Pre -nuptial agreements

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

not.here

@not.here

Inactive

Posted: 11 years ago

#81

Originally posted by: Me_Anonymous

Yes, Islam considers marriage a contract between two people so if you have any conditions, you can have them written in the marriage contract (that's what my sister told me. I didn't ask her to elaborate and she didn't either).

There are two parts to a Marh (I only learnt that recently): one is paid on the wedding-day or contract signing day called "muajjal"and the other part (called "muwajjal") is paid in the event of a divorce or husband's death.

Child support is husband's responsibility so he has to pay for kids needs, wants, etc. post divorce.

About wife initiating divorce and division of assets I'll copy-paste from wikipedia (not the most reliable but readily available source😳):

"In Arabian world, there are varying interpretations of mahr containing marriage contracts, highlighting the differences between Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi, and Jafari schools of Islamic jurisprudence.^[11] For example, the Hanafi School holds that if the woman initiates the divorce (khul) she cannot receive her mahr regardless of whether the husband is or is not at fault, while the Maliki School holds that when the husband is at fault for the divorce, the wife does not forfeit her right to the mahr even if she initiates the divorce."

I am sure there must be rules about wife's assets brought into the marriage, gifts she received from her husband during marriage, etc.

Mahr (both parts), in Islam, is a wife's right. And if that right is denied, it's considered a very big sin.

These days, I know from talking to people that wife's family ask for a lot of Mahr in case of a divorce, etc.

One of my friend's mother got about 20 Lakh rupees in Mahr and that was in 1990s so it was a huge amount in addition to some Jewelry or something.

Someone I know got all the jewelery at the time of the marriage and I don't know how much in cash post divorce (it was a really messy one) and she initiated the divorce not the husband.

This post became so long and I only intended it to be about 2 paragraphs. 😳

Edited to make the post shorter

Thanks for your long post (which I don't mean in a bad way) :)

That is really interesting because I thought I read somewhere if the wife gives back her mahr and initiates divorce in that process. I don't know the exact process. I'll ask someone I know who is getting married very soon. Her brother is a student of knowledge conincidentally so he'll know quite well. I do remember advice given to men that they should give the appropriate mahr (which in my view was always meant to be paid on the wedding day but what you explained seems to be the usual practice which leads to the issue of sometimes it never totally being paid). The wives shouldn't be greedy either but as always I can understand people are trying to make sure they have support if they are to be divorced. I think firstly marriage is important but it shouldn't be considered so sancrosanct (is that how you spell it?) that you cannot break it with divorce. Life is messy and unfair and people who don't want to be with each other should be allowed to divorce each other hopefully in a not so messy way.

With all this talk and issue of prenups it actually turns me off the idea of getting married.

It seems too messy and I think I can survive quite well on my own though it shall be a very lonely existence...oh wait I'll get a cat or several maybe..until they leave me for the cats next door or someone who feeds them much more. Scratch that I'll get a pet rock. Oooh diamonds. They're a girls best friend right?

(sorry for the rant...don't mean no disrespect to anyone by the way)

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#82

Originally posted by: charminggenie

I don't think it would be conflicting with secularism. In fact, it would be IN KEEPING with the true spirit and definition of secularism. Secularism as a doctrine advocates complete divorcing of faith from State machinery. It is NOT having an uniform civil code which harms and violates the tenets of the word "secularism".

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

charminggenie

@charminggenie

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#83

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

I don't think it would be conflicting with secularism. In fact, it would be IN KEEPING with the true spirit and definition of secularism. Secularism as a doctrine advocates complete divorcing of faith from State machinery. It is NOT having an uniform civil code which harms and violates the tenets of the word "secularism".

According to the 42nd amendment," Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. However, neither India's constitution nor its laws define the relationship between religion and state. The laws implicitly require the state and its institutions to recognize and accept all religions, enforce religious laws instead of parliamentary laws, and respect pluralis".

^^ The thought behind this was it is very difficult to maintain sovereignty and unity of a nation which has such diversity . The state of India was at a risk of bifurcation on the basis of region, religion and many others. A uniform code would have been rejected by Princely States like J&K and many others , as they would have preferred the alternate of independent small states like Pakistan.

I think it's a double edged sword - uniformed code and it won't ever be accepted. Considering it would need tremendous unity across religions and sections of society which is not comprehensible in this time of the world.

The difference lies in the "should" and the "could".

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#84

^^In that case, we can have an exception for J&K owing to its special status by Art. 370.
The objections would come from mainly the religious figureheads or organisations, such as Imams of mosques. And therein lies the ACTUAL problem---that of vote bank politics. In my opinion, it would be less of a problem with the general public than with the "authorities". The day our political leaders get past this bane, there'll be no problem regarding the UCC.

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#85

I don't think the public would object that much as long as it does not concern day-to-day affairs like wearing of religious symbols. It doesn't seem likely (in my opinion) that they would be that sensitive regarding a few rules on certain areas.

What you said needs to be done as well, i.e., proper definition and demarcation of the relationship between Religion and State.

P.S.: Hyderabad was a different ball game from Kashmir. There the resistance came from the Nizam who wanted to join Pakistan, as opposed to the mainly Hindu populace that wanted India. It was a similar case with Junagadh. Both of these cases were diametrically opposed to the scenario in Kashmir.

Quote

charminggenie

@charminggenie

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#86

Like I said Krystal all region, religion factors were the reason for ambiguity of many terms.

Khalistan do stand to show that the general public can be motivated for such causes. Our history and present is filled with riots- so public do sway to regional/religion sentiments.

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 11 years ago

#87

It does, I never said it didn't. But the times have moved ahead, and so has collective public consciousness. People as a whole are more educated than the past decades. If the Civil society can build up a movement and start opinion-mobilizing drives through social media, and hold debates at different levels, a step can be taken in the direction.

Quote

Depali Kulkarni

@lalalee

Inactive

Posted: 11 years ago

#88

As Krystal_watz said, laws are governed by vote bank politics. The Manu Smriti doesn't allow widow remarriage, unless it's with your late husband's brother, yet the Hindu Marriage Act provides for such marriages. In Islam, if a woman denies sex or doesn't move with her husband wherever he wants, her maintenance is waived. However, the Indian judiciary doesn't recognize these conditions. It's funny that the Hindu Marriage Act applies to Buddhists as well.

Marriage is nothing more than a social arrangement. The concept of lifelong commitment is subjective and idealistic in today's world. Every person has the right to prenuptial agreement. With divorce rates zooming and gold-digger population growing, it has become a necessity. Relationships that seem sweet in the beginning turn sour over time. Therefore, precaution is better than cure.

Marriage ceremonies can be conducted in any fashion but there should be a uniform marriage code, independent of religious text. Religious marriage acts contradict other laws, are a bane and need to be repealed. Example: A 13 year old girl's marriage was recognized by the AP High Court under the Hindu Marriage Act while the law otherwise states 18 as the legal age.

Quote

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9

Pre -nuptial agreements - Page 9

Related Topics

Explore Topics