Instead of eyeing their husbands’ ancestral property, why don’t Indian daughters in law make their own homes?

If they are so concerned about a roof over their heads, instead of eyeing their husbands’ ancestral property, why don’t Indian daughters in law make their own homes ? 

Here’s why.

A huge majority of married Indian women live with their in laws in their ancestral homes – in Patriarchal Joint Families.

Patriarchal laws allow Indian parents to disinherit their daughters, keep them in dependance, marry them into joint families where the dependence continues and where they have no financial (and many other) rights.  

We also have laws that leave divorced women (and their children) homeless and with generally no alimony, maintenance or child support – because please note, our society, family values and culture does not approve of divorced women, they were supposed to Get Married and Stay Married or Die Trying.

Moving away from the Joint Family is condemned by the society, resisted by the husband and frequently disapproved by the woman’s own parents. Women (or couples) who do that are condemned as home-breakers.

These emails were written and published much before  IrBM Bill – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage [link] was ever heard of. The email writers are not wondering why it is not wrong for them to be thrown out of their homes, they just are just fighting to be allowed to make their own homes.

1. From a daughter  in law: ‘My in-laws emotionally blackmailed us against acquiring anything on our own, and I now  realize it is because they feared the son will move separate and not be there during their last days.’

“My husband has been there for them financially for over two decades, denying himself of acquiring any property of his own, always considering his family house as his own, his family’s needs as the major priority and now there is talks of giving away part of the little property to the daughter because it is her ‘right by law’. My in-laws emotionally blackmailed us against acquiring anything on our own, and I now  realize it is because they feared the son will move separate and not be there during their last days.

Am I wrong in thinking like this?  Should I just keep quiet as a ‘good’ Daughter-in-law’? Even my parents advise me to just let it go and do my duty, but I am very worried about my own future, this role of ours as providers is unappreciated and  seems never ending . My husband loves me and assures me that things will be alright, but I am hating the entire helpless situation I am in.”

From: An email. Aren’t the sons supposed to have their own family lives?

2.  From a son: ‘I can move out today if I want (though the house is big), but my mother wants me to stay’

“…my wife often rakes up property issues, or rues the expenses on my father’s ill-health, comparing the gifts that I give to my sisters on rakhi. I can move out today if I want (though the house is big), but my mother wants me to stay on since she feels helpless alone.”

From: “My wife often rakes up property issues, or rues the expenses on my father’s ill-health.”

3. An email from a mother in law who is hurt because her daughter in law is trying to  decide what she does with a part of her own earnings.  Please note she is handing over the rest to her in laws. This is not an uncommon scenario.

We are very happy family and consider my son’s wife as our own daughter and we have told on her arrival at our home. We believe that she also considers us as her parents. Two days back my DIL received her first salary (INR 30K) after the marriage. She informed my son that we should open joint bank account so I can transfer the salary… Actually we own big 2BHK flat in prime location of the Mumbai city with all amenities and that too very near to her office. Also they are getting full privacy and already been given separate bedroom with attached toilet, TV, AC etc. etc

From: An email from a Mother in law.

4. Some Indian parents of sons prefer working earning daughters in law to dowry. Why? Because it is understood that whatever a daughter in law earns belongs to the in laws. But the working daughters in law and their parens do not wonder if her earnings get her financial security. It’s enough for them if she has her in laws’ approval.

Her father had promised her in laws that that he would “arrange” for her job using his “connections in the ministry” which has not happened till date (5 years).

From: An email: Can a woman be married off with a promise to the in laws, that her father would find a job for her?

How does one change this? 

It can’t be easy, because an Indian paraya dhan‘s spouse’s parents feel entitled to her earnings, her dowry and sometimes even her inheritance. They get away with this because Getting and Staying married is seen as the only goal in an Indian woman’s life. The only way to change this is make sure every woman sees financial self reliance and not marriage as her biggest goal in life.

And self reliance also involves claiming her share from her brothers, and if married, from the husband. Threats or fear of divorce should not result in giving up self reliance.

Desi Daaru’s suggestions:

I don’t want the man I marry to have a stake in my parent’s property, so i can see why men would be wary of this law.

Here’s are examples, however, of laws I would like to see-
-Laws that make it difficult for in-laws to insist that they control all their DIL’s earnings. (not sure if it’s possible, but one can dream)
-Laws that help couples to create ‘joint marital property’ even if they are staying in a joint family (?tax-breaks)
-Laws that remove the tax-benefit status enjoyed by HIndu Undivided Families
-Laws that make it easier for women to claim their birth families ancestral property without necessarily getting dragged through the slow legal system- In other words, an equal division must be default, and in cases where it does not happen, the party that benefits should be hauled up before the courts to clearly explain why the daughtesr and sons are being treated unequally.

What do you think?

Related Posts:

A Desi girl’s guide to relationship survival: Her Marital Home: His Inherited Property

The traditional arrangement is equal in distributing the responsibilities?

An email from a Newly Wed Wife. “Now they don’t like me.”

“Women are forced by in-laws to get share in her parents property. This creates a divide between brothers and sisters.”

An email: I cannot bend to my FIL’s greed … but I don’t want to break up a family (mine)

By the way, how do you think does patriarchy react to women claiming their inheritance from their parents? Next post. 


116 thoughts on “Instead of eyeing their husbands’ ancestral property, why don’t Indian daughters in law make their own homes?

  1. Answering your last question. Patriarchy doesn’t like it. My maternal grandfather passed away when my mother was just 17. There was property, but my grandmother and her 4 children, which included my mother and her 3 brothers, stayed with my grandfather’s younger brother, and did their education there. When my mother got married, she was given some ancestral jewellery as part of a ‘dowry’, and was actually made to sign a document which said she had voluntarily given up any further claim to her father’s property. This was the brain-child of her two older brothers. They had plenty of support from the other ‘elders’ in the family. After her marriage, my grandmother and my younger maternal uncle stayed with us while he was completing his education. He moved to his own place after his marriage, but my grandmother stayed with us right upto after my marriage.


  2. So many typos in my comment IHM 🙂 I should proofread better from now on.

    Anyway, the IRBM Act gives a woman a share in the ancestral property only if it is considered her ‘residential’ marital home, right?
    Does this paradoxically mean that more patriarchal families will now *actively* encourage their sons to set up separate homes after marriage? In order to ensure that the DIL no longer has a claimable stake in the “family” residence?

    In other words, does this law indirectly promote nuclear families and establishment of new homes by couples because of the perceived legal ‘disadvantage’ created to the man’s family by the bride moving into their own property?
    If it does, then that’s an unintended benefit that I will welcome, despite my discomfort with this law.


    • You simply nailed it. That’s what is going to happen after this IrBM. Even, men will hesitate to marry if this law passes. So the wish of feminists and marxist who sees marriage as oppression of women will be fulfilled. Men only opt live-in or something else. Or prefer women who can earn well. This will be the norm for men to marry, if the girl don’t earn don’t marry. There is no professoin called “home maker”. Then there will less problmatic for men.

      Let the law pass. This created this much paranoia before passing it. Let us see some big shots or celebrities take divorce and some women exploit it and cheat good number of “Gentle men”. With in 5 to 10 years (or even less), men will understand who is the weaker sex in the society. It’s the peak stage. Let the sleeping men get the much deserving shock. We, as men right activists, simply sit and explains why they are in that situation.


        • They reaped benefits by virtue of external plumbing for all the history of humankind and they are still victims. Of course leaving privilege is hard. Who wants to give up 1/4th of the extra pie they ate for all their lives, women have survived on 1/4th so they can still do they won’t starve.
          Desi Girl


        • We don’t have lawyers only on the victim’s side, so why not men’s activists? Do you not live in a democracy? Women *must* get equal rights, but democratically.


        • How old is our democracy? 60+ years and how long men have been taking women for granted since the beginning of the humankind. So how can you have two unequal people in exposure to rights and privileges compete as equals?
          It is like a 8th class bully and a 5th grader running the race together in the middle school.


        • GGTS, I feel this is a fairly unsound argument. By your yardstick, the 5th grader should be the only one representing his issues against the 8th grader to his college authorities, and the 8th grader doesn’t get any say. How is that reasonable? Isn’t that victimization?

          I’m trying hard not to say this, but arguments like yours are what will push feminism back in time. We’ve evolved, our thinking has evolved, and we only need to see how to have equal rights for women today, within our existing political and legal frameworks.

          And please don’t say such statements – I think women deserve better in life, and I don’t expect to be held accountable for mistakes that my forefathers made.


      • Hunh? I never said marriages will stop, I only said that the current existing practice of moving into in-laws house may gradually die a silent (and welcome) death thanks to this law.
        It’s just a hypothesis.


      • Oh please. Men and women will continue to get married and create partnerships no matter what the legal environment.
        Pair-bonding is a deep human need, whether you call this marriage or something else.
        So far, our patriarchal society has made marriage into an arrangement where men have unearned and undeserved privileges. Women have many responsibilities, but very few rights.
        Some parity is urgently needed. Right now, men enjoy certain advantages in marriage at the cost of women’s well-being. That needs to change


  3. If I am a DIL every action of mine is in for close scrutiny and analysis by every one,especially the In-laws.If she works she must be ignoring her home,husband and kids,If she goes out with friends she is immoral,If she wants to manage her own money she wants to dominate her husband,If she takes interest in her husband’s finances she wants to steal him away from his parents.

    So basically I am the villain in the perfect Indian family story.recently on a random poem on my blog an anonymous user posts – B@#$# you are the type of woman who wants to control her husband,,wants to interfere between him and his parents,you are sick followed by choicest abuses.

    So I deduce that even a random ANONYMOUS finds it fully justified to evaluate my role as a DIL,till mindsets like these remain I don’t think any thing will ever change.


    • Another Anonymous2 who thinks he/she is the only one writing hate comments on my blog sent follow-up comments about this ANONYMOUS1’s mention here.Well dears I write comments on a lot of places online and MY COMMENTS necessarily do not amount for the person I am or the life I have.

      Unfortunately a lot of anonymous people have the presumption and perfect understanding of where my shoe pinches or how traumatized my In-laws are by me or I am by them.

      Sorry IHM had to put this here and I hope you publish this because I am not giving in to this kind of bullying to shut my voice.


        • Maybe you should do a post on them sometime. It might be educational! A lot of people come trolling on my blog after I leave spirited/pointed comments here. I’m sure I’m not the only one who faces this.


        • Yes I agree I believe just like real life all criticism Online for women culminates in character-assassination and personal attacks,while men are showered with choicest of mother sister abuses.So both ways in the cyber bullying arena also gender roles which have been internalized for generations come to play.Yes it is a good idea to draft a post about online threats on blogs and social media platform.


        • DG I presume the same trollers and flamers are targeting our blogs intentionally,I hope they get well soon and respect OUR choice of allowing whatever content we deem right and decent on our space.
          Its wonderful to have support from you and IHM,and my extreme pleasure to be in the same league with you two if at all I make the cut.Thanks to the bullies.


    • With this kind of mindset parents of boys should stop getting their boys married and buy a slave instead. Women can stop paying to become a slave.


  4. The problematic thing about the people who ask questions such as, “Why don’t you just leave?” or “Why don’t you just earn your own money?” or “Why don’t you just say no?” is that it is not as simple as that.

    Women who try to do the above things are often abused until they give in. They are often imprisoned in their homes, not allowed to leave, and not allowed to do anything until they are married off or taken care of in any way that their family (in-laws or natal) choose. Many times their lives are threatened when they try to exert any independence. It is not as simple as just walking out the door with a suitcase in your hand and a job offer in your pocket.

    Exerting your independence in Indian society often results in honour killings at worst, or complete ostracization and disownment by the family at best. If you have a job, then you’re lucky you can make your way through the world. But if you are not allowed to get a job, or have no ability to search for one, then what happens then? Do you risk starving in the streets? We’re talking about a country where the police won’t protect you if you leave, and will often hand you straight back to the abusers if they find you.

    It’s easy to tell people that they must defeat the system, but when the system is actively trying to kill you, what then?


    • Here you are forgeting one simple thing. Even now, women are not sending out of home without any compensation or alimony. There are laws to safegaurd women’s interest like maintenance laws. But it is the greed of women that is people questioning. women can’t ask ancestral property of a man or his property earn before the marriage with shobby tears. She has no contribution towards that. It’s just like asking nighbours property just because a person is in problems. Let them get their share in her fathers property or her ancestral property and make laws and hue and cry for that.

      Even if the bill passes this time in the parliament. Everyday is a end of every chivarly that women enjoyed up to now. There will be more strong voices, more dharnas… perhaps this decade will see a major shift in men’s attitude towards women and their problems. And remember, once men started understaing the feminist game, and realize the problem they are facing, then the game is over.


      • Did you read the statistics that Satish has shared in the previous post?

        //58% of the divorced women did not receive any maintenance at all (most of their cases are pending in court).
        8. The remaining 42% received approximately 10% to 13% of their spouses income as maintenance. In one case from Kerala, the woman fought for 17 years to be awarded a maintenance of Rs. 900 per month even though her male spouse was earning Rs. 56,000 per month.

        There are a lot more points brought up in the survey about the pathetic condition of most divorced women in our country. You can refer the below document for further details.


        • I have mentioned in the post –

          //There is no automatic right to maintenance payments in the case of separation; women must hire lawyers and go to court to petition for this – a step that is already out-of-reach for millions of poor and illiterate women. Less than half of women ever ask for maintenance. They must make a separate petition for child support. In the clogged and dysfunctional legal system, it often takes years to obtain even an interim order.

          …research found that maintenance awards were for between one-twentieth and one-tenth of a man’s stated income. “The biggest problem for a woman is to prove what he actually has.” With the dysfunctional tax-collection process here, men typically report only a small fraction of what they actually earn – “whether they are daily wage-earners or businessmen, that’s the same.”

          When these are awarded, they tend to be negligible….

          Then, regardless of the size of the award, the maintenance orders are almost never enforced, Ms. Singh added, so that in practice, women frequently receive nothing. //
          More in this link –


        • 7.58? don’t you think it’s small percentage? I don’t mean to say we can leave them, but the law definitely work for them too. All we need is proper implementation of the law. Even after IrBM pass the statistics looks like this only. Because property division is a civil case. They stay in courts for years. I am sure about that and that’s why WCD ministry oppose this move of including ancestral property. I must say.

          And the amount of alimony depends upon not only husband’s earning, the women’s position also. If she have other source of income she will get less alimony. And even maintenance law goes against men, if the judge is biased.

          And why do you think proper implementation of the law is the answer for it instead creating another biased law? which is not gender neutral at all?


        • Here is what the link says:
          Only 213 surveyees had asked for maintenance in which 150 had also asked for maintenance for their children. 47.4% of the surveyees i.e. almost half had not even asked for maintenance. The reasons ranged from not knowing that they were entitled to ask for maintenance, to not having the money to approach the courts or wishing not to be dependent on the spouse.
          As many as 48.8% of these maintenance cases were pending; in 41.8% of the cases maintenance had been allowed and in 9.4% of the cases their applications had been dismissed. In the 89 cases where maintenance was allowed, only 12 women reported receiving a satisfactory amount.
          Of the 60 surveyees who answered the question on the quantum of maintenance awarded to them, those with no income at all received merely 13% of the salary on an average, for their financial support. Women who earned less than Rs 1000 but whose spouses earned Rs. 5000-Rs. 56,000 were awarded an average of 11% of their male spouse’s salary.
          Surveyees who earned more than Rs. 10,000 per month but whose spouses earned between Rs.100, 000 to Rs. 250,000 per month, received an average maintenance of 4.5% of the man’s income! In one case from Kerala, the Surveyee fought for 17 years to be awarded maintenance of Rs. 900 per month even though her male spouse was earning Rs. 56,000 per month.
          In 35.6% of the 87 cases which were filed in court, maintenance was granted within a year. The rest took anywhere from 1 to 5 years. Through the conciliation process, however, many more (55.6%) of the 18 cases got solved within a year.
          Only 25 surveyees appealed for increase of maintenance although 72 out of those who were granted maintenance were dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance. Three appeals took as long as 5-10 years for a decision/were still pending.//


      • Wow, chivalry like sati burning, dowry burning, honour killing, forced marriage, marital rape with impunity and on and on. Good riddance I say! The ‘feminist game’ is an illusion in your head. There are biased laws in favour of women that you should rightly protest, but if you don’t at the same time address alternative solutions for solving the actual horrendous inequality in Indian patriarchy then you are playing into the hands of unfair laws. We either fix the actual issues or see more band-aid laws.. because you can’t realistically expect women to stay voice-less child bearing incubators forever.

        I don’t support biased laws because the won’t change the basic issue. However, I fail to understand whether you just don’t support biased laws or don’t support any change in status-quo between men and women in Indian patriarchy at all. What is your position on the reason this law is being brought in? Do you think it’s good to encourage women to stay home-makers in joint families and not seek wealth and property for themselves? Do you think there are real issues at play here dis-advantaging women, even if you don’t agree with the law at hand? I would genuinely like to understand your position, not being sarcastic or anything.

        “There will be more strong voices…. And remember, once men started understaing the feminist game, and realize the problem they are facing, then the game is over.”
        Like raping women or using violence to put women in their place? Yeah, we have that already.


        • All women don’t support biased laws, but they simply enjoy the fruits of them. Like a men oppose patriarchy but enjoy it. We know that fact. The solution to the bad practices in the society lies within the society. By passing more and more biased laws women making men oppressed class but not solving them. If you don’t know what chivalry is, you will know once women lose it. So, you definetely know it in future. Take my word for it.


        • Basic courtesy to all is preferable to chivalry to women, I think children and men deserve courtesy too.
          Edited to add: And from everybody, not just from men.


        • Ah, more threats to me personally! You are so charming! If you think Indian men are very chivalrous, you are delusional. Try dressing as a woman and walking down the street, or boarding a train or going to any public place. Then tell me how many men stepped aside and said ‘you first madam’ and how many instead pinched your bum, tried to touch you somewhere, rubbed their bodies on you, passed comments, stared uncomfortably etc. Feel free to ask the women in your own family what their experiences with chivalry are.

          I hold doors open for men and women alike. I don’t need special privileges in society to be nice to people and not threaten them with some dire consequences.

          Which brings me to my point. You didn’t answer my question. It’s amusing how threatened you feel about women gaining equality.. and I am not talking about this law, I am talking about the underlying issues. What is your stand on the privileges that indian patriarchy offers men, the very reason these laws are being discussed? Are you one of those men who enjoys patriarchal benefits that you speak of and would rather not lose them? Or are you in favour of changes towards equality, even if not in favour of this law?


