It is becoming clearer everyday that radical feminists are not going to rest until every bit of sanity is removed from Indian law, and every sign of peace in an average Indian family is destroyed. Not two days after pushing for unequal adultery laws, National Commission for Women (NCW) is pushing for alimony for female live-in partners. The NCW recommends that “A woman in a live-in relationship should be allowed to seek maintenance if she is deserted or shunned by her partner…Citing instances where women living in relationships “in the nature of marriage’’ were left with little or no sustenance after being deserted”
Live-in relationship is a very recent phenomenon, restricted to urban cities in India, and is probably unheard of, or is unacceptable in most parts of India. The reason why people opt for live-in relationships is either because they do not want the formation or breakup of their relationships to be governed by laws or simply because they perceive it as a way to defy the traditional concept of marriage (there could be other reasons that I may not be aware of). Whatever the reason may be, it would not be unreasonable to say that almost all women (and men) in live-in relationships are from urban backgrounds, hold some kind of educational degrees, and are either employed, or capable of acquiring employment. So, how is legally granted alimony to a female live-in partner justified?
Secondly, live-in relationships were meant to make breakups easier and least painful for both partners. The NCW uses the words “deserted or shunned” rather than “breakup” to describe the termination of a live-in relationship by a male partner. It appears that according to the new “rules” of NCW, a breakup must be something that happens when a “hapless woman” is “compelled” to leave an “untenable or unbearable” relationship, whereas a man leaving a relationship would be considered as a “cruel and heartless” act called “desertion”. Either way, since a man is assumed to be guilty until proven innocent by Indian law, a woman can always claim to be the one who was “deserted”, and demand alimony. Why not? It is a “lawful” way of making money even if you may call it unethical.
Next, the NCW will not spell out what the duration of a live-in relationship should be to qualify for alimony/maintenance. Apparently, “this aspect should be left to the courts to decide”. Now, how wonderful is that! So, the courts will set some standard duration of time as sufficient to claim alimony, and let us hope that this standard will be uniform across the country. The million dollar question is, how can a man and a woman “prove” how long they have been in a live-in relationship unless there is some record of their cohabitation? Does this mean live-in partners should now start maintaining records to prove the beginning and end of their relationship anticipating legal issues? Does this not defeat the main purpose of a live-in relationship, which is to keep law out of it?
The pushing of more and more new anti-male laws in India reflects the extremely sinister designs of radical feminists. The multi-pronged approach of radical feminists can be outlined as follows:
1) They brainwash women to believe that marriage is an undesirable bondage, and encourage women to shun marriage and childbirth.
2) They introduce laws that make it easy for a woman to thoughtlessly break her marriage on the slightest pretext.
3) They encourage the woman to use the same laws to threaten and blackmail a man to stay in a marriage that he does not wish to continue.
4) They recommend making adultery by a man punishable by law, so that he has no chance of seeking pleasure outside of an unhappy or unsatisfactory marriage, while ensuring that the woman is free to commit adultery under the title of a “hapless victim”.
5) They make sure every act of a man can be legally classified as abuse just based on a woman’s perception of abuse.
6) They impose unreasonable financial penalties on a man for anything that goes wrong with his marriage. They also provide for legal ways to emotionally torture a man by allowing the prosecution of his dear ones.
7) They push to bring live-in relationships under the purview of law, sealing out the possibility of a man seeking happiness by avoiding the legal hassles of marriage.
While systematically stripping men of their basic human rights, radical feminists use the downtrodden woman from rural India, who is completely unaware of Indian laws or would never dream of using them, as a mascot for their campaign for women’s rights in a “male dominated” India.