My wife will inherit my family’s property, her brothers too will share their property with their respective wives.

This was a comment in response to scribblehappy‘s comment to “Haryana panchayat cuts off married girls from parents’ property“.

Edited to add the entire comment from here.

“quoting scribblehappy

Scribblehappy: She will remain as much entitled to parental property as her brothers, as per Indian law.
Comment: On the ground, there is difference between law and actual practice.

scribblehappy: She can take her parents, brothers to court if they try to cut her out of the inheritance.
Comment: Yet she won’t do that. She won’t make the claim in the first place. As I said before, she has switched sides with her husbands family after marriage.

scribblehappy: Your wife will only inherit a PART of your parental property and then only if she happens to OUTLIVE you.
Comment: This is not true. She will inherit my family’s property as a equal partner in an agreement from our marriage. Similarly, her brothers too will share their property with their respective wives. That’s the indian system.

scribblehappy: First it makes the girl child spectacularly unwanted.
Comment: The only reason why a girl child is not wanted is because she is a liability. How many daughters are truly independent in india? How many daughters can do without marriage in india? Don’t give me anomaly examples of this women or that women you know as being independent but give me a statistic… 75%? 50%? 25%? What is the percentage of women that do not choose to live a life of dependency? If a large no of these girls are dependent then they are a liability and hence unwanted.

scribblehappy: Equal share in her in-laws’ property? Come on, now!
Comment: Ownership of property is made in an individuals name(ie, me). But our marriage contract entitles her to my property and my assets. Those are not my views but they are actually facts.

The hindu system(the one that is followed) has always been a patriarchal system. The state take over and rewrote the whole hindu law but the problem is that creating a law and enforcing the law is very difficult because public consensus is not in your favour.

When you create a law, you have to take the public on board, discuss it and win their consensus. Make them agree with you and then the law becomes truly democratic and enforcement will be voluntary. The current hindu law is none of it and so the results are not surprising.”

What do you think?

Related posts:

Can Dowry be compared to Inheritance?
An email. Aren’t the sons supposed to have their own family lives?
A daughter in law’s legal rights in her in law’s house are the same as her husband’s rights.
“My wife often rakes up property issues, or rues the expenses on my father’s ill-health.”
Paraya dhan and her limited rights.

57 thoughts on “My wife will inherit my family’s property, her brothers too will share their property with their respective wives.

  1. First of all, the reason more women are not independent in India is that they are not ‘allowed’ to be…If they were ‘allowed’ to be educated and earn and not forced into marriage and household responsibilities, then over the years more women would be financially independent and therefore less of a financial liability…The results will not be seen on a mass scale in 1 or 5 years but with proper encouragement things could change over a generation…

    Also, if society changed its views on dowry, parents would view their daughters as less of a liability and more of an asset…

    Like

    • I agree, there is a difference between ability to be independent and being allowed to be independent. The moment a woman works even as a maid, people feel threatened and claim that she now fights backs coz she earns money, must be kept under control, she will destroy our culture and ruin our reputation. they fear loss of their power/position, scared of change and inability to adapt to the new societal rules or just plain unable to break their mental indoctrination.

      Like

      • “Ruin our culture and ruin our reputation”

        Ha,ha, why is culture ruined only when women are given more choices? Why is culture not ruined or when a new bride is treated as little better than the goose that lays golden eggs?

        Indian culture my &*^

        Like

    • What about middle-class masters graduates? Those women get all the education they need to earn decent money and to realize that they do not need a permission to be independent. These women have all the resources, so where does the wisdom go?

      I said it many times and I will say it once more – it’s pure naivety to think that one day men, parents, in-laws with come to a conclusion of a type “lets give our girls freedom, they deserve it”.

      If women sit there and complain that they are not given any independence and hence they cannot do anything for themselves, they are gonna be slaves like they are today for the centuries to come.

      Parents giving dowry is as much of a moronic practice like the opinion of young women themselves that it’s okay to live with in-laws and it’s okay not to have a bit of working experience because housewifery is so attractive.

      Like

      • EM, the harsh reality is that an oppressed class can never stop the oppression against them by themselves. The only way oppression ends is if BOTH the oppressor and the oppressed decide to end it.

        I am the kind of woman you are talking about: educated, upper-middle-class, fighting for my freedom from the time I realized I was being denied it (around age 16).

        My refusal to toe the line has worked. I worked as a teenager in spite of my parents’ wishes against it, I left home for college in USA on my own dime even though my parents wanted me staying at home the whole time, I wore what I wished even though my parents were scandalised by my clothes, I married the man of my choice even though my parents threw me out of the house when they found out I had a boyfriend.

        After getting married, I did not start spending all my holidays in India with my inlaws as they desired but spent my time 50-50 at parents and inlaws (and asked my husband also to do the same, for equality’s sake). I did not change my name after getting married, much to my parents’ and inlaws’ consternation. I even passed my own last name to one of my children, which got opposition from the elders like you can’t even imagine. I do not bow and scrape and serve my inlaws when they visit us – I wake up later than they do, I let them make their own tea, I do not wait on them hand and foot – even though they would like me to, a little. When my inlaws visit, I do not let them dictate my parenting or my clothing or my relationship with my husband – even though they often want to.

        So i’m doing everything you said women should “simply” do, yeah? I’m living the dream? In my personal life there is perfect gender equality.

        BUT. Every single one of these freedoms, which ought to be mine with no effort, has come at a HUGE social cost. My parents hate me, my inlaws hate me, my relatives hate me, my inlaws’ relatives hate me, I am notorious as the “big bad bitch” on both sides of the family. I am a cautionary tale for people to tell their daughters when the daughters show any sign of independence. What’s more, my husband is a laughing stock among relatives and friends even of his own age! “Joru ka gulam”, you see?

        It hurts more than I can begin to tell you. I can EASILY see why women choose not to do this. Not everyone has it in them to stand up to the whole goddamn world in order to wear a skirt. I can see why most women might say “gosh it’s just a skirt, fine, I’ll wear a salwaar kameez instead and stop all this fighting!”

        It’s not that easy. You need to stop blaming the victims and start blaming the actual culprits for continuing the oppression!

        Like

        • Loved your comment Nandini. I am the same. I am probably the cautionary tale in my in-laws family as well, though I am more easily excused because I am an “outsider”.

          I think, though, that the larger point is what you said: “The only way oppression ends is if BOTH the oppressor and the oppressed decide to end it.” and in some ways that intersects with what EM is saying.

          While for many many women, it is really very hard, there is a group who could push the envelope more. So when we deciding whether to compromise or not, those of us who are not in grave danger if we choose the freer path might consider doing so not just for ourselves but for women everywhere.

          So, I have fought with my husband for my children to carry my name ONLY just as children for centuries have carried their husband’s name ONLY (both our names would not be an acceptable solution in our case, and has proved to be unwieldy in many cases). I know my husband is not ready for this change but I felt it was my duty to fight that fight, for him and his family and anyone who cares to listening, including when they are older, our children, that men stamping their last names on their children need not be the given, nor is it fair or even sensible.

          Maybe it’s too much to ask to think about our actions having implications beyond ourselves, and I know it cannot be asked for everybody, but some of us – maybe more than we think – are in a position to have that influence.

          Like

        • I completely understand. It is unbelievable how outraged people get when a woman keeps her name after marriage.

          It’s like you’re challenging everthing they’ve worked or something.

          After some time, you just want to go with the flow and not fight epic battles for every little “freedom”.

          For whatever it’s worth though, its better to keep away from people who do not add value to one’s life or enrich it in any way.

          Social criticism is very hard to bear, but not being true to oneself is even harder to bear.

          Like

  2. I read that comment (I think you should post the entire comment) and all I can say is that that line of argument will go around in a vicious circle endlessly. First, he was not clear on the law – that his wife is entitled to property he inherits but he is also entitled to property his wife inherits. His response to that was “oh but because of the situation in India, I can never claim my wife’s property” or something along those lines. Whyever not? If educated and independent people do not claim their rights and fight for justice, who will?

    Essentially, he is saying that the social conditions exist because the social evil and the social evil exists because the social conditions exist. So women don’t get a share in property because they are not earning members and they are not earning members (they are not educated, groomed to work) because they don’t have a share in a property (since why bother educating a powerless member).

    The only way to break the vicious cycle is to address both issues at once – give women rights to property and simultaneously make sure women are capable of earning and being independent.

    As to the claim that laws should only be brought in once consensus in society has been gained, well, that would be the ideal scenario. But sometimes, when society is so backward, the law has to be the vanguard. An example is the sati law. There was no consensus in society when it was enforced. But partly due to the law and partly due to education on the subject etc, the practice has faded. The law and education of the public need not be mutually exclusive. They can go hand in hand, and the law can exist and do its part while society limps towards catching up.