        • @Carvaka,
          I am not talking about the chivalry that opne doors for women or ask women to “go first”. It’s just nothing. But, I am talking about the chivalry that men shows when women cry with full of tears in her eyes, men never listen to another man at that time. Women’s claim considered as genuine, men don’t suspect her. If men pinch a women’s bottom, if she complain on the boy or man, that boy immediately beaten there first. Judges consider women’s claim in the court with lot of sympathy, police take women’s report with lot of sympathy. When a women do crime, she will be treate far better than a man. That chivalry I am talking about. You know many women want it, many women organizations ask for it. compaign for it in the name of more “women friendly”. That more “woman friendly” will become void. That what I mean disappearing of chivalry. Because, as a men’s right activist, I consider this chivalry as the first enemy of the man, not even feminism. Once men rid of this chivalry and start thinking rationally, then there will be no excuse for women in false 489A cases, false DV Acts, No share in man’s property. The system will change radically.

          As an MRA, I believe in true equality, not phony equality. I am not for patriarchy which oppress men (though it provide some benifits), ask men to be the bread winner and protector. Why men should die in wars, and take the blame for warmongering, when women stay at homes? Why men risks their lives for family and do all risky jobs? I don’t like them. I want women’s participation in wars, in risky jobs and they have to pay alimony to man if they earn more than men (but not share in ancestral property or property earned before marriage), all these things are not happening because of the patriarchy. Many men ask men to be a man and take the pain when harassed husbands say they are harassed. Why should I support patriarchy?

          At the same time I don’t like feminist model of equality, Where men do all odd works, become the victims of biased laws but still don’t get justice because they are very less in number (actually not), where men became nothing more than free ATM machines for women. And everything works as per the whims and fancies of women.


        • Sorry, posted the previous comment before reading the entire thread. Actually laughing aloud at that whole “women friendly” and “chivalry” thing. I can’t even frame a coherent argument against this. Don’t know where to begin!


        • Wao, men dying in war, by the way why do they go to war? For women? Was the gulf war fought for women or male pride and right to gulf oils? Oh, more men are killed by other men in road rage. Oh, who burned those villages definitely women who were going around protecting the male honor. Those terrorists are definitely women who are bombing places in indiscriminately. Yes, there are quite a few suicide bombers just men’s rights group is asking is we should have more recruitment f women in this career, them dying in child bed isn’t enough, they need to flex some muscle and do some risky work.

          Oh, just stop pinching women’s bottoms and rubbing against them in the public places and raping them at homes they’ll get out and make a living in safe environment.
          Men are so oppressed in this system that they are being aborted before they reach the gestation of 16 weeks. They reap only some benefits of patriarchy in the form of verilocality, patrinymics, patrimony blah, blah…
          Poor men we really need to protect them from other men.
          Desi is marriage is between men as social and economic exchange women are just there as pawns to be moved according to the need.

          Ah, poor men, like the first comment writer mentioned her very good uncles made sure they legally deprived their sister from lawful right to her father’s property. Those are perfectly good gentlemen they were just protecting their property from being enjoyed by another man who is not related to them by blood.

          We really need to support men’s rights to kill, main and brutalize 50% of the population.
          Desi Girl


        • @ Eklavya,

          The chivalry you have defined also only exists as an illusion in your mind. You think courts let off women easy or police take them seriously? Really? Please go read up on what happens to women who try to report rape or harassment to police in India. I hope you remember the 4 year old girl raped by her neighbour and left to die in a recent case.. the policeman offered her father Rs 2000 to not register a complaint. Do you know what the conviction rate of reported rapes in India is? It’s in single digits and most rapes don’t even get reported. Until recently, courts asked rape victims to marry their RAPIST as an appropriate ‘settlement’. It’s the same situation with domestic abuse, violence, honour killings and on and on. Marital rape is not even recognised as rape, there is an exemption from the rape law for husbands (not wives). Girl babies are being killed as infants because of their gender. What chivalry are you speaking of?

          You think if a woman ‘complains’ of eve-teasing to men around her then they will beat up the molester? Remember the Guwahati molestation where a mob of men molested the poor girl and a crowd watched? All this harassment happens in FRONT of men and women and no one says a thing. It’s allowed because ‘men will be men’ and ‘she probably asked for it’. You are honestly clueless if you think men walk around being knights in shining armour all the time.

          Oh and please do not use patronising generalisations to me like ‘women can use tears on men’. It’s nothing more than sexist drivel to assume that all women like to cry to men.

          “At the same time I don’t like feminist model of equality, Where men do all odd works”

          Erm, that is NOT the feminist model of equality. Can you cite some sources? Do you realise that ‘feminists’ are not a monolithic group following one book of rules? Do you know that women in the US have fought for and won the right to join the army on the front line?


      • Major shift in men’s attitudes eh? Here’s a simple solution to all that male anguish: If you think divorce and maintenance laws are women-friendly and anti-men, don’t get married.
        BTW, as a divorced woman, I have first-hand experience of just how “women-friendly” these laws are.

        My lawyer told me to forfeit any claim for alimony or maintenance because I would spend years chasing my ex-husband for it.

        I didn’t think it worth my while to spend thousands in legal fees to force my husband to give me my due. Money wasn’t the reason I married anyway.

        Perhaps women like me let our exes off too easily.We set a bad precedent foe women who are less educated and less financially secure.

        My family paid for the wedding which my ex-husband’s family never compensated us for. I spent a lot of money travelling back and forth while we were separated but trying to reconcile.
        My ex-husband was the sorts who’d rather die than see his money to his monster of a wife. So the reality is that women do not benefit from our current marriage and divorce laws


        • “Here’s a simple solution to all that male anguish: If you think divorce and maintenance laws are women-friendly and anti-men, don’t get married.” – I totally agree.
          In same vein, if a woman feel Indian society oppresses wife/DIL, there is simple solution – don’t marry.


      • You’re free to disagree and I’m sure you’re cleverer than feminists but can you please paraphrase what your exact stance is? Are you only against this particular law? Are you against feminists games in general? Are you against the concept of women having any rights in a marriage at all? Are you of the opinion that men are getting oppressed because women are trying to get some rights? Sorry, just not getting you in order to be able to discuss with you.


        • I think he states clearly he is for equal rights, not unequal rights. “Are you against the concept of women having any rights in a marriage at all?” – No, against those rights which are exclusively for women.”Are you of the opinion that men are getting oppressed because women are trying to get some rights?” – No, Men are getting oppressed because women are getting unequal rights.


    • So true. People who talk like that live in a bubble and have no idea what the real India is like. They must have had it good all along. The day they have to face the same situation, they will stop belittling others in such situations. Bad days can fall on anyone. Beware and choose your words wisely, insensitive ones.


    • the whole system has been designed to keep women in their place…the kitchen corner, toe the line, “nazar neeche, khabardaar” and they have succeeded in doing a brilliant job of that. It sucks!


