Tag Archives: divorce

Feminism and Gender Biased Laws have scared men away from Marriage

Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men’s Marriage Strike?

Men prefer being solo over a bad marriage: study

Glenn Sacks article on the issue


An Economic Theory of Why Women do what they do?

Some women do real horrible things that are beyond belief. Take this example

  • Husband goes to war in Iraq
  • Wife cleans him out without his knowledge (forges his signature, takes out his money, buys a new house, sells the old house etc.)
  • files for divorce and takes custody of the chidren
  • husband comes back to devastation, homelessness, and penniless
  • courts do not convict wife, gets stayed sentence for check forgery
  • husband will likely lose custody of the children and husband will be asked to pay support

read the story here

Many women do this, stabbing husbands in the back and walking away w/ their kids for no apparent reason. Mostly women initiate this and husbands are the ones who hold out in hopes of reconciliation. WHY? Maybe the answer lies in utility theory, which postulates that people make choices in life that maximize their utility

  • The utility from marriage for women is in childbirth, raising the children, being loved by someone, and the money that the husband earns which helps run the family
  • Over time the utility of marriage decreases because children are born, they reach a certain age where they need not be cared for intensely, and love dwindles over time in most marriages unless BOTH husband and wife work hard to maintain it. The only utility that remains is from the money that husbands earn
  • The utility of the alternative (splitting up and taking the children and living with old parents or independently) increases over time especially if women can access the money (they steal some and the rest is granted to them by courts as child/spousal support
  • So why do husband’s hold out in the hope of reconciliation? Because most husbands go to work everyday and earn money for their family, so they can keep their wives happy and raise the kids to be honorable citizens. That is how they derive utility from the marriage and it does not decrease over time, in fact it increases over time as kids grow older, demands for money increase (kids have to go to college etc) and husbands work even harder to hold the family together
  • Now when the wife initiates divorce husbands find themselves stuck doing the job to pay child/spousal support, hardly get to see their kids, and have of course lost their wife, have suffered at the hands of the skeptical society that thinks they must have done some wrong etc. So the utility of the situation they are in is really really low and they are unable to find an alternative with higher utility. This is what also leads to SUICIDES

Hence it is imperative to keep the flame of love going since the utility of love for the woman has to be kept high–that is the only hope for men. The courts cannot provide love and love cannot be bought. OR men have to find an alternative with higher utility which is made extremely hard by the family court system and is especially hard when kids are involved.


Monetary Incentives needed to protect Family

Father-absence associated with divorce and sole maternal custody, is the primary predictor of a host of societal ills affecting and destroying children (tons of data in support of this in attached article). In some countries like the US, evidence has shown that monetary incentives provided by the federal government to the states has worked when it comes to ensuring child support payments. Unfortunately, this system has led to the creation of the divorce industry, where a whole host of governmental organisations and NGO’s work hand in hand to get a piece of the pie, paying little heed to the fact that they are destroying society by their high handedness.

What is needed is to use the same idea to promote and incentivize other desired behaviors like visitation by fathers, promotion of marriages, promotion of father involvement, presumption of joint custody.

If this is really all about the children, then a father’s wallet can no longer be a substitute for his presence.



Abhorrence towards father is result of brainwashing, Delhi HC rules


CRP No.276/2003

Date of Hearing : March 15, 2004.
Date of Decision: April 12, 2004.

Hindu Marriage Act 1955 -Custody of the Minor Child

Paramjit Singh Lamba …Petitioner

through Mr. J.P. Singh, Advocate


Smt. Prabjot Kaur …Respondent

through Mr. K. Sultan Singh

with Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates



1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
Judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes


1. This Revision brings to the surface an important question which
universally affects and afflicts all persons belonging to a broken
home, viz. the custody of the minor child of the two warring spouses.
It cannot be over-emphasised that the paramount consideration in all
such situations is the well-being of the child. It is this aspect
which must be kept in focus and the individual `rights’ of the
parents would recede into the shadows. It is but a human frailty for
the Judge to be prejudiced by the reproachable and unbecoming conduct
of a particular spouse while determining the manner in which the
child’s time is to be apportioned. It has been noticed that the
Guardian Judge does not follow a uniform practice in this regard in
that sometimes the parent who does not have the custody of the child
is granted a meeting of a duration of one or two hours in a month,
that too in the uncomfortable and uncongenial environment of the
Court, while in other cases weekly visitation or access for several
hours is ordered. It is trite to state, but necessary to reiterate,
that it is the welfare of the child which must be kept in the fore,
either while granting custody or visitation to the parent who does
not have the custody. It must also be highlighted that orders of this
genre are inherently interlocutory in nature, subject to modification
from time to time. It is not essential that the Court accepts consent
terms presented to it by the parents. The Court is also not powerless
to cancel or modify an arrangement approved by it earlier, if change
in circumstances so compel.