    Like

  3. You are right about a vast majority of Indian women not being independent. The real question is what are you doing to change it? Are you ensuring that the women around you get educated?

    We teach sons that they are the “man of the house” and push them to be ambitious. How many of us teach our daughters to be ambitious? If you are taught all your life, that your only job as a woman is to be a wife and mother (as we always glorify it), that is all they’ll see. Years of social conditioning does that to you. No amount of education changes that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a stay at home parent, it is a choice you make – but if you are not financially independent in this day & age, you are doomed. It gives you power and respect like no other.

    How many men grow up thinking I want to be a great husband and dad? No they have dreams…because they have role models and because we encourage them to have dreams. Later in life they say..yes I want to be a good dad and a good husband. Humans are not born with an ambitious gene. We cultivate it. We nurture the need to be independent, to have self worth, and to believe in oneself.

    Like

    • I totally agree with what you say here. No one is born wanting to be independent or dependent. It is how we bring up the kids, it depends on what they see around them that make them either grow up wanting to live their own life or wanting to fit in a particular role.
      Something else bothers me a great deal, and that is we always measure independence in terms of money. Yes, being financially independent is definitely must, but the problem lies in our mentality to measure everything in terms of money. For example, a homemaker’s work is not seen significant because it does not directly translate to an earning. I wish this mentality changes. I wish being financially independent is not a pre-requisite to equality.

      Like

  4. I don’t understand why people cannot understand simple logic. The underlying logic of the law is pretty straightforward.
    Sons and daughters inherit from their own parents. Wives and husbands who outlive their spouse inherit part of the spouses property. If you own property/assets that you would prefer to give to someone else , or divide in a different way than the law, write a will.

    //The only reason why a girl child is not wanted is because she is a liability. How many daughters are truly independent in india? How many daughters can do without marriage in india? Don’t give me anomaly examples of this women or that women you know as being independent but give me a statistic… 75%? 50%? 25%? What is the percentage of women that do not choose to live a life of dependency? If a large no of these girls are dependent then they are a liability and hence unwanted //

    EXACTLY the point. Congrats you have nailed the problem.
    But please now think how the tradition of not allowing her equal rights on her parents property further propagates the problem you have described above.
    According to you, if a woman is to have any inheritance it must come from the husband and in laws. So how then , are you going to encourage women to not marry and be independent?

    Like

    • I think it is wrong to equate independence with financial independence.

      I could also ask the commenter about the proportion of unmarried men in India — 25%, 50%, 75%.

      Women marry for sustenance and financial security, agreed. By the commenter’s logic then, men have no need for marriage, since they are financially independent.

      If wage-earning is to be the only yardstick by which we judge a person’s contributions, then most of our mothers’ lives would not amount to much, since most do not have a rupee to their name.

      I think gender inequality will not go away until we acknowledge women’s contributions — domestic labour, child bearing and rearing as having inherent economic value.

      India will grind to a halt, if all Indian women refuse to, for ONE day to carry out those “female” chores

      Like

  5. First of all, who ever gave the comment-er the authority to come up with property rules for everyone else?

    If he is so inclined that a child must inherit property from only one source then he should be able to happily give up any claim over his inheritance and tag on with his wife.

    And about women being dependent and “burdensome”, it is not because they dont contribute. Many many women work in the family fields, but their labor is not considered “earnings”. Many more women run households and are busy 24×7 but they are not paid a salary.

    On one end of the spectrum, guys like you do not want to consider women as equals and treat them as acquired property after marriage and on the other end make a hue and cry about women being “dependant”. Infact, if women are really so dependent and useless then logic dictates that parents should leave all their properties to the daughter as she cannot earn for herself while the sons can fend for themselves right?

    Like

  6. ‘The only reason why a girl child is not wanted is because she is a liability. How many daughters are truly independent in india’ Exactly! Maybe if a woman was brought up to be financially independent, the whole issue wouldnt arise.

    Women are not independent because they are not allowed to be. There are different sets of rules for them, sometimes even lower quality education – because the mindset is ‘ what
    s the point in wasting money on her education when what she has to do eventually is learn to be a homemaker’.

    Property rights is a very important part of ensuring a woman’s independence. It gives the woman financial security and the option of walking away from bad marriages, if required. Which is probably the reason so many people are opposed to it.

    Like

  7. I fail to understand why would a woman not have right over the parental property? Why is a daughter seen as a girl and not as a child born to her parents just like her brothers are. The question of inheritance should be independent of the marital status of the kids in the family (who are inheriting the property and assets).