  5. IHM, You have suggested a few laws which could change the current scenario in which the DIL’s earnings are controlled by her in-laws. Why do we need those laws? Can’t it work better if people are educated to work out solutions based on what is good for them?

    The first point is the parents have to give equal importance to the education of both the son and the daughter. The parents should not treat their daughter in such a way that the only aim for her is to get good name in her in-laws house. Instead they have to encourage her to develop her talents. And most importantly develop a positive attitude in the daughter also during her childhood times itself and this impression lasts for her. What she has to know is she is wanted in the World and is an independent, loving person who is an equal partner for her husband and has to be trained since she is young to be able to be polite, smart and a person who could speak up for herself. When she is married, she must be able to put pressure on her husband based on the career and also assert her independence in which she could tell she will use her earned money for herself and her parents also apart from her husband. If only the home environment is healthy for many women, a lot of problems could be solved. Why not parents take bold steps to reform the society?

    The way laws work, do you believe anyone could get redressal using judiciary? Govt: is not God or judge is not God. God is available to both men and women and He could help you if you have inclination to help yourself not depending on Govt: or anyone.


    • maha2us Do you think it would help if women are encouraged to see financial self reliance and not Getting and Staying Married as their goal in life? This would help them confidently refuse parenting and motherhood if it means they lose financially and might have to depend on the other parent in case of a separation or divorce? (in general more likely if it is a girl child)

      Also, what about raising children? Don’t you think Indian parents should fight for paternal leave so that mothers and fathers can both bond with and share the parenting, so that the neither suffers financially because the kids have to be raised?

      What about couples who live in Joint Families? How do women ensure their financial self reliance so that they never have to ask for a 50% share from husband’s inheritance? Nuclear families seem to be a better idea for women’s self reliance.

      Should we have a law that prohibits marriage before everybody is self reliant, and bans semi forced or forced marriages (or atleast acknowledge them as wrong)? And a law that disallows in laws form stopping a daughter in law from earning and investing in her own name?

      One problem is that many parents see daughters as ‘future daughters in law’ – every decision taken in this direction seems to prevent women from becoming self reliant – parents even allow careers and education based on what the future in laws might approve of (e.g. no travelling jobs, no modelling, no night shifts etc)


      • Fully agree with you IHM. The change needs to be in how daughters are brought up, what they see as their purpose in life. Yes to all your points. Until parents of daughters are resigned from day 1 that some strangers in the future have the right to changer her name, identity and lifestyle, they will continue to treat them as ‘paraya dhan’. This is unnecessary really and leads to financially handicapped women who end up living in no-man’s land forever, disinherited from their own families and seen to be ‘stealing’ from their husbands if seen inheritance there.


  6. DUH. They would if they were allowed property in their own names. Prior to her marriage, a close friend friend of mine got her own stand-alone family home constructed with her own money. The house detail was let on to the prospective groom’s family. But after marriage she was told after marriage that women in that family cannot have property in their names, so she was supposed to get it transferred on her husband’s name. No joint business. Transfer to the husband’s name. And this was only one of the many reasons the relation ended in a divorce. After marriage her credentials were doubted (that she was an engineer or not, that she was a master’s or not.) Her husband’s family wanted copies of her passport to see whether she had indeed been onsite and earning in $s or not. All this, after marriage, an arranged marriage. Finally she moved out to a girl’s hostel – where she was then doubted to be staying with someone else – and she finally sought divorce. It’s a good thing she didn’t transfer the house to his name.

    And while we’re on this topic, my neighbours who got their daughter married off through the arranged marriage system got a strange request from their daughter’s in-laws. The neighbours ended up financing one full house for the in-laws in India while the children (the daughter and her husband) stayed in the US. They made sure the daughter was unaware of this transaction because she would have disagreed with the decision. So even though the girl’s parents are paying, the house gets registered in the boy’s family’s name not even the girl’s. All this so that the daughter would have a comfortable life in her in-laws and she would be kept well. I wonder if it was worth it and with such under-the-table dealings, where does it really stop if at all? So let’s not assume that it is as simple as buying a house for herself. There are worse maniacs in the world.


    • Your friend’s story is absolutely horrifying, are these the so called “great Indian” family values where a woman is explicitly not allowed to hold property in her own name? What is wrong with that? Even the one she built with her own money, such twisted in-laws can go to fucking hell. Excellent she kept the house, did not budge and divorced this good for nothing husband and his family. Wish more women had her courage and resources to stick to their guns.


      • Ooh and also, dowry is supposed to be “stridhan” that the husband/in-laws can never touch and must replace if touched. Can someone explain how that part works? :-/


    • These are all horror stories. I can tell you the worst one I’ve heard

      My friend settled abroad in the US, and got into an arranged marriage with a girl who was living in India. The girl moved to the US on a dependent VISA, and went missing in a week. She was traced to living with her boyfriend in another city in the US. My friend was awfully offended and wanted to end the marriage immediately, which meant she would have to return to India (since she’s on a dependent VISA). This girl created a mess and did the most awful thing imaginable – filed a false 498a case against his parents, and his parents were jailed. A watch was placed on my friend at all Indian airports for the next 1 year.

      I’m not entirely sure how it went from there since my friend broke down and hasn’t been able to talk about it ever since, but I believe my friend had to legally disown his parents or bail them out or something like that. Of course, his parents were jailed for a considerable amount of time.

      I’m also aware of another situation where the girl refused to contribute to family income for the first few years because she wanted her mom to live in a better flat above anything else. Sure, you have your priorities in life, but your spouse needs to agree with you not contributing to family income, doesn’t he/she? 🙂

      These are all just twisted people, nothing else.

      Let’s not read so much into these horror stories and pray that we all don’t get into these situations 🙂 In any case, there are plenty of good people in the world to get into relationships with, let’s not fall for the bad ones


  7. IHM, The points I said have really vast scopes. It could take so much to explain what all I said. Yet I like to answer all the questions which could come up based on what I say.

    The first point is financial reliance for a woman and getting and staying married are not mutually exclusive. Also both a man and a woman needs love in life and without getting the marital love, no one will feel fulfilled. Also financially reliant person can be efficient home maker also. And financially independent woman will have more capacity for loving also. What becomes important in life is being able to develop the qualities of being more caring, compassionate, gentle, tender and understanding and suppose both the partners develop these qualities and are with, present and available to the other partner more and more and they trust each other more and more also, how will be the life? These qualities I say are not going to diminish because a woman is capable of earning. And when the husband and wife trust each other, wife could accept to take temporary leave for 2-3 yrs as the child is born. She won’t mind that when she sees her husband as an understanding person and one whom she can trust. Also it is quite possible, she sees her in-laws as her friends and her husband also sees his in-laws as his friends. All that it requires is develop understanding with one and all. There will be mutual helping of each other.

    Whether it is joint family or nuclear family, a woman is helped if she is able to speak up for herself and is oriented towards what she likes to do in life. She won’t see her in-laws as threat in that case. Once the husband sees wife as understanding he will be prepared to help her in her goals. (and vice-versa!) I have seen families working this way.

    I can accept no new law anytime. Laws cannot build families. Understanding and trust and positive attitude of people builds families. Husbands can definitely do household chores and husbands can also take care of the children. Husbands can do everything except becoming pregnant and bearing child. A wife can tackle her in-laws also in her own way if she could understand them and with her husband’s help.


    • Hmm… and do you think Indian parents will stop treating their daughters as paraya dhan if daughters’ marital homes (nuclear or joint) welcomed them to move-in when they need elder care, or to provide baby sitting when the couple is working to stay financially self reliant?

      Is a fair society possible unless all parents whether they have girl children or male children were secure of elder care in their old age? If sons in law were seen as responsible (same as daughters in law are) to provide elder care to the parents and in laws?


      • //financial reliance for a woman and getting and staying married are not mutually exclusive//

        Only if all the family members do their share of work, and child care, house work, entertaining extended family from both the sides and elder care are shared by both the partners.


      • // financially independent woman will have more capacity for loving also //
        How? And why are we talking about only the woman’s in-laws? The whole point is as long as you hold one side more important than the other, the problem will continue. Shouldn’t we be expecting both sides of in-laws to be treated equal?


      • IHM, Sons-in-laws can definitely take care of parent-in-laws and if there is understanding it becomes quite possible. One thing I can ensure is fair family is definitely possible where understanding is given paramount importance. The point is the parents of both son/daughter like to see their children happy. Also parents are adults and not children and they will definitely adjust to children’s ways when they see children positively handling their day-to-day life.

        As a bottom line point a lady would be (and for that matter man also!) happy and satisfied only if she finds she could positively utilize her potential.


        • Ddeepa: I have already talked about husband also establishing rapport with his in-laws. That definitely happens when there is mutual understanding between SIL and parents-in-laws. The point ‘financially independent woman will have more capacity for loving also’ comes up because she will be less insecure and will have less fear. Less fear means more love.

          IHM, Again I do believe both the partners will take care of each others’ partners also as they develop more understanding and trust for each other and when they have more synergy and interdependence also.


        • //As a bottom line point a lady would be (and for that matter man also!) happy and satisfied only if she finds she could positively utilize her potential//
          I guess what makes everybody happy, they alone can decide. A live and let live society/family would acknowledge that we cannot tell other family members what must make them happy or sad.


    • “And when the husband and wife trust each other, wife could accept to take temporary leave for 2-3 yrs as the child is born.”

      Hello, just because one happens to be lucky enough to have a nice, understanding and trusting hubby, doesn’t mean I am sitting at home for 2-3 years changing diapers. This is why women are left financially dependent because they either don’t (or forced not to) invest enough building their careers in the first place, or give it up too quickly (again by choice or forced), A 2-3 year gap on a resume is a career killer, you can never come back to same position and never have the same career growth potential. What if you have a second kid? Another 3 year break? I have zero interest being on the mommy track, sacrificing my career potential. In-laws, day care, nannies can take care of the kid, if the husband doesn’t like it he is welcome to stay at home for 3 years. This is obviously wishful thinking in patriarchal Indian society. But why do people so casually bring up women staying home for 2-3 year as defacto part of life? Why? Some women choose to be homemakers and I hope that is a choice they are making aware of all the financial risk involved. But there are plenty of us out here who would not want that long of a break and don’t want to be demonized for not sacrificing enough for our kids/family. I would stay home just long enough to be medically fit to go back to work. Any child care after that needs to shouldered equally by the husband, I have done the female-only job of birthing the kid.


      • Let me just repeat.
        //This is why women are left financially dependent because they either don’t (or forced not to) invest enough building their careers in the first place, or give it up too quickly (again by choice or forced), A 2-3 year gap on a resume is a career killer, you can never come back to same position and never have the same career growth potential.
        What if you have a second kid? Another 3 year break? //


    • First of all, if one doesnt trust and love one’s husband – there’s no point in getting married to him is there let alone have kids? and 2nd even if i love him and trust him and he’s the gods gift to women i wont leave my nice job to sit and home and change diapers thank you, if my husband cares much about that he is welcome to take a 2 yr break while i enjoy my climb abord the corporate ladder.
      personally i always wondered why do only young children need their mommies around all the time. i think teens require a parent to be around more. any one can change a diaper and feed a baby it’s no big deal, the babies don’t even care who cleans them as long as they are clean and dont remember it at all , but teens need to be taught/ shown the light and i’d much rather hang around for that than sit around changing stinky diapers.


    • I wonder which India you’re talking about. Joint family doesn’t mean having 10 uncles and aunts staying with you with a truck load of cousins. Staying with in-laws is a joint family system as well.


      • He’s talking about the India where men are chivalrous, women are given benefit of the doubt everywhere, women-friendly laws are the norm and they’re abused by feminists as part of their game, women are not employable and they try to steal wealth they don’t create, homemakers are compensated for their work by being given roti-kapda-makaan-doctor but they’re not satisfied and ask for alimony when getting a divorce like greedy people, and crimes against women do not exist because very few men take advantage of patriarchy. This India’s changing though, because men’s rights activists have understood the feminists game and they’re beating them at it.

        It’s not the same India we live in. That’s why we don’t understand…


    • According to the census, the percentage of joint families is still in double digits, as much as 25% in some states ( Those percentages out of a billion people mean a lot of people. I don’t see how this matters. One could argue that nuclear families could have the same issues if there is a trend that property is registered in only one partner’s name.


        • As long as women continue to agree to go into joint families for marriage, the system shall continue. If the women cannot refuse the proposal to go into joint family or her parents control their adult daughter to such an extent that they force her into it, rest assured IL’s will control her too.


  8. It’s such a conservative and archaic mindset. A daughter-in-law is entitled to her own earning and acquiring property and it’s wrong to prevent ur kids from moving out. It’s not love but selfishness and a husband should stand for his wife but at the same time respect his and her parents.


