Economics is the Name of the Game

There is no second opinion that the world runs on money and therefore it is generally said to understand the behaviour of humans, one needs to understand the subject of economics and how humans behave and make choices under influence of money.

The best seller “Freakonomics” actually puts economics in each of mundace acts of humans where one would not have thought of applying economics but concludes that even such mundane acts are guided by money.

But then divorce is not mundane! How can it be then free of economics and money? If one were to analyse the various laws that have been framed for settling marital discords (fondly called “Women empowerment” - which is nothing but a joke).

Below is my understanding of framing of various laws that “empowered” women and how the laws have transformed from being somewhat neutral to being flawed and biased with advancement in society, technology and communication. While I have focused on main and most common of the laws, in all probability I might have missed some laws/amendments, please highlight the same.

The first law to be framed with special attention to women was Hindu Marriage Act in the year 1955. Similar acts for Christians is the Indian Christian Marriage Act framed in 1872, for Muslims is the Personnel Laws of Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage Act of 1939 and The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act of 1986 while the Parsis have the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936. There is also a secular act Special Marriage Act of 1954 that generally deals with marital matters where the man and women practice different faiths or religions.

A cursory reading of these acts shows that these governed the rules under which a man and a woman can start a new life as husband and wife or decide to end their marital relation in the unfortunate circumstances where going together becomes impossible. These acts, though not impartial to both man and woman, still had taken a middle path for instance in section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act the reference to property is the one which is jointly owned by the husband and the wife.

The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 was one that had right intent to weed out dowry system from India and continued to be fair in design and application by making both giving and taking dowry a crime.

However, 1973 saw the section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It carried with it a new wave of a mindset and I firmly believe that this mindset was inherently primitive and backward looking. The section unambiguously assumes that in a house only the man/husband/son is capable to earn. The section is for maintenance of wives, children and parents and is worded to corner the man. The definition of wife includes the divorced wife who is not yet married – the man cannot think to be relieved even after formally and legally separating. Notwithstanding the fact that this enactment was probably the firs step back towards a fair society, this act had taken care to refuse maintenance to women who refuses to stay with the husband without adequate grounds or is involved in adultery.

But if looked at deeply (from Freakonomics perspective) this S.125 CRPC enactment was monetization of marriage. It was economics at play in the name of women empowerment!

1983 was the year which saw the most abused and misused law in the matters of matrimonial disputes. This year section 498a was inserted into the Indian Penal Code. This section/law has certain fundamental problems:

• The act is based on the basic premise that husband and his relatives are at fault
• The section states unambiguously that husband and his relatives shall be imprisoned and fined
• It assumes that act of cruelty is uni-directional and is from husband to wife. The wife can never be cruel to husband and his family members

This act has assumed draconian proportions not just with it's misuse but also with the threats of using it and the fear in the minds of husband and his family of getting arrested thereby losing jobs and respect. This impact has made sure that this act is the most economically beneficial for the women. It helps the women extract money in the name of settlement (actually an assurance of not filing 498a).

In 1984, we had the Family Courts Act. Now this could be said to be a law that ensured that family matters are kept separate from other matters and are resolved at the earliest. But this act had one problem. It sowed the seeds of mistrust against the man by including a provision to prefer women when appointing judges for the family court.

Thus as time has progressed we have actually brought in more and more of economic despondency among women and helped them extract money from men they called their husbands. These laws are in fact making women shun their careers, give up hard work, not use their intelligence, shy from contribution to the economic development of the country by ensuring them that they can go scot-free even if they are caught in an act of adultery and would still be rightful in demanding a maintenance from the man.

But hold on. Did I just say women shying away from contribution to the economic development of the country. Well that may not be true as these women are just not shying away from making money move – from the hands of the man to their own hands and as students of economic understand movement of money is the name of the game.