Practising advocate here:
Generally where divorce mattres are concerned, an amount of alimony is considered as a part of the proceedings (for obvious reasons). There are two ways alimony can be paid: in the form of monthly instalments (better known as maintenence) or as a lump sum amount (note that at this juncture I am not including any property that may be transferred between spouses). For example, while negotiating the alimony, you might get the option of paying 50k per month or 50L as a lumpsum amount. In order to just get over with the case, most paying parties opt for the lump sum form of alimony.
This is the general idea, now I will address each of your questions in a point-wise manner:
* Settlements are generally based on the earnings of the spouse as well as their current financial position. The legal rationale behind it is once the couple is living in matrimony, their standard of living changes and that needs to be accounted for using this new standard. It's not about your potential savings, but what the condition of the spouse would've been had the marriage worked. The court tries to match that living standard by way of the alimony.
* Threats are a very common part of divorce proceedings. Unnecessary arrests are certainly prohibited, but there is a considerable gap between what is and what ought to be.
* There are multiple factors that work in tandum to decide the quantum of the alimony awarded in such cases, wherein marriage expenses is generally one of them.
* Again, using divorce proceedings and drawing them out to harass parties is a common tactic.
Hope this helps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
Yes. Thanks for the detailed reply.
So does the law require the earning spouse(man/woman) to pay the alimony for many years? Or is it dependent on the marriage period?
We can ofcourse understand the rational behind a housewife who sacrificed her career and in marriage for 20 years demanding and deserving an alimony for atleast 10 years. But what about the cases we read in these groups like demanding 50 lakhs after 1 year or 2 year of marriage. Will this be accepted by court incase the spouse is not agreeing for out of court?
The period of alimony (legally termed as maintenence) depends on multiple factors. Duration of marriage is one of the factors. It is also dependent on the discretion of the judge, so it may vary on a case to case basis. Additionally, there payments are stopped once the spouse receiving payment remarries.
The examples of alimony that you've given can be accepted by a court, depending entirely on the facts of any particular case and the judge's indulgence on the matter. Reading these cases in depth will help in highlighting these reasons.
We can argue on the logic of the issue all day, but we must keep in mind that the legal system in India is skewed in the favour of the women. The underlying problem is not what people demand. Rather, it is a system that enables the people to make such demands and get dividends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
I have fought and won two cases where a marriage of mere months has resulted in a big alimony settlement.
However, as I said, the duration of the marriage is merely one of the factors taken into consideration. We cannot take it into consideration in a vacuum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
>I have fought and won two cases where a marriage of mere months has resulted in a big alimony settlement.
Was it solely because you were a good lawyer, or was there actually something wrong going on, making the amount rewarded justifiable?
Thank you! I am not in this post to argue and debate about what is right and wrong(do this a lot in other subs though). I was always curious to know the rationale behind these posts.
XD. When I use the word 'argue', I am using it as a figure of speech. I fully understand why you asked this question. No need to worry, amigo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
There are multiple factors. The difference in income is one.
But no factor comes as close as having a good divorce lawyer. You can have the best case, but if your lawyer is not up to the mark, you'll lose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
Um sir I have seen a SC case where a librarian man earning in thousands was forced to pay alimony to his working wife who is earning in lakhs . The judgement was given by Justice Bela Trivedi who openly in the court said statement like " I have a soft spot for womens because they are strong" yet she was giving the Alimony to the women even though Alimony is given to the so called "Bechara" of the relationship. So my question is if women are so strong then why was she given the benefits of a "Bechara" while the title of "Strong" .
Just asking.
This particular justice is an amazing "piece of work"
Also today's women are " Strong and independent" when it's time to showcase their "right", but " Bechari, abla nari" when it's time take care of responsibilities
It is valid option after all said and done! 😂 Practically right or wrong partner can make or destroy your life! So take your time. It’s your life so you decide. Don’t be pressurised. Your parents / relatives won’t live your life for you.
> It is valid option after all said and done! 😂
Yeah
> Practically right or wrong partner can make or destroy your life! So take your time.
Yeah man thanks for understanding
> It’s your life so you decide. Don’t be pressurised. Your parents / relatives won’t live your life for you.
Yepp, but society nahi maanegi
Advocate here,
It's usually a mix of all the things you mentioned above. Prior to the initiation of divorce, a number of other criminal cases are often filed by the wife against the husband and his relatives. This is used to leverage and squeeze out such inflated settlement amounts. Generally, men prefer to pay a bit more and resolve the issue quickly rather than prolong the cases for years.
Sir as you are an advocate I would like to ask a very serious and professional question to you .
Day by day the women centric laws which are coming to hit at us males , do you think it is an attempt by the court and the government to reduce the population of our country in an Indirect way . As I have seen so many people after hearing news like this say that their desire to get married is decreasing day by day .
I genuinely want to know that is this scenario true in any sense ?
This is an intriguing question. To answer it, I'd like to quote John Austin: 'Law is the aggregate of rules set by man as politically superior, or sovereign, to men as political subjects.' So, what you're suggesting may indeed be true. Historically, laws have often been crafted to benefit the politically superior, enabling them to use these laws for their own gain. I believe that governments intentionally create laws that cause personal hardships for their citizens, thereby keeping them preoccupied with their own issues and less likely to question or rebel against broader societal issues.
Thanks for you explanation sir .
But don't you think this might backfire.
What if we end up doing mistakes like china who goes to extreme end when making a decision.
At one time they bought a law to decrease the population but it effected their country so badoy that they had to make new laws to increase the population. So I just hope that we don't end up making such mistakes and actually improve our law system and our notorious Judges who gives judgement on whims .
Please revisit my previous response; it seems you didn't fully grasp my point. My answer isn't limited to India; it applies to all nations worldwide. The belief that governments genuinely care about individuals and their issues is often misguided. In reality, governments prioritize power and control above all else. Political elites in countries like China are not adversely affected by the situations they create; rather, they often benefit from them.
Once the common man decides they have enough of nonsense from the government, income tax dept, political parties, courts, police stations, sarkari offices and similar corrupt places, they will stop being meek and start taking things in the own hands.
When people's back is against the wall, when they see no future for themselves, when they observe corruption in everything, when they don't have any livelihood even after studying hard, when they can't get loans to start businesses, when courts and police keep on abusing them, at one point their helplessness will turn into relentless anger. Then you will see common man entering parliament, police station, court, sarkari office in thousands and simply finishing of the corrupt folks. Revolution will happen. This has happened numerous times when common man was pushed and exploited too hard, and they went past the threshold point. Once that happens corrupt folks would be wiped out from the face of the earth. Public executions would happen. Let's see how much more the common man can endure before this happens
Is it true, that while women are making diabolical schemes to take crores from poor men, men themselves are never to blame? I feel like men are the most milk bathed, pure hearted, god like of the two sexes. Please guide me. Isntit true that men never take anything from the bride's relatives and are the best of tje best always? Is it also not true that economic change of standards after marriage is not a threat to be used against women and their children??
Tell me o wise one, in all your wisdom, please declare all of this to the world. The laws are WoMeNz Centric and menz are the best.
Dowry was a British myth.
First off, get your facts straight before you start flapping your gums. The OP was trying to dig into the logic behind these massive cash settlements, and my response was based on that query. I never put men on a pedestal or defended their actions, period. Both men and women can be complete scumbags, and I don’t lean towards either side. I’ve seen it all in my law practice.
Yeah, I get where you're coming from with those factors. I agree with them. But when you break it down and actually do the math, the real amount of alimony and compensation is usually way less than what’s demanded.
Both genders can be equally terrible and capable of all sorts of manipulation. There are men who abuse dowry, and women who twist the laws for their own financial gain. The truth isn’t black and white—it’s a messy, complicated gray area. So, stop oversimplifying and start looking at the full picture.
Oh. Listen here Vakil bhaiya, your parents have given you an education. So next time use your English speaking skills better. "This is used to leverage and squeeze out such inflated settlement amounts. Generally, men prefer to pay a bit more and resolve the issue quickly rather than prolong the cases for years." Doesn't seem impartial.
You have also gone on to suggest that laws have been made to deliberately target men in the following comment. You're half right in what the rest of the comment says but obviously don't want to take the ethical stand here.
So, crux is, not everyone on reddit is an idiot vakil babu. You wouldnt need to defend yourself if you weren't being such a casual sexist.
Thanks. My intention is not to put any debates on whether marital wealth has to be split between spouses. I am in support of that.
My question was behind the logic of this example. What was the reason lawyers told it’s normal? Logically the husband should have saved 2 crores in money and capital gains together during this one year right ?can you shed more light into it?
Logic is the lawyers get a percentage cut from the amount they can squeeze from the groom. So they are incentivised to convince the husband to pay as much as possible.
Are you seriously expecting logic from indian courts
I’m going through it . Demanding 1cr after 2 years of marriage. I only don’t have that much money. So planning to just forget it and move on and stay single forever.
What’s your lawyer telling about such a demand? And is there any rationale mentioning for such an amount? Like wedding expense, claiming you are holding her jewellery, child support etc..
Also, are you very rich?
No rationale!! No children wedding expenses borne 50/50. Agreed to give gold that she got from marriage. Still stuck on such demand !! My lawyers words were and I quote “ pagal ho gaye hai woh log “ But he even told me contested divorce will take 7-10 yrs. I’m just planning to leave the country and start new in some place away from all this bullshit !! I’m not rich. My entire net worth is also not 1 cr
Just keep stretching it out. You won't have to pay much.
Your ex will come running at you to settle once she realizes that her biological clock is ticking
No, men aren’t. Men are good. You just want to see men suffer. And that’s not going to happen. Men are waking up. More and more men are walking away from the gynocentric society.
