Yes, Madras ( Chennai) high court and women's rights lawyer Flavia Agnes, are absolutely right
Pedro Mascarenhas
An
Indian court's recent verdict that significantly expands the rights of
homemakers over their husband's property has been hailed as a positive sign by
women's rights advocates.
On 21 June, the Madras high court - in the southern state of Tamil Nadu - passed a verdict in a domestic dispute case that allowed a housewife equal share in her husband's property.
Experts say this is the first time an Indian court has formally recognised the contribution of a housewife to the husband's income. They, however, point out that the verdict is not binding on other states unless the country's Supreme Court rules along similar lines in future.
The wife works for 24 hours in various roles, including that of a chef, a "home doctor" and a "home economist", the court said. In the absence of the homemaker's duties, the husband would have to pay for the services these roles provided.
"By performing these skills, a wife makes the home a comfortable environment and her contribution towards the family, and certainly it is not a valueless job, but it is a job doing for 24 hours without holidays, which cannot be less equated with that of the job of an earning husband who works only for 8 hours," the court noted.
Madras high court: A new India verdict recognises value of women's work
|
Tensing Rodrigues
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/331267065.196954.1687944942521%40mail.yahoo.com.
PEDRO MASCARENHAS
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CABPxU2geGHaqu9vnZdDS8FZ0tJyFhvFN5h%3D76u7XVX-ShsRAAA%40mail.gmail.com.
Albertina Almeida
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CAKgQwHDu7FrBeL0v_PH8pCqyqCDVe7EJBJurJSfmSHnTdToSGw%40mail.gmail.com.
John de Figueiredo
On Jun 29, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Albertina Almeida <albertinaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CACbS_uRK0JNkPPfAf6-HGJvD0Xf4Q6qeSatBge5J9_3SPrmDAQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Pedro Mascarenhas
Can India have a Uniform Civil Code?
PM Modi’s remarks have reignited the Uniform Civil Code debate. But what exactly is it? And can India have a UCC?
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was brought by the British in 1862 to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. The IPC did not apply to matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and succession. These were governed by personal laws of different religions.
As decades went by, a need was gradually felt for a set of laws to cover these matters. In the 1930s, an All India Women’s Conference sought equal rights for all women---no matter from which religion---in marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and succession.
After India became independent in 1947, the Jawahar Lal Nehru government accelerated the process to reform religious laws through a common code, but only for all Hindus. The idea was to modernise Hindu society and forge national unity. However, the term Hindus was soon to be defined expansively to also include Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs.
Staying true to his “secular and pluralistic” credentials, Nehru followed the British who didn’t usually interfere in the religion-based personal laws of other communities, including Muslims, Christians and Parsis, giving them some kind of autonomy and protection because of their minority status. But it’s also no secret how the British thrived in India through their divide-and-rule policy.
Be that as it may, the two competing desires were manifested even when the Indian Constitution, which came into effect in 1950, said the State shall endeavour to secure for all citizens a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The idea of a UCC referred to laws that apply to everyone in India, replacing religion-based personal laws governing matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and succession. But the Constitution clarified that UCC was non-enforceable through courts.
In the 1950s, the Nehru government passed, following initial resistance, several laws to codify and reform Hindu personal laws, a process which was started during the British rule of India. The country had many new laws such as Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
But the demand for a UCC never died down. Nehru’s first Law Minister was BR Ambedkar, a man who played a crucial role in drafting the Indian Constitution, and who is revered by those championing the causes of plurality, secularism and social justice, particularly for the Dalits. Even Ambedkar had backed a UCC and faced Muslim opposition.
The courts have been quite clear about a UCC. In the 1985 Shah Bano case, the Supreme Court, after two similar orders in the past, batted for a common civil code for greater national integration, and said the Muslim Personal Laws couldn’t be cited to deny Muslim women maintenance from their husbands after divorce. Muslim clerics protested and the Rajiv Gandhi government used his parliamentary mandate to overturn the court order through a law.
And on June 28, PM Modi called for a UCC, days after the Law Commission invited views from all stakeholders on the issue, triggering sharp reactions from Muslim clerics and India’s political Opposition.
This excluded perhaps only the AAP which, having damaged the Congress greatly in Delhi and Punjab, has been trying to also mirror the BJP to be able to become the BJP’s main challenger. India's political realities have changed so much since 2014 that the AAP's support for a UCC, though also asking for wide consultations, has come despite two of its top leaders being in jail after being arrested by central agencies on corruption charges. This is also despite that a central ordinance has overturned a Supreme Court order and allowed the Modi government a victory in a long-festering battle for who controls bureaucrats posted to the Delhi government.
Having said that, now back to the primary question: can the Modi government bring a Uniform Civil Code? The short answer is, it can, by all means. The Constitution has talked about it, Ambedkar was a votary, the court has batted for a UCC and now PM Modi has, for the first time, spoken in favour of standardising the civil code across the country so openly. The BJP has the numbers in the Lok Sabha. In the Rajya Sabha, the situation may not be as good for the ruling party, but "floor management" can see them through as seen in the past.
UCC supporters see it as a way to ensure gender equality. For example, polygamy is illegal under the IPC but Muslim men are allowed to have up to four wives under sharia Islamic law (however, polygamy also exists in many tribal communities and it will become an issue for the BJP in the middle of a massive tribal outreach).
But UCC opponents, including some Muslim leaders, see it as a ploy to crush India’s plurality and secularism by diluting rights sanctioned under Islam. They say a UCC will lead to India’s Hinduisation and endanger Muslims and Christians.
Can India have a Uniform Civil Code?
|
Albertina Almeida
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/9C3A62D5-701D-43CF-99E8-E96FB27AD6F6%40sbcglobal.net.
Albertina Almeida
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/519356491.204451.1688037405083%40mail.yahoo.com.
Roland Francis
On Jun 29, 2023, at 11:27 PM, Albertina Almeida <albertinaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you again Pedro Mascarenhas for sharing this other article 'Can India have an Uniform Civil Code?' It does warn us effectively about the context in which this UCC is coming. Therefore all the more reason why we have to plug in to the discussions, and change the parameters of the discourse.Albertina
Frederick Noronha
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/FB7531AA-8505-4AF2-9199-B0D0EA7B1526%40gmail.com.
John de Figueiredo
On Jun 29, 2023, at 11:24 PM, Albertina Almeida <albertinaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
I Don't deny these instances. But i am sure you will agree that these are more an exception rather than the rule?
Albertina
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 2:28 PM John de Figueiredo <john...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Albertina,There were instances in Goa in which the husband moved into the wife’s house without being “ghor zanvoi”. This happened with my paternal grandfather Luiz Caetano de Figueiredo and two of his brothers.
John M de FigueiredoSent from my iPhone
On Jun 29, 2023, at 2:50 AM, Albertina Almeida <albertinaa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for posting this.Yes, there are matrimonial property rights in Goa, and that incidentally was the subject of my Ph. D, thesis.But the problem is how it translates in an unequal patrilocal society. The matrimonial property rights are also enjoyed by the husband to his wife's share in her ancestral properties, for which he does no work (usually) like she does to his assets, given that she moves to his house/2-3 generation house) after marriage (ghor zanvoi being an exception). So having a law equal across the genders doesn't mean justice in an unequal patrilocal society.Because we consider Goa's 'uniform' civil code' as a holy cow, many Goans do not want to discuss the problems, which lie partly with the content of the law and partly with its implementation. Most do not even want to plug into the debate on Uniforn Civil Code, when whatever is the outcome of that is going to have a bearing on Goans.SincerelyAlbertina
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 3:30 PM PEDRO MASCARENHAS <pedro...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do they have it in practice or in theory? The laws shine on the shelves.
Tensing Rodrigues <ten...@gmail.com> escreveu no dia quarta, 28/06/2023 à(s) 10:51:
What's so great about it ? Goan housewives have had it for ages.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 at 15:18, 'Pedro Mascarenhas' via Goa-Research-Net <goa-rese...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
An Indian court's recent verdict that significantly expands the rights of homemakers over their husband's property has been hailed as a positive sign by women's rights advocates.
On 21 June, the Madras high court - in the southern state of Tamil Nadu - passed a verdict in a domestic dispute case that allowed a housewife equal share in her husband's property.
Experts say this is the first time an Indian court has formally recognised the contribution of a housewife to the husband's income. They, however, point out that the verdict is not binding on other states unless the country's Supreme Court rules along similar lines in future.
The wife works for 24 hours in various roles, including that of a chef, a "home doctor" and a "home economist", the court said. In the absence of the homemaker's duties, the husband would have to pay for the services these roles provided.
"By performing these skills, a wife makes the home a comfortable environment and her contribution towards the family, and certainly it is not a valueless job, but it is a job doing for 24 hours without holidays, which cannot be less equated with that of the job of an earning husband who works only for 8 hours," the court noted.
Women's rights lawyer Flavia Agnes called it a "very positive judgement because it recognises women's domestic labour".Madras high court: A new India verdict recognises value of women's work
Madras high court: A new India verdict recognises value of women's work
The judgement in a domestic dispute case allowed a housewife equal share in her husband's property.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/331267065.196954.1687944942521%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CABPxU2geGHaqu9vnZdDS8FZ0tJyFhvFN5h%3D76u7XVX-ShsRAAA%40mail.gmail.com.
--Pedro Mascarenhas
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CAKgQwHDu7FrBeL0v_PH8pCqyqCDVe7EJBJurJSfmSHnTdToSGw%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CACbS_uRK0JNkPPfAf6-HGJvD0Xf4Q6qeSatBge5J9_3SPrmDAQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/9C3A62D5-701D-43CF-99E8-E96FB27AD6F6%40sbcglobal.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/goa-research-net/CACbS_uSmFXAA_7A7aU1RugosQyAg%2B6bOo6aCyOFyKGumrUF5Kw%40mail.gmail.com.
Roland Francis
But the problem is how it translates in an unequal patrilocal society. The matrimonial property rights are also enjoyed by the husband to his wife's share in her ancestral properties, for which he does no work (usually) like she does to his assets, given that she moves to his house/2-3 generation house) after marriage (ghor zanvoi being an exception). So having a law equal across the genders doesn't mean justice in an unequal patrilocal society.
Pedro Mascarenhas
India: 'I have been rejected by dozens of men over dowry'
|
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to goa-research-n...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit