Amendment – A Death Warrant for India


 Speedy divorce law is an Western attempt to destroy the Indian family system for EVER

Quick facts about the Speedy Divorce Bill ( officially called the Marriage Laws Amendment Bill):

1.The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Cabinet in 2010 following recommendation from Law Commission of India and the Honorable Supreme Court of India.

2.The Law Commission of India had recommended introduction of the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage for divorce, way back in 1978. By and large, the recommendation lay in cold storage.

3.The Honorable Supreme Court of India also recommended the same in 2009.

4.Govt. of India introduced the bill in 2010.

5.Feminists created a huge hue and cry in the media about divorce being given to a man without any cost.

6.Bowing to pressure from women’s organizations, the Govt. of India introduced radical property division clauses in the bill, in 2010, which was vehemently opposed by organizations fighting for men. They deposed in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel and Law and Justice and opposed clauses specifically targeted at grabbing husband’s property in the event of a divorce happening.

7.Around March 2012, the bill was approved by the Cabinet and it was very clear from the media reports that the objections raised by men’s rights organizations were completely ignored as the Standing Committee forwarded its recommendations to the Govt.

8.And towards the end of the budget session in the third week of May, India witnessed a complete mockery of India’s law making process as we shall see it further.

What are hidden consequences of to the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010:

1. Marriages are tumultuous for men. This fact reflects in the suicide statistics that are published year-over-year by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and it’s the married men who top the list of suicide. Suicide rate of husbands’ increases 4 times the rate of wives’ and 6 times the rate they are born. Every 9 minutes a married man commits suicide. This fact clearly proves how bad marriages turn out for men and if divorces are also made costlier by way of such laws, this will lead to further increase in suicides by men. Is the Government of India trying to facilitate the suicides of men?
2. There is one more law in the pipeline – Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage Act), 2012 – which talks about making wife the co-owner of husband’s properties right at the time of marriage; then, why this law? Why is the Government hell bent on making redundant anti-male laws and convert marriage into an extortion industry thriving on men?
3. In a democratic law making process, objections raised by a particular group or individual cannot be ignored without any proper justification. The panel has failed to give any just and proper reason as to why the objections raised should not be considered.
4. As per Dowry Prohibition Act, any demand of cash/kind in relation to marriage is “Dowry”. Is not this law legalizing dowry to be paid to wife from husband under the cute name of “Financial Security of Wife”?
5. Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and cannot be disrespected under any circumstances. Current bill thoroughly violates it, as far as men are concerned.
6. Feminists are claiming that nearly 80% of women do not have a place to live post-divorce. This is completely false because no such study has ever been conducted. India does not have any standard data collected as to how many divorces are happening, of those how many own a house and how many do not, how many are nuclear, joint and HUF families. Without any such data in place, any claims made are just airy claims without any data. Formulating a law on airy data is dangerous.

However, the main objection by INSAAF has been about the law making process sabotaged as explained below:

1. Even though the Govt. of India was benevolent enough to include property division clauses into the bill, at the behest of women’s organizations, yet they created hue and cry about the bill not being women-friendly.
2. They were unhappy that a man would get divorce without any hassles and wanted to make it more and more anti-male.
3. Even, the Govt. was bowing down to their pressures, what with the Honorable Union Minister of Law and Justice, ready to amend the law after every debate in the House.
4. No amendments followed the proper process of law making like, getting the recommendations reviewed by the Law Commission, taking citizenry views/comments, referring extreme views to appropriate Standing Committee rather than modifying the draft after every House Session.
5. Even, after filing multiple applications under the Right to Information Act, to the Ministry of Law and Justice, we were not provided with the copy of the bill and its clauses therein.

Notwithstanding the subversion of democracy in the law making process, INSAAF and other allied NGOs from all over India have written petitions, supported by mass signatures, to the Honorable Minister of Parliamentary Affairs asking for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to be formed to probe into the apparently illegal law making process. These petitions have been sent from Bangalore, Pune and Mumbai.