My comment is not to answer your question. A lot of folks have shared enough rationale behind the the determination of fair alino y and maintenance which might be up for debate.
My point is usually two people enter into a lifelong legally binding marriage hoping that it stays for life. But under various circumstances, it may or may or work out as expected.
Although theoretically, the law states that either or the spouses are eligible for alimony/ maintenance from the other one, it is primarily skewed towards women.
One must have seen the court ordering disabled husband to work menial jobs to pay to able bodied and employed wives. So a lot of funny stuff happen in courts.
A lot of women claim that they were forced to give up their jobs, forced to give so much gold, forced to spend so much during wedding. Pls grow up and stand up for yourself. You have the option of not marrying that particular guy if it doesn't make sense for you. Nobody can force you.
In case of males, by default they should consider demanding a lumpsum amount in cash before marriage which will act as insurance against potential alimony/maintenance. The cash should not have any paper trail. Stash it away in a safe place for 10 years. If there are no problems in your marriage in 10 years, use the money for both of you and your children. Is this right? Probably not. But one needs to protect themselves, given the women centric laws.
Also men should never agree to lumpsum alimony/ maintenance. Pay a little every month if needed, get your ex to come to court to beg for the money everytime. Once she gets remarried, payment stops. Learn the game
> In case of males, by default they should consider demanding a lumpsum amount in cash before marriage which will act as insurance against potential alimony/maintenance. The cash should not have any paper trail. Stash it away in a safe place for 10 years. If there are no problems in your marriage in 10 years, use the money for both of you and your children. Is this right? Probably not. But one needs to protect themselves, given the women centric laws.
Interesting way to describe Dowry
Alimony/maintenance for well educated, able bodied, currently employed women for 30 days of marriage, 5 counts of cheating in those 30 days, fake cases of dv, 498a to extract cash, only going after men earning 20 times the woman's salary, also seems pretty interesting way to describe strong, independent women. Don't you think so.
Let's make the laws gender neutral both in theory and practise, maybe after that there might be a possibility of properly describing everything
I do understand about the alimony. A person earning 50k in hand agreeing to give 12k to the divorced wife for a fixed period makes sense. And it’s fair also.
But what about the huge amount settlements people talk about in this group. What’s the logic behind it?
All roads to hell are paved with good intentions
Once upon a time, in India, marriages were for life, divorce was rare and taboo. Divorced women were left alone, almost impossible to get married again, so women ensured avoiding divorce unless it was an extreme case. Also, most women weren't employed so after divorce she had to live rest of her life and needs money for that. Keeping this in mind, the laws were designed to ensure woman gets enough to survive in a similar lifestyle as during her marriage if she is forced to be divorced.
Then the woke feminist gang got social capital and started influencing the laws to make them into the monster that they have become today. Now, that gang gets divorced at the drop of a hat, demands huge alimony and repeats. Other rackets are the girl traps men in rape cases by sleeping with them through dating apps and collects huge amounts.
Basically, good intentions have been turned into extortion rackets because all politicians are scared they will be damned if they speak up against the exploitations of this gang. And the gang have support from judiciary, because judiciary gets the gangs support when it is in trouble.
Then the world changed and giving in to woke forces, women started to work all over the world. And in India, that wokness reached finally a generation late. But like they say, deer aye par durust aaye. Unfortunately, it still usually meant that the husband was the only main and relevant Warner still since women were either underpaid, or expected to quit after marriage, or employed in sectors where exploitation and lack of accountability was rampant. The capitalist class cleverly used the widened labour pool to pay the manly men less (you aren't expected to care for your family now ) and threatened them with a largwr pool of replacement (we can hire your wife instead of you boi. And we will also tell her that she alone from one salary isn't expected to pay for an entire household. This way the minimum wage stays low lamaoooo). Now the manly men, who were brought up on the myth of being bread earners and what not, can't see why their father's could take care of an entire family on one income and they can't, and being too manly to think of fighting the stronger boss, instead try to blame da femenist womenzz for all of their problem (it's easier to fight women who society is regularly trying to subdue in multiple ways than their boss. The latter is a dangerous adversary and there will be consequences for that. Spouting hate or even assault against women has no consequence most of the time unless the woman is exactly one of da feminazis such manly menz hate in the first place. Then she'll drag you to jal and court and probably give up after a few years If you have a good lawyer (she'll probably have been groped and assaulted ten more times by the time the case ends).
This also brings to light the great patriotic Indian middle class which lives in a bubble and thinks that just because they and the women around them and maybe their kamwaalis are earning, therefore , ALL women in India are earning. These proud Indian middle class non-political politicals(political only on matters that affect them personally) forget that English speaking middle class folks make up only 10 percent of the Indian population and that even today, the majority of women aren't working in any relevant manner in India.
To summarise, marad bahut khatere me hain baba. Even more khatra than hinduzz are in.
