Log in or Sign up

How to Build Positivity in Married Life? : Click Here
Dismiss Notice

Working just to avoid being home with in-laws

Discussion in 'Married Life' started by Rihana, Nov 4, 2012.

Page 12 of 13

Nov 20, 2012 #111

sweetshreya IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

2,073

Likes Received:

5,286

Trophy Points:

383

Gender:

Female

BharatS said: ↑

Wow…by which law? I don’t know this. So going by the same way and our equality concept, will the “wife” money be also considered as husband? Or is it your money is “OUR” money and my money is “ONLY MINE” law as usual? May be you can check with your friend again…

Well of course !! The money that a wife earns is totally considered belonging to the husband, as long as they are married.
There was a post here sometimes back where wife had vent out her frustration because her marital family was neck deep in debts. Everyone was asking her to separate the account and stop paying their debts from her money. But, then someone pointed out that, by law, she is also required to pay some parts of that debt. (Was it you? I don't remember. Too lazy to go back and find out. zzzz...zzz....)

This is true to some extent, as there is something called “Legal Heir” responsibility, but conditions apply…read on…

Even in the so called maintenance (financial) to ex-wife (who was SAHW), the court will decide the amount based on husband income (salary or other) and the expenses that he needs to maintain himself and “HIS PARENTS”.

Though the court decides finally, in principle it cannot ignore son’s responsibility (of parents) and expenses like medical/food other things. So the parity (in maintenance) for ex-wife and parents are almost at the same level.

So effectively, as the whole banter about “sole breadwinner”, say if the bread is sufficient “only” for husband, wife, children and just left for other two, those other two will be son’s parents and not wife.

At least in such case, the court cannot ask the man to sell his kidney to give maintenance (to ex-wife as per Bombay court) to maintain his wife parents

That is the reason I told “case to case”, not default responsibility in every case. Why go that far, say if a couple has no children and cannot maintain themselves, as per the act they can as well ask grand children or the nearest relative. But that doesn’t mean an “impounded” case of responsibility (as in case for wife/children or his own parents) and depends on other factors also
Click to expand...

Yes, its all 'case-to-case'. I was assuming the case where son-in-law is financially sound enough to take care of his in-laws. Of course, considering extremely poor families is inappropriate. They wouldn't have any money to go to courts at the first place. Sadly, it is fact of life that only those who have money think about saving/giving/taking/sharing money. I've seen families of 7-12 staying in one-room hut. Such questions are not for them.

sweetshreya, Nov 20, 2012

sweetshreya, Nov 20, 2012

#111
Nov 20, 2012 #112

sweetshreya IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

2,073

Likes Received:

5,286

Trophy Points:

383

Gender:

Female

BharatS said: ↑

I said chances low because I don’t think that the law has made the son in law responsible by default in such cases (I must confess that at least I have not heard of such cases or court rulings going outright against son in law…not considering the ground level circumstances)
So I think it is still a question mark legally

Isn't the son-in-law is responsible by proxy. The law had made the daughter responsible for parents. (No where it is written that only working/earning daughter is responsible). The son-in-law is responsible for daughter. So SIL is responsible for wife's parents. (Something like transitive property in mathematics? (if a=b, b=c, then a=c)).

I like it. And should maintain the same aggression and spirit at all levels…not just when we find it convenient and hide when we can’t face it. Then leave about marriage, at least our life will be in our control no matter what. That’s the funda
Click to expand...

Thanks. I even expect my husband to say the same if I cringe for his parent's property (not that they have much !!) May the good lord grant me enough sense what to expect and what not to....

sweetshreya, Nov 20, 2012

sweetshreya, Nov 20, 2012

#112
Nov 20, 2012 #113

BharatS Gold IL'ite

Messages:

391

Likes Received:

349

Trophy Points:

123

Gender:

Male

sweetshreya said: ↑

Isn't the son-in-law is responsible by proxy. The law had made the daughter responsible for parents. (No where it is written that only working/earning daughter is responsible). The son-in-law is responsible for daughter. So SIL is responsible for wife's parents. (Something like transitive property in mathematics? (if a=b, b=c, then a=c)).
Click to expand...

you misunderstood. Son in law is not responsible for "Daughter"...responsible only to his "Wife". So that equation doesnt satisfy by default

BharatS, Nov 20, 2012

BharatS, Nov 20, 2012

#113
Nov 20, 2012 #114

Rihana Moderator Staff Member IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

12,526

Likes Received:

30,316

Trophy Points:

540

Gender:

Female

Bharat, responding in brief to few of your last posts:

1. Thanks for correcting Barkha Dutt typo. I am not familiar with Indian TV news peoples.

2. In discussions of this nature, people often mention their personal stories and choices; when they do that it becomes dicey to respond as one doesn't want to hurt feelings/sensitivities. I like to keep the discussion generic. When you respond, you also keep it generic. My observation was a positive one, sort of a compliment.

3. Given the past 3-4 pages of discussion, and that what you've (re)presented is the norm, is it at all surprising that people in India continue to wish for and prefer a male child?

4. The fix I see for this imbalance of genders is that every woman should be financially independent. Not just financially capable of supporting herself, but doing it actively. Being a SAHW in Indian scenario sucks.

5. Leave the laws regarding it alone, but if husband and wife do not consider each other's money and responsibilities as "our" money and "our" responsibilities, there is not much in that marriage.

