India Ink: For Indian Women, Divorce Is a Raw Deal

A divorce lawyer counsels a client in her office in New Delhi, in this April 7, 2011 file photo.Saurabh Das/Associated PressA divorce lawyer counsels a client in her office in New Delhi, in this April 7, 2011 file photo.

Much has been written about divorce being on the rise in India, sometimes accompanied by hand-wringing about the egos and inflexibility of younger couples, who seem less willing than their parents to stay in marriages they are not happy with.

National statistics don’t exist on divorce in India, but some local records do show a rise. Still, some experts say the divorce rate in India continues to be artificially low, because of how biased the system is against women, who can be left financially destitute even if their husband is wealthy.

“Divorce rates have not increased as much as they should have,” said Kirti Singh, who practices family and property law in India.

The government is likely to consider a proposal later this week to amend the existing marriage laws in India. The amendment seeks to introduce the irretrievable breakdown of marriage, as a basis for couples to seek divorce. It also proposes to waive or reduce the “cooling-off period,” or mandatory waiting period before divorce can be granted, which can be six to 18 months. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill 2010 was first introduced in the upper house of Parliament, or Rajya Sabha, in August 2010.

Ms. Singh, who says she has fought “thousands” of divorce cases in her 31-year career, is part of a group that proposes even more significant changes to India’s marital laws, including the introduction of a new legislation which will give women the right to marital property. If this legislation is passed, “women will become equal owners of property,” she said. “Within the existing system there is no such option for women.”

Women in India stay in failing marriages for many reasons, Ms. Singh said. Most of these emanate from the social and financial pressures that divorced women are left to face. The courts can take several years to settle a case and often women cannot afford the several rounds of litigation involved. Even if a woman does go to the court, in most cases it is an “uneven fight” between a man and a woman, she said.

“Men have more access” to the legal system in India, Ms. Singh said.

Under the Indian legal system, a separation or divorce entitles a woman to “maintenance” from her spouse, in the form of financial support. The amount requires authorization from a court and is based on the income of the man. But it is the woman who has to produce evidence of her spouse’s earnings before the court.

In India, where tax authorities estimate just 3 percent of the population pays personal income tax, and “black money” or under-the-table cash is common, the man’s actual earnings are often hidden, Ms. Singh says. Additionally, the wife may not have access to documents that prove what her husband earns, Ms. Singh says. Even if she does, the maintenance amounts are tiny.

Citing courtroom experience, Ms. Singh says judges generally fix a share of 2 percent to 10 percent of the husband’s annual earnings for maintenance amounts.

When a woman leaves a marriage, unless she is very well to do, “there is very little left to her,” to be able to sustain herself, Ms. Singh notes. The property goes to the person in whose name it is, and in most cases assets are in the name of a man, she points out.

While most recent media reports have focused on changing social values behind most divorces, a study authored by Ms. Singh to be published later this year finds more than 80 percent of the more than 400 separated or divorced women surveyed blame “cruelty or domestic violence in their marital homes,” for their split. Two-thirds of the women surveyed suffered from physical violence.

The most common reasons for domestic violence were “dowry demands, extra-marital affairs or a second marriage of the spouse and the suspicious nature of the spouse,” the report states. The violence took place even though 87.92 percent of the women lived in extended families.

The study, called “The Economic Rights Entitlements of Separated and Divorced Women India,” was conducted by a team of researchers, women’s rights activists and lawyers, for the Economic Research Foundation of India between October 2008 and September 2009 and will be published later this year. It surveyed 405 Indian women who were either separated or divorced or deserted. The women were randomly selected from cities, towns and villages in north, east, south and west of India in an attempt to understand what happens to women when marriages fail.

Most women surveyed “did not want a divorce even if they have faced violence in their marital homes as they feel both financially and socially insecure outside the marriage,” the study finds.

A large number of women “live at the mercy of their husbands during the subsistence of marriage” and even after a separation or divorce they are financially dependent on their natal family, the report states.

The study points out : “Not giving a divorce is also the only tool that separated women have to negotiate terms of settlement with their spouse as their legal rights are insignificant.” This is corroborated by the statistic, which shows that only 73 out of 405, or 18 percent women surveyed were divorced while 81.7 precent were separated.

In more than 60 percent of the cases, women claimed that marriage affected their career opportunities, because they either could not work after marriage or were able to work in a limited capacity. In about 85 percent of the cases, separated women “bear the burden of looking after their children single-handed.”

New Republic: Medicare Is Ok, So Is Obamacare

Brenda Major, who said she had a pre-existing condition that made it impossible to find insurance that would cover her until the Affordable Care Act, is examined by Dr. Fernanda Mercade on March 22, 2012 in Miami, Florida. On March 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court begins hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act.
Enlarge Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Brenda Major, who said she had a pre-existing condition that made it impossible to find insurance that would cover her until the Affordable Care Act, is examined by Dr. Fernanda Mercade on March 22, 2012 in Miami, Florida. On March 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court begins hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act.