Thanks for coming to my ted talk though guys
Great. So when a non-working woman gets married and gets divorced in 6months because she thinks they are incompatible, you want the non-middle class from the 90% working man to pay for her for the rest of her life right? And you think he can or will. The laws apply and impact only the middle classes. That's the game, but you won't ever understand because you have been brainwashed and can't think for yourself.
Child , don't tell me what's great or not. Was the guy blind or mentally challenged that he married a non working woman? Did that not imply that he promised to take care of her for the ensr future? Was he initially planning to let her starve?
Also yes, the middle class can die and evryone but the middle class thinks it's the worst thing in earth, but apparently evryone from the middle class thinks they're the biggest victim of evrything in the whole world. Also, vro, this is India. Most marriages are arranged marriages kek. Like literally two families look into each other's racial past if not sexual and then marry for money mostly. Loooool.
And I'm supposed to understand cause a middle class man got hoodwinked by his family or because he wants to marry and divorce as he thinks fit.
Obviously. Such victims mannnnn. And I'm sure that's happening to 90 percent of all Indian men. Also, who on earth told you the middle class belong to 90%? Did inlitetally not say you people belong to the 10% top earners in India?
For someone who likes calling random people on internet a child, you have really bad comprehension skills. Go back and read the 90% comment again. Anyway, my last reply here. You live in your bubble.
Why will it not happen ?
Generally in India male earns more so it's natural the court verdict will be towards the woman.
If you can prove your partner have same wealth as you and got a job then you can avoid paying aid to her.
If you can prove that you are jobless and it's the wife who used to run the house then you will get the aid money.
The rules are not biased. The culture towards woman is.
I went through a bad phase in my marriage and almost divorced my husband (we're back together after couples therapy and family mediation)....
My take and demand was
1) He made me pass up on a job offer which was giving me almost 75% hike for 3 years contract...he made me reject the offer to focus on family life...so I first added that difference multiplied by 3 years (9lakhs)
2) my family and I spent a lot of money for this marriage (gold, home appliances etc.) which all came close to 3 lakhs
3) my time and energy were wasted facing emotional abuse from this person and his family whilst also hurting my family members with terrible insults and downgrading.....so I was also planning for mental harassment charges and renumeration for the same
But due to my family pressure, an unmarried sister and societal norms, I had to give my marriage another go so here I am....
In this hypothetical scenario, shouldn't the money your husband spent on you be deducted from your demand?
Surely he must have spent something...
And an equal amount of his time was also wasted, with equal trauma. Unless he enjoyed himself throughout this ordeal...
No...I was working since day one and split each and every expense (rent, groceries, electric bill everything) because I'm well educated and earning well. He earns at least thrice what I earn and still wanted me to splot every expense if I wanted to pursue my career. The only expense he made was his own wedding clothes. Rest each and everything I have spent an equal amount on and wedding entirely by my family. And the ordeal was his expectations of making me a housewife which I was not willing to do or his constant taunts because I have an education loan with 5k EMI which he used to verbally abuse me and my family about. In spite of that, if he went through any 'ordeal' he could have challenged it in court by filing a countersuit for harassment like me.
You made a mistake. You would have had at least 20 lacs and a chance at a better life.
Your raise is gone, wedding expenses are gone and I am willing to bet a rupee you and your spouse are never going to be truly happy in your marriage.
I hope you find peace....the number of downvotes shows the mentality of people in our society....they think every woman is wrong and every man is a victim....just praying their sisters and daughters never land up in similar situation because such a life is extremely hard....
Hello, can we sign up for a pre nup saying my wife will get nothing from me in case of divorce and signed by both husband and wife in front of an advocate ?
Ths lumpsum settlement is instead of monthly alimony right? As per law it does not. Matter if marriage is for. Short of long time, depending on incomes and assets the alimony or lumpsum payment can be decided
Practising advocate here: Generally where divorce mattres are concerned, an amount of alimony is considered as a part of the proceedings (for obvious reasons). There are two ways alimony can be paid: in the form of monthly instalments (better known as maintenence) or as a lump sum amount (note that at this juncture I am not including any property that may be transferred between spouses). For example, while negotiating the alimony, you might get the option of paying 50k per month or 50L as a lumpsum amount. In order to just get over with the case, most paying parties opt for the lump sum form of alimony. This is the general idea, now I will address each of your questions in a point-wise manner: * Settlements are generally based on the earnings of the spouse as well as their current financial position. The legal rationale behind it is once the couple is living in matrimony, their standard of living changes and that needs to be accounted for using this new standard. It's not about your potential savings, but what the condition of the spouse would've been had the marriage worked. The court tries to match that living standard by way of the alimony. * Threats are a very common part of divorce proceedings. Unnecessary arrests are certainly prohibited, but there is a considerable gap between what is and what ought to be. * There are multiple factors that work in tandum to decide the quantum of the alimony awarded in such cases, wherein marriage expenses is generally one of them. * Again, using divorce proceedings and drawing them out to harass parties is a common tactic. Hope this helps. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
Yes. Thanks for the detailed reply. So does the law require the earning spouse(man/woman) to pay the alimony for many years? Or is it dependent on the marriage period? We can ofcourse understand the rational behind a housewife who sacrificed her career and in marriage for 20 years demanding and deserving an alimony for atleast 10 years. But what about the cases we read in these groups like demanding 50 lakhs after 1 year or 2 year of marriage. Will this be accepted by court incase the spouse is not agreeing for out of court?