2. The Statute proclaims the father to be the natural guardian of the
child but clarifies that till he/she attains the age of five years,
his/her custody would ordinarily be granted to the mother. The
Legislature merely recognises the universal experience and
observation that the mother is better equipped and inclined in
bringing-up the children. Homo sapiens are the most advanced and
intelligent species but there is some commonality with other animals
amongst whom it is ubiquitously the mother which cares for the
offspring upto adolescence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, has
clarified in Kumar V. Jahgirdar vs. Chethana Ramatheertha, 2004(1)
Scale 149 that it does not subscribe to the observations that a
mother is always preferable to the father so far as the custody of
the child is concerned. Although the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found
that the child had not been brainwashed in the case before it, it was
expressly aware of the reality that the child’s mind is invariably
poisoned against the other parent. Such a practice must be
unreservedly deprecated, as it is wholly deleterious to the welfare
of the child concerned and to the development of the personality.
Every child requires exposure to and influence of both his parents.
Visitation in Court precincts should be resorted to where there is no
other option, or where the conduct of a parent is deviant or
unnatural thereby necessitating jural monitoring.

3. In the present case the Father has for various reasons, which I
need not discuss threadbare, not had much interaction with his
daughter. It has been explained that he was pursuing studies in the
United States of America during the infancy of his daughter.
Visitation between 3:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M. on the last Saturday of the
month, in the Court precincts, appears to have been granted on
23.3.2001. The present Additional District Judge has taken an adverse
view of the fact that the Father did not assail the previous Order in
an Appeal or Revision. In my considered view, however, it would be
inappropriate to give a critical weightage to this fact. Assuming
that a parent was uncaring at a particular stage in the child’s life,
he/she should not be shut out for all times to come. As already
observed a decision should be taken not from the claim of the parent,
but from the standpoint of the child concerned, since there can be no
argument against the necessity for the child to spend time with both
parents. In the present case the fixation of only one hour in a month
has led to the consequence of the child refusing to meet her Father,
that is, the Petitioner herein. Such an abhorrence towards the Father
cannot but be the result of brainwashing by the Mother, which has
succeeded in large measure because of the extremely limited access of
the Petitioner with his daughter.

4. So far as the interests of the child are concerned it is
imperative that a meaningful exposure to both parents should be
ordained by the Court. One hour every month is clearly counter-
productive for the achievement of this objective, as this case
palpably manifests. The Court should endeavour to make a weekly
meeting possible and only insist that this should be in the Court
precincts where no other alternative is possible. It is only in rare
cases that such a location should be prescribed. The duration of the
meeting should be fixed so as to enable a healthy interaction between
the parent and child, and should not be reduced to a mere legal
formality. There is also no reason why a shorter visitation, say for
one hour, should also not be ordered on a week day so that there is
constant contact between the child and the parent. This may be
onerous or awkward for the parent who has custody, but in a
dismembered family, it cannot be avoided. The parents will eventually
evolve a system and develop a pragmatic and healthy attitude where
their lives continue in the smoothest manner possible even in such
adverse and unfortunate circumstances.

5. In the impugned Order the Additional District Judge has
understandably noted and has been adversely influenced by the fact
that the application for a change in the interim arrangement and for
custody of the child had been presented by the Father only on the
filing of the Petition under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act. This is also a reality, but the bluff of the parent filing such
an application can be countered by allowing access/visitation rights
to the child which the uninterested parent would eventually not fully
avail of. In such a case the parent would run the danger not only of
alienating the child forever, but also creating an occasion for
modification in the duration of child access.

6. I would allow the present Revision by increasing the access of the
Father to one hour every week, in the first instance. Since it is
evident that the daughter is presently inimical towards meeting her
Father, it is expected of the Respondent that she should create a
congenial atmosphere which would obviate the meeting/visitation to be
held in the Court of the Matrimonial/ Guardian Judge. If avoidable
bickering does not end, the parents would end up wasting the better
part of their lives in Court, and this should soon bring them to
their senses. Their folly, however, is no justification for not
endeavouring to achieve the best for the unfortunate child, who has
no role or say in the spousal spat.

7. The place of the weekly meeting is left to the Matrimonial/
Guardian Judge to determine. As has been observed, it is for the
Mother to ensure that the Daughter has a healthy interaction with her
Father, lest an opinion be formed that she is deliberately turning
the Daughter against her Father. If such an opinion is formed by the
Court, there would be no option available to the Court but to
award/transfer the custody to the Father in the hope that with the
change the child would adopt a more balanced and healthy attitude
towards both her parents. My faith that Counsel for the parties shall
both advise and assist in bringing about some sanity in their
respective clients will, I turst, not be in vain.

8. The Petition is disposed of with these observations. Parties to
appear before the Additional District Judge on 21st April, 2004.

April 12, 2004

All Fathers: Join the Rally on June 13th