  9. @) yrs ago i was told i was a radical troublemaker 🙂 now i realizse i was right all along, ha .
    I didnt see any need in getting married , i wanted to marry who i likes and didnt care if the horoscope matched or not and i vehemently told my parents that i would not be living with anyone’s parents. My own parents thought i was adamant and head strong and i would not have a successful marriage if i held to these beliefs. I also made it very clear I’d work where i please, when i please and how i pleased. and thank god i got a job in campus interview itself, I choose to take a job in B’lore away from my family in chennai , i love my family but i thought B’lore was more hip and the lure of living without supervision was too great 🙂
    I dont regret any of the decision to this day, i think living separately first and then with my husband has made my views more clear, i thnk i see right from wrong and i feel terrible for y cousin sisters who have to live in a JF , i feel even more terrible when i meet my cousin brothers who live with their wives and my aunts/uncles etc., and see th einjustice meted out to the wives. they are so sweet and when i get them to talk they tell me tales of their trouble. no, no one abuses them or scolds them or anything, but they are not free to do as they please. It hurts me when they sometimes ( slips out) say they are waiting to be on their own. ( meaning they are waiting for my dear aunt and uncles to be gone) , it hurts me to think of my near and dear talked like that but the DILS need their freedom too. i tried talking to them and asking them to live separately but the sons dont agree.. you see financially it makes sense to them, they dont spend to much of their money , free rent, no responsibility ( i’m talking of our families case) no trouble trying to help your wife, they rarely ever changed their kids or fed them, wife and mummy take care of it all, they go to work, come back, watch TV , enjoy with friends and dont lift a finger, their wives may be dying inside but they are kush , so no loss to them. all in te name of taking care of parents and indian culture.. so sad. I’ve asked them all icluding my brother why they cannot take care of parents by living next door ? but then they’d have to pitch in right and lose their carefree life. i take my parents to live with me , i give themt heir own space and give them companionship without compromising on my or my familys freedom, so why cant the sons, of course I do the same to my in-lws and am called ‘ very westernised’ !! oh well cant please them all, the way i see it, god created me and gave me all i have and in return i should live life to the maximum and not waste a min of his creation. so i do as i please.
    I seriously dont care if my son and daughter get married or not, I’m ok with themliving with someone, in fact i dont think there is need for a piece of paper if they are comitted to their mate. yes legality would be nice incase they have kids , just incase one of them dies, the kids ar eprotected but apart from that i see no reason for marriage at all between 2 comitted adults.
    and i dont care who they marry /live with as long as it makes them supremely HAPPY. ( that’s my prayer daily)


  10. First of all, Divorce should not be a threat.. or atleast not thought of as threat. The minute indian population are Ok with divorce , patriarchy and inlaws and spouses ( both) lose the power to control and keep women/men married based on threats.

    Second women need to be educated, women need to taste nthe freedom that comes with living independantly and supporting themselves, just like we make degree mandatory ( almost everyone nowadays manages on) we need to make supporting yourself a precondition to marriage ( no living off mummy and papa and transferring to husband) of course you can be a home maker but atleast get the confidence you can support yourself first.

    third, plan for your retirement and old age, dont depend on anyone ( especially your child) dont have children so they can support you in future. thats a nasty and selfish reason to have kids.

    fouth dont le anyone ruin your happiness, being a self sacrificing man/woman and killing your joy will only make you regret your wasted yrs. —

    We need to live this and teach our kids this and trust me all this can be done without compromising the mahan indian culture, respecting elders and a million other things we hold sacred.


    • “all this can be done without compromising the mahan indian culture”
      So what if it’s compromised? Seriously, what’s so sacred about a culture, anyway? If cultures don’t evolve, there will never be progress.

      I completely understand your point. This culture changing is a pet-peeve of mine. Sorry 🙂


    • “women need to taste nthe freedom that comes with living independantly and supporting themselves, just like we make degree mandatory ( almost everyone nowadays manages on) we need to make supporting yourself a precondition to marriage”- I wish I could laminate this and give it to every person in India not just a woman. A man needs to live independently to learn to not depend on mummy for every whim of his too and to understand how to manage his time/ finances/ priorities. Unfortunately this is something that is lacking in most of us (unless we move away from parents city for study/work).


  11. On the surface, this law may seem unfair to the husband’s family. However many women in India are not taught survival skills and not given a share of their parental property. Every part of a woman’s body is controlled and extracted to support families and society, with very few rights and privileges in return. So, I suppose, we are still in that stage of evolution, where the oppressed (in this case, women) need to be protected from some of the injustices. In the long run, it is always better to empower women than to protect them. A law that requires parents to give equal amounts of property to their daughters is more empowering that a law that gives them a share in the husband’s ancestral property. It is like the quotas versus scholarships argument. I personally prefer that oppressed people (African Americans for instance) be required to compete with everyone and possess the same qualifications and be given financial aid and scholarships rather than having quotas reserved for them. However if you look at the injustices they’ve been subjected to, the humungous obstacles they had to face in getting even basic rights, and how the system would beat them down at every turn, you begin to see that some level of ‘correction’ and ‘compensation’ is needed initially to even out the playing field. And once they’re more on par, protection laws can be replaced with empowerment laws.


    • I agree with you by and large. However, I’m still trying to learn how is it possible to justify abuse of something like the 498a, or like this law:

      My close friend was booked under a frivolous 498a, and ever since I’m very confused about the usefulness of the law. His wife did this out of retaliation, and had no regrets. This isn’t a fair way to exit a marriage, is it?

      You can make a criminal out of a normal human being by simply (ab)using these laws.
      With quotas/scholarships, you can’t make a criminal out of a normal human being. At best, you can deny someone from the majority, his choice of education.

      Please do correct me if I’m wrong.


      • What went wrong with 498A is explained in the last paragraph in purple please check

        It is a shame when people cannot be adults in a relationship rather chose to manipulate one another in the name of tradition or love than stand up take responsibility and face consequences of their actions. It our big egos that keep us loveless in a small world. The minute revenge or teaching him/her a lesson comes into a partner’s mind it is the demise of relationship/marriage there after it is only collateral damage.
        Desi Girl


        • I have a question for you, it appears abuse of the law is more prevalent than actual use of the law, from what I’ve read online. Something like 80% is the acquittal rate (I’m not talking about the 6% conviction rate). So, is this really helping women, or is it just being abused more?