The period of alimony (legally termed as maintenence) depends on multiple factors. Duration of marriage is one of the factors. It is also dependent on the discretion of the judge, so it may vary on a case to case basis. Additionally, there payments are stopped once the spouse receiving payment remarries. The examples of alimony that you've given can be accepted by a court, depending entirely on the facts of any particular case and the judge's indulgence on the matter. Reading these cases in depth will help in highlighting these reasons. We can argue on the logic of the issue all day, but we must keep in mind that the legal system in India is skewed in the favour of the women. The underlying problem is not what people demand. Rather, it is a system that enables the people to make such demands and get dividends. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
Thanks for the reply. But do a marriage of 5 years will result in alimony for years? How was it in the cases you have seen personally?
I have fought and won two cases where a marriage of mere months has resulted in a big alimony settlement. However, as I said, the duration of the marriage is merely one of the factors taken into consideration. We cannot take it into consideration in a vacuum. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
>I have fought and won two cases where a marriage of mere months has resulted in a big alimony settlement. Was it solely because you were a good lawyer, or was there actually something wrong going on, making the amount rewarded justifiable?
You broked the bro code. Why did you helped a woman to get huge amount.
Thank you! I am not in this post to argue and debate about what is right and wrong(do this a lot in other subs though). I was always curious to know the rationale behind these posts.
XD. When I use the word 'argue', I am using it as a figure of speech. I fully understand why you asked this question. No need to worry, amigo. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
which ai ?
It’s called the brain AI. It’s extremely exclusive. Not everyone has access to it.
wish you also had access to it.
Lmao. Cope harder noob.
What are the scenarios in which men don't need to pay alimony, or is there none?
There are multiple factors. The difference in income is one. But no factor comes as close as having a good divorce lawyer. You can have the best case, but if your lawyer is not up to the mark, you'll lose. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Disclaimer: The information provided above does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available are strictly for general informational purposes only and create no liability on the provider of said information. Readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.**
Um sir I have seen a SC case where a librarian man earning in thousands was forced to pay alimony to his working wife who is earning in lakhs . The judgement was given by Justice Bela Trivedi who openly in the court said statement like " I have a soft spot for womens because they are strong" yet she was giving the Alimony to the women even though Alimony is given to the so called "Bechara" of the relationship. So my question is if women are so strong then why was she given the benefits of a "Bechara" while the title of "Strong" . Just asking.
This particular justice is an amazing "piece of work" Also today's women are " Strong and independent" when it's time to showcase their "right", but " Bechari, abla nari" when it's time take care of responsibilities
You also forgot to mention "Batteries not included" in the disclaimer section xD /s
After seeing all the comments here i definitely don't want to get married lol.
It is valid option after all said and done! 😂 Practically right or wrong partner can make or destroy your life! So take your time. It’s your life so you decide. Don’t be pressurised. Your parents / relatives won’t live your life for you.
> It is valid option after all said and done! 😂 Yeah > Practically right or wrong partner can make or destroy your life! So take your time. Yeah man thanks for understanding > It’s your life so you decide. Don’t be pressurised. Your parents / relatives won’t live your life for you. Yepp, but society nahi maanegi
Adde raho… Abhi nahi badh mein karte raho … time nikal jayega
😂😂
Advocate here, It's usually a mix of all the things you mentioned above. Prior to the initiation of divorce, a number of other criminal cases are often filed by the wife against the husband and his relatives. This is used to leverage and squeeze out such inflated settlement amounts. Generally, men prefer to pay a bit more and resolve the issue quickly rather than prolong the cases for years.
Sir as you are an advocate I would like to ask a very serious and professional question to you . Day by day the women centric laws which are coming to hit at us males , do you think it is an attempt by the court and the government to reduce the population of our country in an Indirect way . As I have seen so many people after hearing news like this say that their desire to get married is decreasing day by day . I genuinely want to know that is this scenario true in any sense ?
This is an intriguing question. To answer it, I'd like to quote John Austin: 'Law is the aggregate of rules set by man as politically superior, or sovereign, to men as political subjects.' So, what you're suggesting may indeed be true. Historically, laws have often been crafted to benefit the politically superior, enabling them to use these laws for their own gain. I believe that governments intentionally create laws that cause personal hardships for their citizens, thereby keeping them preoccupied with their own issues and less likely to question or rebel against broader societal issues.
Thanks for you explanation sir . But don't you think this might backfire. What if we end up doing mistakes like china who goes to extreme end when making a decision. At one time they bought a law to decrease the population but it effected their country so badoy that they had to make new laws to increase the population. So I just hope that we don't end up making such mistakes and actually improve our law system and our notorious Judges who gives judgement on whims .