Rihana, Nov 20, 2012

Rihana, Nov 20, 2012

#114

3 people like this.
Nov 20, 2012 #115

sweetshreya IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

2,073

Likes Received:

5,286

Trophy Points:

383

Gender:

Female

BharatS said: ↑

you misunderstood. Son in law is not responsible for "Daughter"...responsible only to his "Wife". So that equation doesnt satisfy by default
Click to expand...

Isn't his wife someone's daughter?

sweetshreya, Nov 20, 2012

sweetshreya, Nov 20, 2012

#115
Nov 20, 2012 #116

BharatS Gold IL'ite

Messages:

391

Likes Received:

349

Trophy Points:

123

Gender:

Male

Rihana said: ↑

Bharat, responding in brief to few of your last posts:

1. Thanks for correcting Barkha Dutt typo. I am not familiar with Indian TV news peoples.

2. In discussions of this nature, people often mention their personal stories and choices; when they do that it becomes dicey to respond as one doesn't want to hurt feelings/sensitivities. I like to keep the discussion generic. When you respond, you also keep it generic. My observation was a positive one, sort of a compliment.

3. Given the past 3-4 pages of discussion, and that what you've (re)presented is the norm, is it at all surprising that people in India continue to wish for and prefer a male child?

4. The fix I see for this imbalance of genders is that every woman should be financially independent. Not just financially capable of supporting herself, but doing it actively. Being a SAHW in Indian scenario sucks.

5. Leave the laws regarding it alone, but if husband and wife do not consider each other's money and responsibilities as "our" money and "our" responsibilities, there is not much in that marriage.
Click to expand...

Your point 2, maybe I misunderstood. Thanks for that anyway

Your point 3: You are confused, I have not represented what the norm is…I have only tried to explain the legal practicalities in such kind of cases as per my knowledge and understanding

I cant understand what makes you think that only male child is preferred. And for what reasons? Without being explicit on this, IMO we cannot decide what is norm and what is not.

Your point 4. Financial capability is always good for any one. I think that teens in US work part time to support themselves or their studies. Don’t you think that it should be in india as well?

Why do we think that SAHW in indian scenario sucks? Or may be how many of the so called earning wives are that successful in india or USA in maintaining their relationships?

IMO…it is “this is good for wife/that is good for wife/this way wife will lose/that way she will get benefitted” norm that is equally dangerous. We still don’t think that “this is good for family/that is good for family” where family is husband and wife.

Point 5: Agreed.

BharatS, Nov 20, 2012

BharatS, Nov 20, 2012

#116
Nov 20, 2012 #117

BharatS Gold IL'ite

Messages:

391

Likes Received:

349

Trophy Points:

123

Gender:

Male

sweetshreya said: ↑

Isn't his wife someone's daughter?
Click to expand...

A daughter can be wife to multiple men at different times.

But a daughter is only one time and only for one. Cant compare both positions

BharatS, Nov 20, 2012

BharatS, Nov 20, 2012

#117
Nov 21, 2012 #118

Rihana Moderator Staff Member IL Hall of Fame

Messages:

12,526

Likes Received:

30,316

Trophy Points:

540

Gender:

Female

BharatS said: ↑

I cant understand what makes you think that only male child is preferred. And for what reasons? Without being explicit on this, IMO we cannot decide what is norm and what is not.
Click to expand...

Really? It is so hard to understand? Isn't it a fact that male child is preferred by many even now?

Norm is parents can bring up daughter like they would bring up a son, but, come old age, they will be the "woman's" parents, and hence second-class. They will be welcome to "rent" a place near their daughter's house, while the man's parents can live with their son.
These are the norms. Even if a woman is earning, her parents come second. Fact. All these "norms" make people prefer or wish for at least one male child. And what is wrong with such wishing or preference given the above norms?

we can mouth platitudes like children are not an investment for old age, but fact remains very old age is a time when people need/want to live with child, and fact remains if parents don't have a male child, too bad...

Why do we think that SAHW in indian scenario sucks? Or may be how many of the so called earning wives are that successful in india or USA in maintaining their relationships?
Click to expand...

SAHW in India often have no choice but to suck it up and stay in the marriage. Hence, very low divorce rate. Voila! A "successful" relationship and a "successful" society.

When the woman is a SAHW, some disparity or lopsidedness in the relationship is inevitable. Man and woman can work it out in their own way. In Indian scenario, the man's parents enter the scenario, and that makes it suck.

IMO…it is “this is good for wife/that is good for wife/this way wife will lose/that way she will get benefitted” norm that is equally dangerous. We still don’t think that “this is good for family/that is good for family” where family is husband and wife.
Click to expand...

Aaah... thank you! A pleasure to explain it to you in your own words: Family is husband and wife. And their kids.

Rihana, Nov 21, 2012

Rihana, Nov 21, 2012

#118

3 people like this.
Nov 21, 2012 #119

BharatS Gold IL'ite

Messages:

391

Likes Received:

349

Trophy Points:

123

Gender:

Male

Post deleted

Last edited: Nov 22, 2012

BharatS, Nov 21, 2012

BharatS, Nov 21, 2012

#119

1 person likes this.
Nov 21, 2012 #120

racr Platinum IL'ite

Messages:

1,376

Likes Received:

1,837

Trophy Points:

283

Gender:

Female

Rihana ,

Wow,all i can say is :bowdown

Am :drowning ,how are you able to make such 'bang-on' replies?

racr, Nov 21, 2012

racr, Nov 21, 2012

#120

4 people like this.

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 12 of 13

Share This Page