- This topic has 48 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
PWith the divorce and alimony news going on for Prasanna the co-founder of Rippling. From his tweets and the screenshots its pretty apparent that his wife did cheat on him. They have a 9 year old kid and have been married for 10 years and they have been sweethearts since college days at NIT.
His wife is demanding 9 crores and 4.3 lakh/month alimony. Why does an adulterer deserve alimony?
-
-
SYou want to outrage and not get any legal perspective.
Adultery is grounds for divorce. Alimony is for maintenance and a share in the wealth generated during the partnership. Without being in the shoes of the couple, no one can tell the reasons for distancing and breakups and flings.
In this specific case there are a bunch of tweets by a man. Legally they amount to nothing since the facts are to be proved in a court of law under the rules of evidence.
-
PNot really want to outrage. It doesn’t concern me at all like you said. But have seen cases like these in the past as well in the news.
>Alimony is for maintenance and a share in the wealth generated during the partnership
But didn’t the partner consciously chose to disregard the partnership?
-
STo answer your question, the partner chose to disregard the relationship – thats the moral answer.
The legal answer is, there is nothing like ‘disregarding’ relationship. There is separation, dispute, divorce.
Cheating is an immoral act – but thats not a legal issue. Laws *try* not to legislate people’s morality or immorality. And also because why someone cheats is a highly complex issue in some cases, and courts dont want to get into personal problems or the bedroom.
-
RLaw doesnt wanr to get into bedroom but can get into a mans pocket to leech him off his wealth
What a logic!
-
-
-
DThe law also doesn’t want to punish men for raping their wives. You are right. The law needs to get into the bedroom.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ucause he married someone and could keep them satisfied. its called cuck tax.
real answer:
Women are not property . don’t marry unless you are really sure you can live with their mistakes.
-
-
Uagain don’t marry just cause everyone marries. This is not 1990’s.
Don’t marry and abandon.
Honestly don’t marry or have children unless you can live with their mistakes.
-
AYou might have cuck fantasy, not everyone does…
Or maybe it’s something personal that you are trying to justify here.
Cheating in marriage is not a ‘mistake’ … It’s a crime against the marriage itself.
-
-
-
Ulol true . anyway the cuck has to pay , cause he entered a marriage without understanding the woman or the law.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SLegally you can make an argument for not granting alimony if the women is earning, also by law it has to be paid to the spouse (not man or woman specifically) who needs support.
Practically there are many factors that skew the outcome towards women getting alimony even when not required.
Many judges instead of relying on legal conditions, follow the traditional orthodox mindset that every woman is weak and helpless and needs money from husband. This makes it easier for the lawyers to get money for the woman. There are exceptions when it comes to judges.
Lawyers sometimes even those representing the men would put up less of a fight when it comes to maintenance and alimony. I don’t know what is the reason but the observable difference in the attitude of some lawyers suggest everyone takes a cut.
If there is no alimony there is no fund from which those people who take a cut can extract their pound of flesh. They would also extract from woman if possible, but it is easier for all to extract from the man.
Ideally lawyers are not supposed to take a cut from the payouts, but corruption is a lot more than literacy in the country so that would not be a surprise.
-
S> I don’t know what is the reason but the observable difference in the attitude of some lawyers suggest everyone takes a cut.
Lawyer gets paid his fees irrespective of whether the client pays ₹1 or ₹10,00,000.
-
-
-
-
-
CHere’s the perspective; legality doesn’t abide by morality. A sin can only be a crime if your kings want it to be.
-
-
-
-
NThe law makes the argument that alimony needs to be paid to the spouse (in India, it’s more often than not, the wife) because he/she helped contribute to the marriage and assets that were built during the course of the marriage. And hence, equitable division in the form of marriage is necessary since cheating in a marriage is not illegal anymore.
Personally, I feel that’s a crock of shit. It’s very rare that a woman in India will marry a man that has less assets than her. And I’m honestly not sure what modern women bring to the table in the marriage. All they do is whine and whine. Almost every man feels this way. Do you really think MacKenzie Bezos deserved $32 billion of alimony from Jeff Bezos. She is not qualified to even take up the post of a CEO and the CEO of Amazon, Andy Jassy, one of the smartest people alive takes home only $30 million and he runs a trillion dollar company. What does MacKenzie Bezos do again?
-
RThe patriarchy myth is the biggest crock of shit that women came up with to justify their agenda of creating social justice movemnt to make the system favourable to them
-
-
-
-
DYou are seeing his version of the story and the courts probably saw both the sides. He is richer than his wife so he obviously had better lawyers too.
-
-
-
-
-
ADivorce terms from a legal perspective are focused on ensuring continued financial and social stability – not on personal or personal rights or wrongs. Adultery isn’t considered a crime, but a breach of a civil contract (similar to a business partnership). Ideally it should be penalised at least to the extent of financial/social fraud. But at this time, adultery is only considered grounds for contested divorce usually only when combined with cruelty. Financial rights granted by marriage and in case of divorce do not get affected.
The law considers the right to living without risk of destitution a greater human right than protecting a married couple’s right to sexual fidelity. It’s considered morally wrong by society, but the law does not consider it an offence great enough to drive anyone to financial destitution.
-
SIt is simply a financial calculation and nothing to do with the personal issues between be couple .
As it is considered that the couple have together contributed to the money earned by wife . As in she took the burden of childbirth , child care , cooking etc as that’s the general trend . So she is given a part of that wealth generated during marriage.
Ofcourse it is infuriating that the cheater is getting all these benefits but that’s the financial angle.
-
-
-
CMany have said legality vs morality.
Just to be clear, they’re referring to the laws of the land.
It doesn’t matter that the laws of the land are far less worth than the garbage abundantly found on Indian streets (though that situation is improving because of better garbage collection and not better civic sense).
They aren’t saying that it’s right that the adulterer deserves alimony. They’re just saying that as long as the adulterer is a woman, she will get alimony and benefits and that their men, especially soft and noble men, have been fornicated the wrong way and in the wrong end.
-
-
-