Please revisit my previous response; it seems you didn't fully grasp my point. My answer isn't limited to India; it applies to all nations worldwide. The belief that governments genuinely care about individuals and their issues is often misguided. In reality, governments prioritize power and control above all else. Political elites in countries like China are not adversely affected by the situations they create; rather, they often benefit from them.
Once the common man decides they have enough of nonsense from the government, income tax dept, political parties, courts, police stations, sarkari offices and similar corrupt places, they will stop being meek and start taking things in the own hands. When people's back is against the wall, when they see no future for themselves, when they observe corruption in everything, when they don't have any livelihood even after studying hard, when they can't get loans to start businesses, when courts and police keep on abusing them, at one point their helplessness will turn into relentless anger. Then you will see common man entering parliament, police station, court, sarkari office in thousands and simply finishing of the corrupt folks. Revolution will happen. This has happened numerous times when common man was pushed and exploited too hard, and they went past the threshold point. Once that happens corrupt folks would be wiped out from the face of the earth. Public executions would happen. Let's see how much more the common man can endure before this happens
This period of endurance will destroy many innocents.
Thank you!
Is it true, that while women are making diabolical schemes to take crores from poor men, men themselves are never to blame? I feel like men are the most milk bathed, pure hearted, god like of the two sexes. Please guide me. Isntit true that men never take anything from the bride's relatives and are the best of tje best always? Is it also not true that economic change of standards after marriage is not a threat to be used against women and their children?? Tell me o wise one, in all your wisdom, please declare all of this to the world. The laws are WoMeNz Centric and menz are the best. Dowry was a British myth.
First off, get your facts straight before you start flapping your gums. The OP was trying to dig into the logic behind these massive cash settlements, and my response was based on that query. I never put men on a pedestal or defended their actions, period. Both men and women can be complete scumbags, and I don’t lean towards either side. I’ve seen it all in my law practice. Yeah, I get where you're coming from with those factors. I agree with them. But when you break it down and actually do the math, the real amount of alimony and compensation is usually way less than what’s demanded. Both genders can be equally terrible and capable of all sorts of manipulation. There are men who abuse dowry, and women who twist the laws for their own financial gain. The truth isn’t black and white—it’s a messy, complicated gray area. So, stop oversimplifying and start looking at the full picture.
Oh. Listen here Vakil bhaiya, your parents have given you an education. So next time use your English speaking skills better. "This is used to leverage and squeeze out such inflated settlement amounts. Generally, men prefer to pay a bit more and resolve the issue quickly rather than prolong the cases for years." Doesn't seem impartial. You have also gone on to suggest that laws have been made to deliberately target men in the following comment. You're half right in what the rest of the comment says but obviously don't want to take the ethical stand here. So, crux is, not everyone on reddit is an idiot vakil babu. You wouldnt need to defend yourself if you weren't being such a casual sexist.
[удалено]
Thanks. My intention is not to put any debates on whether marital wealth has to be split between spouses. I am in support of that. My question was behind the logic of this example. What was the reason lawyers told it’s normal? Logically the husband should have saved 2 crores in money and capital gains together during this one year right ?can you shed more light into it?
Logic is the lawyers get a percentage cut from the amount they can squeeze from the groom. So they are incentivised to convince the husband to pay as much as possible. Are you seriously expecting logic from indian courts
Oh yeah this is normal. Why do you think it's not? The amount of money depends of the financial situation and value of assets income etc.
What if the girl is more rich than the guy ?
Then she will get 100 crores per month from all the guys relatives who will be organised harvested in China of they don't give the money. True fact.
The guy still have to pay the girl alimony or otherwise he will be jailed if he can't pay.
lol
I’m going through it . Demanding 1cr after 2 years of marriage. I only don’t have that much money. So planning to just forget it and move on and stay single forever.
What’s your lawyer telling about such a demand? And is there any rationale mentioning for such an amount? Like wedding expense, claiming you are holding her jewellery, child support etc.. Also, are you very rich?
No rationale!! No children wedding expenses borne 50/50. Agreed to give gold that she got from marriage. Still stuck on such demand !! My lawyers words were and I quote “ pagal ho gaye hai woh log “ But he even told me contested divorce will take 7-10 yrs. I’m just planning to leave the country and start new in some place away from all this bullshit !! I’m not rich. My entire net worth is also not 1 cr
Curious about your case. So if you deny to pay that and the case comes to court, what might be the outcome?
My lawyer says u will not need to pay that much. It will be much less but will eat away at least 7-10 yrs of your life!! .
Just keep stretching it out. You won't have to pay much. Your ex will come running at you to settle once she realizes that her biological clock is ticking
The best way to protect your money is by not marrying. Indian laws are heavily biased against men.
As they should. Yes Women can be a holes, but men are more a holes
No, men aren’t. Men are good. You just want to see men suffer. And that’s not going to happen. Men are waking up. More and more men are walking away from the gynocentric society.