    Talking about the low fraction of financially independent women in our country, well firstly we need to include every working woman in this count for there are countless women who aren’t paid for their labor (homemakers, care-givers, women working in fields,etc.) they are capable of being independent if paid optimally for the services they provide.

    The issue of inheritance shouldn’t be meddled with the ratio of women who are independent for the problem of not being financially independent is based on countless other problems like lack of opportunity to acquire vocational education (for the girls are often married off early without allowing them to complete their studies), the in-laws often don’t like women to continue working after marriage.

    What a wife receives from her marital home has nothing to do with her rights in the parental assets. Formulating laws that the people consensually agree to will never bring any law to force for there will always be an opposition from the people who were the gainers in the absence of the laws. When calculating the assets a man gets (through inheritance and otherwise) why aren’t the gains received in form of dowry not counted?? Why is dowry so cleverly counted as the share of the daughter given to her during marriage when the truth lies that all of it reaches her in-laws and spouse.

    Like

  8. A girl has all the rights over her parental assests . There is no question of doubt here
    My grandparents died few years back ,and they died together . Whatever back accounts ,FD’s and investments they had ,they made each other the nominee . It took a whole lot of time of time to even figure out where all they invested ,because my dad ,uncle and aunt never bothered to ask about their money ,it was my granparents’s money at the end of the day . But you know when they went to the bank to get the locker opened,my aunt could not make and the bank manager made it very clear he would not open the locker without the consent of ALL the children .

    I think we as women should realise we are entitled to a whole lot than we think we are and we should step up . Yes ,a whole lot of women are not independent but I think we all can agree we have seen a change in the scenario since the last 6-7 years , but there is lot more we need to work on

    Like

  9. The Hindu law was not exactly rewritten by the state – the idea was to come to an understanding of moving towards a more uniform civil code in the future.

    Women’s inheritance is not exactly an alien to Hindu concepts or idealogy. Even right to education was not exactly anit-hindu.

    BTW a lot of inheritance issues crop up because of people not drawing up a WILL and having it registered.

    Like

  10. Wouldn’t this problem become a little easier if there was a will written – which clearly defined who gets what? By putting off writing a will means a will never gets written – hence the law is called upon to look at the matter, the itself seem incompetent to deal inheritance freely and equally.

    Like

      • In absence of a will I do think the law should recognize every survivors right to the property regardless of gender.

        But inherited property is not as easy. For example if I have a house that has been in my family for ages cannot be willed away to say someone who is not my survivor.

        This law is actually used to stop women who inherit property from her husband and try to will it to someone other than the children. There was a famous case among the Birlas on this I believe except the women had no children and hence the case did not stand (I am not 100% sure of the details of that case) and she could actually will it to an outsider.

        BTW, The law might prevent a person for willing a property which he or she has not personally bought but has inherited, it does not prevent the person from liquidating it.😛

        Like

      • The inheritance should be divided based on needs of individual children. For example: If one son is married, has mortgage and a family to support then naturally the more inheritance he receives will help him and his family, if another son and daughter are students or unmarried, where the girl has no plan to marry but live life independent then both the son and daughter should receive a smaller share since their lives are not as complicated or the elder son.

        But of all siblings are equal in terms of their life-styles then – yes, they should have equal share of the inheritance.

        Like

        • There’s no way of forecasting the future. What if a currently successful sibling is deprived of a share of the inheritance now, but has financial troubles in the future? All siblings should get an equal amount.

          Like

        • In your logic, the wastrel drug addict bum of a sibiling would get most of the inheritance (and squander it to support the addiction) as compared to the responsible sibling!

          There are a lot of factors that go into a person being successful. If what you say was implemented, you would actually be motivating people to be unsuccessful!

          If we extended your logic, soon you would be saying that I should give away all of my hard earned money so someone else’s kids because they have a lower lifestyle!

          Like

        • @BAB: I was giving an example of why giving inheritance based on the present situation of siblings is not a good idea. I was not forecasting, just trying to say that the future is unpredictable, so inheritance should be equal.

          Like

  11. Oh my my! You totally succeeded in making patriarchy sound fair and egalitarian as far as inheritance goes. There is a small glitch though. Once gender gets inheritance based on birth, othe other based on marriage. So, for one gender getting married and staying married becomes a necessity more than the other gender. This makes marriage an unequal partnership. This gives rise to dowry, bride burning and eventually female foeticide. Who makes a person self-reliant? The parents. What do patriarchial parents get when their sons are self-reliant? A lifetime of support and passing on the wealth only upon their death. What do patriarchal parents get when their daughters are self-reliant? Nothing except passing on inheritance WHILE ALIVE.
    Does patriarchy sound egalitarian now?

    Like

  12. Even though in a democratic country the law should mirror the public views, what can/should lawmakers do, if the broad public opinion has very crippled ethics and believes in ideals that hurt the very citizens the law is created for?

    India does not have a problem with legislation in general or any aspect of law-making. India has a problem with motivation (or lack thereof) to create and pass certain laws. Many times laws that are much needed are not supported by the public at all – either because the awareness is literally nonexistent or because people are “happier” with the “law of the jungle” especially for issues related to individual freedom, protection of women and children, inheritance, sexual abuse etc.

    So what do you do, when certain issues need to be formally addressed, but the public acts against it? Should you just leave it hiding behind democratic principle? Or should you use that democratic principle as a weapon against social injustice and against victimization of the powerless?

    Like

    • The bill on preventing child (sexual) abuse is one example.

      If it were left up to Indian society, this bill will not become law in a million years.

      Laws that protect weaker or disempowered components of society can only become reality because the government and parliament pushes them through not because of social pressure groups.

      Like

    • That is the very point of having a justice system – that even the weak and the meek get fairness. The law should do what is just, not reflect the view of it’s people. If the populace of a country is corrupt, then should the laws be just as corrupt ? The lawmakers must stand strong on ethics. Of course just making laws does zilch. Laws must be implemented – and here is where India fails spectacularly. If India’s justice system actually worked a whole host of issues (including foeticide/dowry/ etc.) would be, if not solved, at least reduced to a great degree.

      Like

    • Here are some bits I don’t quite understand,
      “… if a girl is beautiful but does not belong to a good family then do not marry with her. He said we should marry with a girl of a good family even if she is not beautiful. …

      He said the real happiness of a wife lies in the serving of her husband and it is the Swarag of the wife.
      He says that the wise people should not quarrel over the talks of women as it brings sorrows in the family.
      (Yeah sure, wise people should devote their lives to revenge and scheming?)

      A woman should understand any work done by her with the consent of her husband is beneficial to her and family.

      A wife should not quarrel with her husband without any reason. (And the rest of the world should plan wars ‘without any reasons’?)

      Like

    • Okay so now we are dishing out such stupid and insulting advices under the garb of spiritualism? So instead of smashing these assertions, and rigid gender roles TOI has took it upon itself to promote such archaic notions. How the heck is that self improvement, if you’re going to regress?

      Like

    • So many problems in our society will be solved if we changed the gender in the passage(if we exchanged the word “wife” with “husband”, “man” with “woman”, etc) Here it goes…

      Marriage is the most needed thing of our social life and every person wants to live a successful married life so that he can live happily with peace. Chanakaya has given many secrets for a successful marriage in Chanakaya Niti.

      While every woman wants to marry a handsome man but Chanakya has told otherwise. He says that if a man is handsome but does not belong to a good family (that believes in gender-equality) then do not marry with him. He said we should marry with a man of a good family even if he is not handsome. He said the marriage should done in a family that thinks about equality .
      Chanakaya said the love between husband and wife is the most successful reas
      on behind marriage.

      He said the real happiness of a husband lies in consulting his wife and taking joint decisions and it is the Swarag of the husband.

      He said a successful husband is that who is honest and clever. A husband should love his wife and speak the truth. This kind of behavior of a husband brings happiness to the family.

      He says that the wise people should not quarrel over the patriarchal talks of men and women as it brings sorrows in the family.

      A man should understand any work done by him with the consent of his wife is beneficial to him and family.

      A wife should always protect her husband with her money etc.

      A son should be married in a good family that considers him a human, not God. (Deitification is another form of objectification.)

      A husband should not quarrel with his wife without any reason.

      The couples can live happily by keeping in mind the secrets told by the Great Chanakaya.

      Like

  13. We can change , create and write how many ever laws we want but the problem lies in enforcing it on a low level family by family basis.
    We are a society much given to copying others. We pride ourself on how we are percieved rather than worry about how we actually are .
    so change will be slow,( can’t look back in the eyes of the neighbourhood right??)
    but possible.
    Education is the key.
    Those of us who have kids MUST do our part andraise them to think about these things to consiously make sure every human being is treated right and educate and empower our kids.
    Those that have daughters have slightly more power to ensure change, they can teach/educate their daughters to make them self-reliant. spot abuse, fight back .. the old adage about ‘teaching a man to fish…’ teach your daughters to stand up for themselves, financially, physically, mentally.
    be their support not their backbone. let them grow and face issues and solve them.

    this way there is hope for the next generation who will not tolerate nonsense ( in any form) , and they in turn will raise their kids right and hopefully it will be a bit more easy as society changes.

    First we MUST stop trying to please society, we have to live amongst people not hurting them but also not worrying about what they think always.

    As for property, what kid of a parent sees their children differently based on gender, economic conditions or marital status.. they are your children, girl/boy/other your property should be split equally or even better let them make their oun money and give it all away to charity!!!!

    Like

  14. “How many daughters are truly independent in india? How many daughters can do without marriage in india? Don’t give me anomaly examples of this women or that women you know as being independent but give me a statistic… 75%? 50%? 25%? What is the percentage of women that do not choose to live a life of dependency?”

    How many men choose to live a life of independence when it comes to making meals, shopping for the groceries, thinking about the running of the household, fighting with the household help, planning the day, raising the child, tutoring the kids, taking them to the 20K different classes and back. How many are real equal partners w.r.t all this?And if they are not, how much are they willing to pay for 5-star quality work in all these areas day after day after day, with not one sick leave? In short, how much is family really worth to these men? Until we talk about this dependence, we cannot have a discussion on the dependence of the (presumably stay at home) women on their spouse.

    Like

  15. All the children, men & women should have equal rights to the property of their parents, I agree with that. And this is fair and right only in a rational, unbiased society that treats boys and girls the same way.

    In India though, the sons take responsibility of the parents till the end, and in some cases responsible for getting their sisters married too. Daughters are given a hefty Dowry, and this gift giving to the daughters and her family usually continues for a lifetime, and mostly borne by the sons. In this situation it is only fair that only the sons who need to get their share of their ancestral property, and will be unfair to give even that to their sisters.

    The only way to change all this is to NOT give anything to the sisters as DOWRY at the time of her marriage. Dowry in most cases does not even reach her, and is given away to her in-laws. Only when we do this, the law seems fair for both men and women involved.

    Like

  16. ” Comment: The only reason why a girl child is not wanted is because she is a liability. How many daughters are truly independent in india? How many daughters can do without marriage in india? Don’t give me anomaly examples of this women or that women you know as being independent but give me a statistic… 75%? 50%? 25%? What is the percentage of women that do not choose to live a life of dependency? If a large no of these girls are dependent then they are a liability and hence unwanted”

    And whose fault is it that girls are not independent? The parents right? So if the only reason a girl child is unwanted is because she will relay on them for everything then why not educate her and let her be independent? Most parents won’t let the girl get too much education and then after marriage some in-laws wont even let their DIL work and then you are complaining that they are not independent?? Come on! Its like you cripple someone and then blaming it on that person for being crippled.

    Like

  17. i am getting nothing. – no dowry ! no property. nothing – in fact i have been giving my parents 1 Lakh Rs every year since the past 9 years . They sold a house to educate their son, They “dowried ” their daughter. They have another 2 apartments than the apartment they stay…But it is all going to their ***** son ! who at the age of 32 works in a gas station , but they pamper him and smother him and cook and clean after him, because he is their “jaddo ki chaddi” such a hypocrite Indian culture about family and parents and children !!

    Like

  18. it is the mother who does not want to give, my father wants too. my father is my cheer leader who has silently cheered me on and still does. he feels “super great ” that his daughter gives him and he wants it , only because his daughter had the guts to live her life the way she wants and still does My father is the one who backed me up growing up – encouraging me to follow my path and stands silently encouraging me – in fact pushes me to “believe ” my dreams. If it was not for my father, I would have asked the money back. oh i would, but not in my fathers lifetime. am i coward ?

    Like

  19. Pingback: “Wives..well they are awesome! They will cross heavens to make you and the family’s lives happy.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  20. Pingback: “Her husband has told her she can leave if she wishes, she does not have a steady income of her own.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  21. Pingback: Should women be given a share in residential property of the husband, including inherited and inheritable property? | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  22. Pingback: Indian women and new laws to protect them - A Voice for Single Parents

  23. Pingback: “The sense of entitlement that’s hard-wired into every male child in an Indian household” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  24. Pingback: “Although my in laws maintain a facade of being content with what they have and never asking the girl’s side for anything…” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  25. Pingback: An update: ‘I am told that I am very wrong since I think of money, but is it not an important factor here?’ | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s