Working just to avoid being home with in-laws

Yes. They should not take it personally because the woman is treating her parents also similarly. The woman only wants to live with the freedom, privacy and independence that comes with a nuclear family until both sets of parents are able to live by themselves.

The one thing that is appreciable in India is that laws are enacted if there is a need without too much fanfare. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Note the gender-neutral nature of the law at the bottom of page 1. So, there is a country enough for old men and women, when they are no longer able to live by themselves or after the man/woman have been married for a few years and had a chance to build a strong marriage foundation without there being 4 people in the marriage from day one.

Yes, due to traditional expectations of the man, he gets a label of bad son if he doesn't take care of parents while if woman does not support her parents, she could get away with it. This needs to change.

Also, parents not living with a child does not mean child cannot support them financially and otherwise.

A corollary question:
If a SAHW cannot support her parents financially, would it be fair enough that the parents of the woman can will that their house should go to son only, and if no son, to charity or other relatives? Will their "sole wage-earner" son-in-law be OK with his SAHW not receiving a paisa from her parents' assets after their deaths?

 

Question is long-ish, so answer is proportionate : )

Ideally, when both are ambitious working professional they are smart enough to discuss childcare before baby is born.

Someone other than husband and wife and their kids living in the same house, for whatever reason, should happen with both husband and wife's approval. An exception being if parents are too frail to live by themselves, in which case, husband/wife gets to have them move in, no discussion.

Earlier you said that woman can move out if she doesn't like living with in-laws. similarly, husband can quit his work and take care of children if he is particular about only blood relatives taking care of them. wife is ambitious and can be the sole wage-earner.

Also, if husband thinks that "grandparents are best caretakers after parents and husband/wife can concentrate on careers" if grandparents live with them, then, there is the option of the woman's parents moving in with them, right? Or, is that not something the husband wants, and he was using 'kids' caretaker and concentrate on career' as reason/excuse to have his parents live with them and wife be thankful to them for that?

My turn:

Question: What do you think of the husband's action in this true story: An email from a Happily Married Indian Daughter in law
Why might he have initiated the separate living? Were his actions selfish?

The last few paragraphs of the story, starting with "BUT. The freedom was unparalleled.." says it all.

 

Hee hee, confirming with lawyer friend.

That is pretty much what I thought. But, Bharat said something like courts will treat it as case-to-case basis, and there is a 10% chance of woman's parents getting support from sole-wage-earner son-in-law.

I hope Bharat will respond to the corollary question - if SAHW should not support her parents financially, is it OK for them to not include her in their will? Will her sole-wage-earner husband be ok with his wife not receiving a paisa from her parents after their death. (dowry is 100% illegal).

 

I went and looked at Burkha Dutt's picture. There is some similarity, that's all

Bharat engages in discussion using general theoretical Mr and Mrs John Doe examples, and not his personal life-choices, so extended post-mortem is possible : ) without hurting feelings/sensitivities.

It is my belief that back and forth discussions here help in delivering an angst-free us to our spouses.