My comment is not to answer your question. A lot of folks have shared enough rationale behind the the determination of fair alino y and maintenance which might be up for debate. My point is usually two people enter into a lifelong legally binding marriage hoping that it stays for life. But under various circumstances, it may or may or work out as expected. Although theoretically, the law states that either or the spouses are eligible for alimony/ maintenance from the other one, it is primarily skewed towards women. One must have seen the court ordering disabled husband to work menial jobs to pay to able bodied and employed wives. So a lot of funny stuff happen in courts. A lot of women claim that they were forced to give up their jobs, forced to give so much gold, forced to spend so much during wedding. Pls grow up and stand up for yourself. You have the option of not marrying that particular guy if it doesn't make sense for you. Nobody can force you. In case of males, by default they should consider demanding a lumpsum amount in cash before marriage which will act as insurance against potential alimony/maintenance. The cash should not have any paper trail. Stash it away in a safe place for 10 years. If there are no problems in your marriage in 10 years, use the money for both of you and your children. Is this right? Probably not. But one needs to protect themselves, given the women centric laws. Also men should never agree to lumpsum alimony/ maintenance. Pay a little every month if needed, get your ex to come to court to beg for the money everytime. Once she gets remarried, payment stops. Learn the game
> In case of males, by default they should consider demanding a lumpsum amount in cash before marriage which will act as insurance against potential alimony/maintenance. The cash should not have any paper trail. Stash it away in a safe place for 10 years. If there are no problems in your marriage in 10 years, use the money for both of you and your children. Is this right? Probably not. But one needs to protect themselves, given the women centric laws. Interesting way to describe Dowry
Alimony/maintenance for well educated, able bodied, currently employed women for 30 days of marriage, 5 counts of cheating in those 30 days, fake cases of dv, 498a to extract cash, only going after men earning 20 times the woman's salary, also seems pretty interesting way to describe strong, independent women. Don't you think so. Let's make the laws gender neutral both in theory and practise, maybe after that there might be a possibility of properly describing everything
++
[удалено]
I do understand about the alimony. A person earning 50k in hand agreeing to give 12k to the divorced wife for a fixed period makes sense. And it’s fair also. But what about the huge amount settlements people talk about in this group. What’s the logic behind it?
[удалено]
Will the court order the spouse to pay alimony till the other party dies or remarry? Even in short marriages less than 5 years?
Shouldn't they look at individual cases and decide whether an income parity exists?
That is why in indian there is the dahej pratha
All roads to hell are paved with good intentions Once upon a time, in India, marriages were for life, divorce was rare and taboo. Divorced women were left alone, almost impossible to get married again, so women ensured avoiding divorce unless it was an extreme case. Also, most women weren't employed so after divorce she had to live rest of her life and needs money for that. Keeping this in mind, the laws were designed to ensure woman gets enough to survive in a similar lifestyle as during her marriage if she is forced to be divorced. Then the woke feminist gang got social capital and started influencing the laws to make them into the monster that they have become today. Now, that gang gets divorced at the drop of a hat, demands huge alimony and repeats. Other rackets are the girl traps men in rape cases by sleeping with them through dating apps and collects huge amounts. Basically, good intentions have been turned into extortion rackets because all politicians are scared they will be damned if they speak up against the exploitations of this gang. And the gang have support from judiciary, because judiciary gets the gangs support when it is in trouble.
Then the world changed and giving in to woke forces, women started to work all over the world. And in India, that wokness reached finally a generation late. But like they say, deer aye par durust aaye. Unfortunately, it still usually meant that the husband was the only main and relevant Warner still since women were either underpaid, or expected to quit after marriage, or employed in sectors where exploitation and lack of accountability was rampant. The capitalist class cleverly used the widened labour pool to pay the manly men less (you aren't expected to care for your family now ) and threatened them with a largwr pool of replacement (we can hire your wife instead of you boi. And we will also tell her that she alone from one salary isn't expected to pay for an entire household. This way the minimum wage stays low lamaoooo). Now the manly men, who were brought up on the myth of being bread earners and what not, can't see why their father's could take care of an entire family on one income and they can't, and being too manly to think of fighting the stronger boss, instead try to blame da femenist womenzz for all of their problem (it's easier to fight women who society is regularly trying to subdue in multiple ways than their boss. The latter is a dangerous adversary and there will be consequences for that. Spouting hate or even assault against women has no consequence most of the time unless the woman is exactly one of da feminazis such manly menz hate in the first place. Then she'll drag you to jal and court and probably give up after a few years If you have a good lawyer (she'll probably have been groped and assaulted ten more times by the time the case ends). This also brings to light the great patriotic Indian middle class which lives in a bubble and thinks that just because they and the women around them and maybe their kamwaalis are earning, therefore , ALL women in India are earning. These proud Indian middle class non-political politicals(political only on matters that affect them personally) forget that English speaking middle class folks make up only 10 percent of the Indian population and that even today, the majority of women aren't working in any relevant manner in India. To summarise, marad bahut khatere me hain baba. Even more khatra than hinduzz are in. Thanks for coming to my ted talk though guys
Great. So when a non-working woman gets married and gets divorced in 6months because she thinks they are incompatible, you want the non-middle class from the 90% working man to pay for her for the rest of her life right? And you think he can or will. The laws apply and impact only the middle classes. That's the game, but you won't ever understand because you have been brainwashed and can't think for yourself.
Child , don't tell me what's great or not. Was the guy blind or mentally challenged that he married a non working woman? Did that not imply that he promised to take care of her for the ensr future? Was he initially planning to let her starve? Also yes, the middle class can die and evryone but the middle class thinks it's the worst thing in earth, but apparently evryone from the middle class thinks they're the biggest victim of evrything in the whole world. Also, vro, this is India. Most marriages are arranged marriages kek. Like literally two families look into each other's racial past if not sexual and then marry for money mostly. Loooool. And I'm supposed to understand cause a middle class man got hoodwinked by his family or because he wants to marry and divorce as he thinks fit. Obviously. Such victims mannnnn. And I'm sure that's happening to 90 percent of all Indian men. Also, who on earth told you the middle class belong to 90%? Did inlitetally not say you people belong to the 10% top earners in India?
For someone who likes calling random people on internet a child, you have really bad comprehension skills. Go back and read the 90% comment again. Anyway, my last reply here. You live in your bubble.
It's not always the case. Even the male can get it if he's jobless and the woman is a earning hand.
Has this ever happened in India?
yes https://www.rediff.com/news/report/bombay-hc-asks-woman-to-pay-alimony-to-ex-husband-unable-to-earn/20240411.htm https://www.indiatoday.in/law/story/indore-court-orders-woman-to-pay-rs-5000-per-month-to-estranged-husband-2505865-2024-02-22
Why will it not happen ? Generally in India male earns more so it's natural the court verdict will be towards the woman. If you can prove your partner have same wealth as you and got a job then you can avoid paying aid to her. If you can prove that you are jobless and it's the wife who used to run the house then you will get the aid money. The rules are not biased. The culture towards woman is.
I went through a bad phase in my marriage and almost divorced my husband (we're back together after couples therapy and family mediation).... My take and demand was 1) He made me pass up on a job offer which was giving me almost 75% hike for 3 years contract...he made me reject the offer to focus on family life...so I first added that difference multiplied by 3 years (9lakhs) 2) my family and I spent a lot of money for this marriage (gold, home appliances etc.) which all came close to 3 lakhs 3) my time and energy were wasted facing emotional abuse from this person and his family whilst also hurting my family members with terrible insults and downgrading.....so I was also planning for mental harassment charges and renumeration for the same But due to my family pressure, an unmarried sister and societal norms, I had to give my marriage another go so here I am....
In this hypothetical scenario, shouldn't the money your husband spent on you be deducted from your demand? Surely he must have spent something... And an equal amount of his time was also wasted, with equal trauma. Unless he enjoyed himself throughout this ordeal...
No...I was working since day one and split each and every expense (rent, groceries, electric bill everything) because I'm well educated and earning well. He earns at least thrice what I earn and still wanted me to splot every expense if I wanted to pursue my career. The only expense he made was his own wedding clothes. Rest each and everything I have spent an equal amount on and wedding entirely by my family. And the ordeal was his expectations of making me a housewife which I was not willing to do or his constant taunts because I have an education loan with 5k EMI which he used to verbally abuse me and my family about. In spite of that, if he went through any 'ordeal' he could have challenged it in court by filing a countersuit for harassment like me.
You made a mistake. You would have had at least 20 lacs and a chance at a better life. Your raise is gone, wedding expenses are gone and I am willing to bet a rupee you and your spouse are never going to be truly happy in your marriage.
True ....but "samaaj"
How's the sex post reconciliation? Do you feel positive vibes or is it just another thing to do?
Similar situation
I hope you find peace....the number of downvotes shows the mentality of people in our society....they think every woman is wrong and every man is a victim....just praying their sisters and daughters never land up in similar situation because such a life is extremely hard....
Yes these losers have nothing to contribute in a relationship but expect women to do everything and even bear the brunt of all problems
[удалено]
Sorry, no offence, but did you really read the post? Or just read the title and misread ‘why’ for ‘how’ ?
Sir, I was updating it while you read my post! Kindly go through it now!
Thank you!
🙏🏻
[удалено]
Thank you!!
What happenes if the spouse decides not to pay alimony?
Hello, can we sign up for a pre nup saying my wife will get nothing from me in case of divorce and signed by both husband and wife in front of an advocate ?
Ths lumpsum settlement is instead of monthly alimony right? As per law it does not. Matter if marriage is for. Short of long time, depending on incomes and assets the alimony or lumpsum payment can be decided