The main demands in the petition seeking for a JPC to be formed to probe into the law making process are as follows:

a) Further proceedings on the law must stop till the probe is not over and must continue only after the JPC probe gives clean chit to all involved in the law-making process.
b) Immediate removal of the aggressive women’s groups (from within the Government women’s agencies or private NGO’s) from gender law making process as it hampers the effort of law making and prevents laws from adhering to the principles of natural justice
c) JPC Investigation into the actions of the Law Ministry in formulating amendments with ferocious intensity during the Parliament session in May 2012 with little national debate or consultation.
d) JPC Investigation into the reasons why the Law Commission was not consulted before the ultra vires amendments were introduced in quick succession?
e) JPC Investigation into the allegation that pressure was applied on the Government for formulation of this law and ignoring the principles of natural justice.
f) JPC Investigation into the reason behind the government hurriedly introducing this law 32 years after it was recommended by the Law commission? Was there political pressure behind the introduction of this bill?
g) JPC investigation into all the data provided to support clauses of property transfer.

Copies of these petitions have also been marked to the PMO and the leader of Opposition. We would like to end this press release with a parting note men form more than 50% of the population. Making any law that completely subverts their rights, interests and welfare may lead to cornering of men which can have socially disastrous consequences.



 IrBM – Husbands Taxed, Wives Relaxed!

We all know and understand what taxation is? Taxes are levied by the Government in lieu of which it provides infrastructure and other facilities to its citizens so that they can make a living for themselves.

It is also the cost of providing law and order system in the country and also for administering the country. Taxation is an understood agreement between the citizens and the Govt. that the citizens would pay the Govt. as per an agreed upon tax code and in return the Govt. would provide with better facilities.

Even the Constitution of India recognizes the right of the Govt. to tax it and the duty of the benevolent citizen of India to be taxed. As per, article 265 of the Constitution which states that, “No tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law.”

Also, as per Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth”. We shall see the applicability of the above 2 articles soon. Now, let’s take a digression and have a look at what is the Indian Government going to offer us soon.

Now what we are seeing is that a new form of indirect taxation is being levied upon a select citizenry of India. That select citizenry of India is called “The Hindu Husbands”.

Bedazzled? Shocked? Baffled?

Surprised to know, as to how a tax code can be so formulated that it will be implemented on a particular gender, based on their relationship status and religion?

Hang on! And before you jump into the mired mysteries of all sorts of bizarre implementation of the above proposition, here’s how the Govt. of India is going to introduce the above tax code.

The Govt. of India has introduced a new ground for divorce which is called the “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” by way of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010. But it does not stop at this. This bill seeks to amend only the Hindu Marriage Act and also introduces radical property transfer clauses wherein the wife would be gifted at least 50% of the property owned by the husband irrespective of when it is bought – pre marriage or post marriage.

So, in a way the Govt. is saying, “We are incentivizing family breaking” i.e. they are going to greatly reward those women who abuse their husbands, break their marriages and then seek divorce citing it as irretrievably broken. They will also have right to withdraw their petition if they are not adequately compensated, however, husbands have not been given this right.

In a nutshell, the Govt. says to the Hindu Husband – “Just because you are married, you have to now part away with your life’s savings (in the form of your movable and immovable properties), to your estranged wife”, just like taxation, wherein Govt. says, “Just because you are citizen of India, earning here, you have to now part with a portion of your savings to the Government”.

But, in taxation, there is an agreement between the payer and the payee; however, in this case, payment is being made subject to breaking of an agreement – the relationship. Noted women’s rights activists and prominent feminist Flavia Agnes says, “Marriage is an economic relationship”.

Well Madame, point noted, but in an economic relationship both liabilities and assets are shared. But what you are proposing, promoting and promulgating is distribution of assets and liabilities – not sharing. You are saying let liabilities be those of men, while assets can be given to women.

However, this concept of “Taxed Husbands and Relaxed Wives” is unconstitutional as we saw in the beginning of the article that the Government can tax only under an authority of law and that law cannot discriminate based on gender or religion. However, this proposed law is doing exactly the same thing – it is creating discrimination based on gender and religion and our parliament calls it as “positive discrimination”!

How can robbing one’s property merely because of a broken relationship be called positive discrimination whence it violates the very essence of law making in India – The Constitution of India?

This is an outright violation of the constitutional process of law making and thus it renders the bill unconstitutional.

Hence, citizens of India, through the voices of the men’s rights activists, are calling for a “Rollback of this Bill” which means that the Govt. must withdraw this bill and should not pass it at all.

In order to pass the message for the same effectively, a website has also been created which explains as to why this law should not be passed.

Website is:

If you truly believe in gender equality and democratic law making process, then protest against this unconstitutional, gender biased, religion biased and anti-male law.

If this law is not protested against and gets passed, it will add to the increasing numbers of suicides committed by young married men in India. As per 2011 suicide statistics, 62433 married men committed suicides compared to 32582 married women. Yet, the society and the Govt. are creating one after another anti-male laws.

