PRESS RELEASE
Subject: Men’s Rights Groups hail Supreme Court’s Landmark judgment against maintenance to live-in partners and say, “Men are not Economic Slaves”.
On 21st October 2010, a Supreme Court bench by Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S.Thakur ordered that Live-in Partners cannot be equated with legally wedded spouses and a woman in a live-in relationship cannot demand her male partner to maintain her by giving money every month.
Virag Dhulia, India Liaison officer for National Coalition for Men (NCFM) has made a press statement:
- The concept of women demanding money from men to maintain their life style is completely unacceptable in this era.
- Men are not “Economic Slaves” that they have to keep giving money and gifts every month to women, girl friends, Keeps, concubines, part time lovers, sexual partners, mistresses for decades or whole life even after the end of the relationship.
- Women are no way different than men except few minor physiological differences and they can work to maintain themselves just the way any single man maintains himself.
- Today, Sexual relationships between men and women are mutual. Only an idiot can assume that in a sexual relationship female is the giver and male is the taker. Law Makers must put an end to this practice of maintenance, alimony, compensations to women just due to some mutual sexual or emotional relationships for short or long periods of time.
- Society and media must stop encouraging greed and economic parasitism in women. Women are equal to men and women have the freedom and choice to work, earn and maintain their life style.
- If any child is born out of these sexual relationships, live-in relationships or one night stands, then the child’s proper upbringing is the shared responsibility of both the biological parents.
Today, when many societies in the world are eliminating maintenance/alimony/Palimony to wives and are instead urging women to just work and be financially independent, it is outrageous that our Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaisingh goes on to argue in a non-Government case and demands that a man pay Rs.500 every month to one of his sexual partners for many decades in future just like a “Free ATM Machine”. It appears that 70 year old Indira Jaisingh would like women to lead life as economic parasites.
NCFM hails the Supreme Court judgment, which now corrects many misinterpretations that Domestic Violence Act has created. Incidentally, the domestic violence act was drafted by Indira Jaisingh herself and she made this act to “Demand Money from Men Act”, even when there are separate laws related to maintenance. Nowhere in the world, are Women allowed to demand monthly money indefinitely from partner/spouse, while accusing the partner of domestic violence.
Ravi Kumar (name changed), aged 32, a software Engineer has a part-time lover for last 6 months. Just last week, they had a break up. Will Ravi Kumar have to pay Rs.5000/- per month to his part time lover for rest of his life?
Why Men have to pay money to women? What is the difference between men and women apart from a few physiological differences related to sexual organs? Should these few physiological differences make one a “Free ATM Machine” for the other?
On one hand, we hear daily harangues of “Gender Equality” and on the other hand radical feminists like Indira Jaisingh would like to convert every man into “Economic Slaves” and every woman into “economic parasites”.
The sexual relations between two humans are mutual. How appropriate is it to make one sexual partner maintain and pay to the other like a Slave for decades? It appears the radical feminists like Indira Jaisingh would like to define every sexual relationship between a man and woman as “Marriage” on one hand, while actively promoting live-in relationships in the society on the other hand.
A Live-in relationship or a “one night stand” is not a marriage. It’s absurd if someone mistakes them as marriage. Men must not be forced to pay money indefinitely to women whether it is live-in-relationship or it is a marriage. Its time society stops encouraging economic parasitism and tells women to just work and be financially independent.
Given a chance, Indira Jaisingh can also push courts to order men to pay maintenance to their female colleagues at work citing some imaginary office romance. We are heading towards a society where women are independent and men are no longer treated as “Free ATM Machines”. Women in urban and also rural India can just work to maintain themselves. They can become clerks, bus conductors, traffic policewomen, vegetable vendors, soldiers, teachers and they can do almost all jobs that men do and earn their livelihood.
It’s very important to note that in this landmark judgment the Honorable judges have referred to appropriate judgments of courts of United States of America and have told to “Google” for these judgments and terms.
The Judgment says:
In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married:-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a `keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’.
35. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the DV Act 2005, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression `relationship in the nature of marriage’ and not `live in relationship’. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute
