Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
if (Configure::read('debug')) {
trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);
} else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 15019,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'metaKeywords' => 'Law and Justice,Gender',
'metaDesc' => '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...',
'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 15019
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan'
$metaKeywords = 'Law and Justice,Gender'
$metaDesc = '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 15019,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'metaKeywords' => 'Law and Justice,Gender',
'metaDesc' => '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...',
'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 15019
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan'
$metaKeywords = 'Law and Justice,Gender'
$metaDesc = '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {
'status' => (int) 200,
'contentType' => 'text/html',
'headers' => [
'Content-Type' => [
[maximum depth reached]
]
],
'file' => null,
'fileRange' => [],
'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
'cacheDirectives' => [],
'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">>
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000"> <link rel="canonical" href="<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">); </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>/<span style="color: #0000BB"><?php </span><span style="color: #007700">echo </span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-></span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">; </span><span style="color: #0000BB">?></span>.html"/>
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"> </span><span style="color: #007700"><</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type" </span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html; charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/>
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67eda6a307edc-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 15019,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'metaKeywords' => 'Law and Justice,Gender',
'metaDesc' => '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...',
'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 15019
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan'
$metaKeywords = 'Law and Justice,Gender'
$metaDesc = '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143.html"/>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
media="all"/>
<title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan | Im4change.org</title>
<meta name="description" content="
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu..."/>
<script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
$(document).ready(function () {
var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
$("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
.attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
.load(function () {
pic_real_width = this.width; // Note: $(this).width() will not
pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
});
});
</script>
<style type="text/css">
@media screen {
div.divFooter {
display: block;
}
}
@media print {
.printbutton {
display: none !important;
}
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
<tr>
<td class="top_bg">
<div class="divFooter">
<img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td id="topspace"> </td>
</tr>
<tr id="topspace">
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
<strong>Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan</strong></h1>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div> </font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
<form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
</td>
</tr>
</table></body>
</html>'
}
$cookies = []
$values = [
(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]
$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
[maximum depth reached]
],
'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
},
'articleid' => (int) 15019,
'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'metaKeywords' => 'Law and Justice,Gender',
'metaDesc' => '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...',
'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>',
'lang' => 'English',
'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
'site_title' => 'im4change',
'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {
'id' => (int) 15019,
'title' => 'Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan',
'subheading' => '',
'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br />
<br />
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br />
<br />
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br />
<br />
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br />
<br />
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br />
<br />
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br />
<br />
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br />
<br />
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br />
</div>',
'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 15 May, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws/articleshow/13141505.cms',
'article_img' => '',
'article_img_thumb' => '',
'status' => (int) 1,
'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
'lang' => 'EN',
'category_id' => (int) 16,
'tag_keyword' => '',
'seo_url' => 'govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143',
'meta_title' => null,
'meta_keywords' => null,
'meta_description' => null,
'noindex' => (int) 0,
'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
'most_visit_section_id' => null,
'article_big_img' => null,
'liveid' => (int) 15143,
'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
'edate' => '',
'tags' => [
(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
],
'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
'[new]' => false,
'[accessible]' => [
'*' => true,
'id' => false
],
'[dirty]' => [],
'[original]' => [],
'[virtual]' => [],
'[hasErrors]' => false,
'[errors]' => [],
'[invalid]' => [],
'[repository]' => 'Articles'
}
$articleid = (int) 15019
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan'
$metaKeywords = 'Law and Justice,Gender'
$metaDesc = '
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify">Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.<br /><br />The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.<br /><br />Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''<br /><br />Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.<br /><br />Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.<br /><br />Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.<br /><br />The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.<br /><br />The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children. <br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'
include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
latest-news-updates/govt-goes-one-step-back-on-divorce-laws-himanshi-dhawan-15143.html"/>
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan | Im4change.org
Govt goes one step back on divorce laws-Himanshi Dhawan
Diluting women's share in marital property in the event of divorce, the government has sought to restrict the provision for `immoveable property' to residential assets, a move opposed by women's rights activists.
The marriage amendment bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, legislating a women's right to marital property acquired during the subsistence of marriage. The amendment cleared by the Union Cabinet recently said that the women's share will be decided by the courts. However, sources said that a new provision in the bill that describes ``immoveable property'' as ``residential property'' has raised the hackles of women activists who feel that this will be used to cut off a woman's share to her rights on other assets acquired by the husband during the period of their marriage.
Opposing the amendment, a delegation of women's rights activists, led by Rajya Sabha MP and CPM leader Brinda Karat, met law minister Salman Khursheed on Monday. Speaking to TOI after the meeting, Karat said, ``This provision will be equal to leaving a woman to the wolves. We have urged the minister to postpone bringing in the amendments till such time as there is a provision guaranteeing equal share for women in marital property. This must be specifically mentioned in the bill.''
Sources said that the proviso appeared to have been brought to pander to parties who felt that a woman after marriage will be able to stake claim to her husband and his family's property. The new marriage amendments include introduction of a new ground for divorce - irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The amendment has met with a mixed response since both BJP and Left parties have demanded that the government bring in adequate guarantees to protect women's rights if the ``quickie divorce'' is introduced.
Karat, who was accompanied by AIDWA member and former Law Commission member Kirti Singh and others, also pointed out that so far there is no adequate definition for ``marital property''. She also stressed that there was no urgency to prioritize this legal reform at a time when several pro-women legislations continued to languish.
Sources said that Khursheed heard the concerns of the members and said that he would consider all aspects before bringing the amendments before Parliament.
The amendments had met with scathing criticism from BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who had argued in the Sabha, that putting irretrievable breakdown without a financial support system as a ground would result in mostly women as sufferers of matrimonial breakdown. ``Once a husband uses it for a divorce, courts will give conventional and very conservative maintenance amounts,'' he had said demanding that provisions like sharing of assets be made part of the bill.
The amendments also give powers to courts to waive off six-month period of staying together before divorce can be granted in cases where the separation is by mutual consent. The amendments also give adopted children the same rights as natural-born children.