If you do not act today, tomorrow it could be YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER or YOU.

Raise your voice now before it’s too late and demand “RollBack IrBM” from the Government of India as we do not want “Relaxed Wives at the cost of Taxed Husbands”.

By Virag as appeared in



 IrBM Arguments in the Media

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 –

  1. Divorce can now be filed as a ‘No-fault Divorce’ stating that marriage has broken down irretrievably.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 primarily in India women are poor: 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.

i) Average Life Expectancy of women in India is higher than males at 65 as opposed to males at 62. This implies that women live longer and healthier, hence have lower malnutrition[i].

ii) Health care facilities are better for women than compared to males. WHO data shows that deaths due to diseases for males is 880 as compared to women as 780 (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 unable to rent a house have anything to do with property rights and divorce laws. If housing societies donot 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 / 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 is that

i) No source has been quoted of this 80% number.

ii) 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?

iii) Why can’t the women work are create their own home? Are they not able bodied?

Baseless reasoning such as these 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 the development, their literacy rates etc… in the past 15 years is incorrect: We should all note that laws are passed keeping in mind the situation as on date not 5000 years back. As on date women are empowered, and their status 5000 years back (which we donot know is true) has no bearing to the present situation. Therefore this argument does not hold water.

6)      Parents donot give any property to their daughter: If parents donot 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 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 is has many different version 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 law making 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  –


Men (% votes)

Women (% votes)














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 of –

a)      Only women have been given a right to oppose a divorce. Men cannot oppose divorce petition filed by women. This clause seems to clearly discriminate against men.

b)      Only property (ancestral or owned) of men is to be divided. Property of women is not to be considered.

c)      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 which have a fault continue?

d)      Men are still liable to pay maintenance and alimony to women under other sections of various acts.

e)      The bill seems to be against gender equality promised by the Indian Constitution under article 15.

f)       Liabilities of men are not considered in 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 to be seen how would the banking sector 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 networth 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 the 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].


 Effects of IrBM in other Countries – Case Studies

No Fault Divorce and effect on divorce in other countries

CASE STUDY By-Amartya Talukdar


1. USA

2. UK



1. USA

“No-fault” divorce was pioneered in the United States by the state of California when then-Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the Family Law Act of 1969 on September 4, 1969 (effective January 1, 1970). The new law eliminated the need for couples to assert spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce. But no-fault divorce also destroyed marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to divorce another for any reason–or not reason–at all.

Years later, Ronald Reagan told that signing the no-fault divorce law was his “greatest regret.”

From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate in America nearly doubled–from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This means that, while the 20 percent of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50 percent of couples who married in 1970 did. 





2. UK




Divorce Reform Act 1969, which came into effect in 1971 and was later incorporated into the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The legislation revolutionised divorce in England and Wales by introducing dissolution based on separation and consent.

Section 1(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provides that a petition for divorce can be presented ‘on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The introduction of divorce based on two years’ separation with consent and five years’ separation is responsible for the sharp increase in divorces granted in the 1970s

Since the Divorce Reform Act 1969 came into force, the number of divorces granted to women has far exceeded the number of divorces granted to men. This reached a peak in 1992 when 72% of divorces were in favour of the wife. The proportion of decrees granted to women has fallen over the last twenty years and current data reveals that 66% of divorces were made in favour of the wife


Grounds for divorce

Divorce in New Zealand was fundamentally altered when Parliament passed the Family Proceedings Act 1980, which came into force the following year. Until then the process had been concerned with finding out who was at fault. The new law focused instead on helping those in failing marriages and, from 2005, civil unions, to sort out their difficulties and move on.

One partner or both could apply for dissolution of the marriage or relationship. From 1990 a dissolution order (as divorce became officially known) did not require a hearing in front of a judge.

Irreconcilable breakdown of marriage became the only basis on which divorces were granted. No one was blamed. Living apart for two years was sufficient proof of irreconciliable differences.

Rate of divorce

When no-fault divorce became possible, there was a sudden leap from about 6,000 divorces a year in the late 1970s and the start of the 1980s to over 12,000 in 1982. The rate then dropped to around 8,500 a year. In the 2000s a yearly average of 10,000 divorces were granted. Overall, about one-third of marriages end in divorce.



3 thoughts on “ROLLBACK IrBM (No Fault Divorce)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>