      • You can make a criminal out of a normal human being by simply (ab)using these laws.
        – This is applicable to any law in the constitution. Why only say women friendly laws are abused?

        Who says you can’t make a criminal using quota/scholarships
        – People who come on these quotas are so touchy and anything you say can get a political/caste spin to it and there can be bandhs/ cries of discrimination against you if the person had a tiff with you but it becomes a political hotspot of discrimination if the one of them was a dalit


        • No, that’s not true. I believe with the women’s laws, you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Not with the other laws.


    • More than any other thing women need to be empowered in every way and she should have choices by default…the choice to marry, not marry, walk out of a marriage. Then she would need no one’s protection or property.


  12. Whenever a new bill or a precedent is set in favour of women, I read so many comments on cheating women, greedy wives, women who could take advantage of men, etc etc. I wonder why? Why are they centering their attention on people who are bad? Don’t they realise, regardless of gender, people do cheat. Why at the mere mention of any safety-net for women makes these people go insane?


      • Gosh, this is a hateful comment. You could also look at the other side of the coin – men are only concerned about abuse of the law, and they are completely happy/okay with appropriate use of the law. Do you hear anybody these days say “women don’t deserve equal property rights?”


        • They don’t just say it, they make them sign away their share. I personally know of women fighting this and those who signed because their husbands asked them to, and those who have been ostracised because they didn’t sign.

          Haryana Panchayat goes still further,

          Haryana panchayat cuts off married girls from parents’ property


        • Thanks for taking time to respond, IHM, appreciate it! 🙂

          Examples are a great way to distract the reader. I too personally know of women in my family (dad’s siblings) who got a very fair share of the property, and my dad happily gave away his share to one sister who wasn’t financially as secure as him. My mom didn’t fret one bit over it, she completely let my dad exercise his right. In a similar way, my mom also knows her ancestral property is her right. Once dad tried to ask for some advance withdrawal out of a moment of weakness, and mom refused. Dad was frustrated but later came to terms and respected it.

          For a little background, we are an average Indian middle class family whose greatest lifetime accomplishment is a 2-bedroom apartment. My dad just bought his first car in life, near retirement.

          My point is: Not all women are facing this particular issue in India, and not all women need these laws. In families like mine where fair property division is the norm, this law is open to abuse.

          I agree with the second post you’ve pasted. Thanks for sharing that.


        • //Not all women are facing this particular issue in India, and not all women need these laws. In families like mine where fair property division is the norm, this law is open to abuse.//

          I agree. I think the law needs to be very clear about all these details.


  13. Jay, You say, ‘Whenever a new bill or a precedent is set in favour of women, I read so many comments on cheating women, greedy wives, women who could take advantage of men, etc etc. I wonder why?’ The reason is there is no law by which stringent punishment could be slapped on those persons who misuse these laws. And 99% of the cases registered based on these anti-male laws are false cases. Neither the way the laws 498a, DV etc. are drafted in the most unfair way. Why not there is a law which says that a stringent punishment will be slapped on those women who misuse these laws?


  14. What about the snatching of a wife’s salary by husband and his family in the name of so called family liability? There are some really brave courageous husbands who just see that all the money their wife is making comes into their hands either by hook or crook. The wives have to part with the money so that the institution of marriage continues because of our so called dutiful, responsible picture perfect version of being a housewife, by our social customs and traditions. I agree that not many of wives be facing this but there are quite a good number of them who are facing such situations.


    • Even after cutting off all my in laws (after suffering decades of abuse), they still control me through remote control…phone….via my husband. We have lost everything my husband earned during his lifetime. We are just trying to save our sanity which is not easy.


  15. Pingback: Some basic questions on joint family finances and daughters in law. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  16. We make life insurance, vehicle insurance, investment insurance, fire insurance, theft insurance, etc., in order to secure our interests in case of any future eventualities.

    An Employment Contract protects the interests of the employer and the employee.
    A Construction Contract protects the interests of the Contractor and the Client.
    A Rental Agreement protects the interests of the house owner and the tenant.
    A Lease Agreement protects the interests of the Lessor and the Lessee.

    However, when it comes to marriage, we get blindfolded and enter into the Lifelong Partnership with no basic agreement. It is time that people make a Premarital Agreement which safeguards the interests of all concerned. An example can be found on my site: = Security Check = Sample Conditions of Premarital Agreement.


  17. Pingback: “I have to seek permission for visiting parents. My phone bill has to be reasonable. My expenses nominal. And my desires non-existent.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  18. 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

  19. Pingback: “…being his mom’s support in ways his sisters were not…. He borrowed money off me to pay for his mom’s car.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  20. Pingback: “When there are guests I don’t get to talk to them because I am in the kitchen all the time …even wearing a Nighty is considered indecent.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  21. Pingback: These lines sum up the biggest reason for male child preference and skewed gender ratio in India. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  22. 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

  23. Pingback: “After marriage he started pressurizing me to immediately try to take up a well paying job because otherwise how will he do an MBA… ” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  24. Pingback: “My in-laws don’t hate me at all. But ‘love’ isn’t about all this. ‘Love’ is about letting your loved one ‘live’.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  25. Pingback: Marriage Vs Live in Relationships : Twelve points to note. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  26. Pingback: “I remember how tensed my family was at the time of my marriage 2 years back. Every time they were forced to do ‘Milnis and Teekas with heavy envelopes’.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  27. Pingback: “And on the other hand, we have this section of women who seem content and even happy with the current set-up. This seems akin to a freedom struggle going on here.” | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  28. Pingback: 27 ways in which Patriarchy harms men. | The Life and Times of an Indian Homemaker

  29. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a necessity for India, because many marriages are rotten to the core and the couple choose to continue living it due to financial dependency.

    Division of property at the time of divorce should be enforced by law. The lack of marital property is one of the reasons in an increased number of divorce cases where high compensation is demanded.

    At the start of marriage, a marital trust fund should be started to which all the real estate and bank accounts, vehicles and other assets should be added. Both the spouses should have equal access to it. Acquiring any new asset should be joint, sale of any asset should be done jointly. Having all assets as marital property will open up communications among couples. Usually, The non-earning spouse is cut off from the financial matters altogether. Even though, it is the wife that handles the kids needs, the children belong to both and the father is not cut off. Why should money be considered any thing separate ?

    MRAs are claiming that their wives want to use them as ATM Machine. Why are they not seeing the fact that they have used their wife as ATM when it comes to dowry.?


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s