Brenda Major, who said she had a pre-existing condition that made it impossible to find insurance that would cover her until the Affordable Care Act, is examined by Dr. Fernanda Mercade on March 22, 2012 in Miami, Florida. On March 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court begins hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Brenda Major, who said she had a pre-existing condition that made it impossible to find insurance that would cover her until the Affordable Care Act, is examined by Dr. Fernanda Mercade on March 22, 2012 in Miami, Florida. On March 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court begins hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act.

Read Another Opinion On The Affordable Care Act

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at The New Republic.

The lawyers challenging the Affordable Care Act will offer many arguments next week, when they make their case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. But their most central claim is that the law is “unprecedented” — that it represents “a revolution in the relationship between the central government and the governed.”

As they tell it, the requirement that nearly everybody obtain insurance, or pay a penalty to the government, forces people to pay for something they might not want or need. The constitution, they say, does not “empower Congress to seize control over decisions so basic as to how the people spend their money.”

Put aside, for a moment, the fine distinctions of the interstate commerce clause and other constitutional matters the court must ponder. In principle, is the basic obligation that comes with health care reform — to pay for a mutual protection scheme that some individuals might not find advantageous or desirable — really so novel?

Hardly. It’s an obligation most of us meet on a regular basis, every time we get a paycheck.

I’m speaking, of course, about Social Security and Medicare. Each program is a form of “social insurance” and each serves the same basic function: To protect us from financial shocks that we cannot anticipate or avoid. With Social Security, the shock is reaching retirement without enough income. With Medicare, the shock is high medical bills during old age. During our working years, we pay into these programs by handing over portions of our incomes, in the form of payroll taxes. And we don’t have a choice about it, unless we want to start evading taxes.

The Affordable Care Act is also a form of social insurance. It, too, seeks to protect us from problems that we cannot anticipate or avoid: Illness or accident before we turn 65. To get that protection, we must contribute towards its cost — by obtaining a qualified health plan on our own or, failing that, paying a fee to the government. The government then uses that fee to finance the provision of health care services for those who couldn’t pay for it on their own. The obligation is, if anything, less onerous than the one for Medicare and Social Security. By law, the government cannot impose criminal penalties on people who fail to meet the mandate. The worst the government can do is withhold future tax refunds.

So why is the Affordable Care Act such an unconscionable infringement of liberty, while those two other, more revered programs are not? Some critics have suggested the Affordable Care Act is fundamentally unfair, because it effectively requires relatively healthy people to subsidize relatively unhealthy people. But that is true of Medicare and Social Security, too. The whole point of any social insurance is to ameliorate the impact of sheer chance on life — whether it’s being born with the wrong genes, growing up in the wrong neighborhood, or coming into contact with the wrong physical threats. Social insurance programs redistribute funds from the lucky to the unlucky, on the very sensible theory that any one of us could end up unlucky (and, at one point or another in our lives, probably will).

A truer distinction is that Medicare and Social Security are real government programs: The bureaucracies that run Medicare and Social Security actually distribute the benefits, in the form of checks or payments to health care providers. The Affordable Care Act is a more privatized system, in which private insurance companies are the direct financiers of benefits for many people. But even that distinction is blurrier than it might seem. Medicare has long offered beneficiaries the option of enrolling in private insurance plans, rather than the government-run program. And today about a quarter of all beneficiaries do just that. Those companies operate under close government supervision and regulation, it’s true. But so will the companies offering insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

Where the Affordable Care Act clearly differs from Medicare is in the alternative it lacks: Under the Affordable Care Act, many people won’t have the option of any public program at all. Their only choice will be private insurance, through a job or through the market place. This is a bug, not a feature, as far as liberals like me are concerned. But it’s difficult to see why conservatives would believe this makes the law more intrusive than Medicare or Social Security. The idea behind channeling coverage through private insurance, and the rationale behind excluding a public plan from the options, is to allow the free market more room to operate.

Conservatives should know this better than anybody, because they have spent a generation making this argument and lobbying to privatize all social insurance. They’re the ones who keep trying to transform Medicare into a voucher system. They’re the ones who talk about replacing Social Security with a system of private investment accounts. But if it’s wrong to make obtain private health insurance for when they are under 65, why is it ok to make people obtain private health insurance for when they are over 65 — or build retirement pensions by depositing money into private equities?

Constitutionally, the differences among these programs may matter. The legal justification for Medicare and Social Security comes from the federal government’s power to levy taxes. And even some judges who have ruled in the favor of the Affordable Care Act have said (wrongly, in my view) the government cannot make that claim, because advocates didn’t use the term enough when debating the law.

But insofar as the legal case against the Affordable Care Act rests upon a broader argument about liberty, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense — unless the critics of health care reform are ready to junk Medicare and Social Security too. Something tells me they’re not.

The Florida Bar – Daily News Summary

An electronic digest of media coverage of interest to members of The Florida Bar compiled each workday by the Public Information and Bar Services Department. Electronic links are only active in today’s edition. For information on previous articles, please contact the publishing newspaper directly.

March 22, 2012

–The Florida Bar–

THE FLORIDA BAR STEPS UP ITS DIVERSITY EFFORTSFlorida Trend, http://www.floridatrend.com, March 22, 2012.
When Florida Bar President-elect Gwynne A. Young looks at the board of directors of the Bar’s Young Lawyers Division, she sees a group that’s “extremely diverse” and “very reflective of the Bar as a whole.” However, when Young, who becomes the Bar’s president in June, looks at other leadership committees, she doesn’t see the same level of diversity. “We need to figure out how to encourage and get more diverse members to be involved and to apply for important roles in the Bar,” she says. It’ll be up to Arnell Bryant-Willis to help make that happen. Bryant-Willis became the Bar’s first diversity initiatives manager in September. The article details some of the goals she is working on.

–Judiciary–

IT’S TIME TO APPOINT TRIAL JUDGESThe Miami Herald, column, http://www.miamiherald.com, March 22, 2012.
The column by Miami Herald columnist Daniel Shoer Roth states: “The public expects our judges to be more circumspect on how they handle their personal affairs and to lead exemplary, dignified lives. Sometimes these expectations are unrealistic, since magistrates are made of human flesh and bone. Particularly, when they are elected by voters, it becomes more difficult to behave flawlessly because politics kicks in and they must raise campaign funds. . . . Miami-Dade Judge Ana María Pando, one of two jurists who preside at the Hialeah branch courthouse, might serve as an example of the conflict of interest that can emerge when the judicial system and politics go to bed together. Pando was charged on Monday by state judicial watchdogs of using her influence as a judge to aid a friend and donor . . . . Regardless of the outcome of her case, perhaps it is time to consider appointing our trial judges. While not a perfect system, appointment of judges offers many advantages over election of judges. Transparency is an essential factor in the confidence citizens have in the judicial system, besides being a guarantee against the risk of political influence and conflicts of interest.”

–Lawyer Ethics/Legal Discipline–

SUSPENDED ATTORNEY PLEADS GUILTY, AGAIN, TO TAKING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM CLIENTSThe Stuart News, http://www.tcpalm.com, March 22, 2012.
Vero Beach attorney Richard Brown, who was disbarred in February, again has entered a guilty plea to criminal charges of taking at least $360,000 from clients. Brown, 45, was to be sentenced last year after he pleaded guilty to theft and fraud charges in November — but shortly after the plea his defense attorney John Unruh discovered a miscalculation in a scoresheet the judge would have used to determine Brown’s sentence. Because of the miscalculation, the plea was withdrawn, court officials said. Then another victim came forward, leading to more charges being filed against Brown, who has been in the Indian River County Jail for almost a year. Brown was back in court March 16 and this time he pleaded guilty to charges of taking more than $360,000 from Treasure Coast clients. He could face anywhere from eight to 130 years in state prison, according to prosecutors. The plea agreement also includes Brown’s permanent disbarment as an attorney in Florida.

–Criminal Justice Issues–

THE CONTROVERSIAL FLORIDA LAW AT THE HEART OF THE TRAYVON MARTIN CASETime Magazine, http://www.time.com, March 21, 2012. [Also: CENTRAL FLORIDA COPS ROUTINELY MAKE ARRESTS DESPITE SELF-DEFENSE CLAIMS-- Orlando Sentinel, http://www.orlandosentinel.com, March 22, 2012; MIAMI JUDGE DECIDES FATAL STABBING WAS SELF-DEFENSE-- The Miami Herald, http://www.miamiherald.com, March 22, 2012].
In September 2010, Trevor Dooley stormed into a park near his home outside Tampa, angry because a teenager was skateboarding on the basketball court. Dooley was carrying a .32-caliber semiautomatic handgun in his pants, and it was visible to David James, who was in the park with his 8-year-old daughter. James tried to disarm Dooley and as the two men tussled on the ground, Dooley shot James in the chest, killing him. Prosecutors charged Dooley with manslaughter. If Dooley’s lawyers can convince a judge by next week that he fired the gun because his life was being threatened — that he is therefore protected under Florida’s “stand your ground” law — Dooley may well walk away a free man. A growing number of people hope the judge will make Dooley stand trial on the manslaughter charge. That sentiment has much to do with another tragedy that occurred last month, 60 miles to the northeast, in Sanford. Sanford police let George Zimmerman go home after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin last month, but Central Florida police agencies routinely make arrests for murder in “stand your ground” cases — and then let courts decide if a killing is justified.

DEATH ROW INMATE SET FOR EXECUTION APPEALS TO JUSTICESThe Ledger, http://www.theledger.com, March 22, 2012.
A serial killer scheduled for execution April 12 is appealing to the Florida Supreme Court. The appeal was filed Wednesday on behalf of 58-year-old David Alan Gore. He is set to die for the 1984 murder of 17-year-old Lynn Elliott in Indian River County. Gore also is serving life sentences for killing five other women. His lawyers contend Gov. Rick Scott was unfairly influenced to sign Gore’s death warrant by his meeting with a newspaper editorial board. They also said his rights were violated because the state handled his request for clemency in an arbitrary and capricious manner. See documents filed with the Florida Supreme Court.