Orr vs Orr: The US Supreme Court Landmark Judgment On Alimony-Mar ’79

The significance of this judgment is that it rejected the premise that married women are necessarily dependent upon their husbands for financial support.

Lillian and William Orr divorced in Alabama on 26 February 1974. The decree directed William to pay Lillian $1,240 per month in alimony. Soon he either fell behind or stopped paying altogether, and Lillian brought contempt proceedings against him in the Circuit Court of Lee County, Alabama, demanding back payments.
In defense, William claimed that Alabama’s alimony statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since they required only husbands–never wives–to pay alimony. Lillian believed the law was constitutional. The court agreed with her and ordered William to pay the back alimony plus Lillian’s legal fees. William promptly appealed the judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
On 16 March 1977, the court ruled that alimony laws–“designed” to help “the wife of a broken marriage who needs financial assistance”–were constitutional. The judgment against William must stand. William next petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari–an order that the lower court send the trial records to the superior court for review. In May, the state supreme court granted this writ–only to reverse itself six months later, saying the writ had been “improvidently granted.” William then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

The US Supreme Court concluded the discussion with a few remarks about women’s “proper place”:

“Legislative classifications which distribute benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the “proper place” of women and their need for special protection .. . Thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and amelioratethe effects of past discrimination must be carefully tailored. Where, as here, the State’s compensatory and ameliorative purposes are as well served by agender-neutral classification as one that gender classifies and therefore carries with it the baggage of sexual stereotypes, the State cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex.”

A Divorce Decision Changes the Meaning of Marriage
The laws governing marriage are more often evaluated during divorce proceedings than during the life of an intact marriage. Thus, in settling the Orrs’ dispute about their divorce decree, the Supreme Court radically changed the legal basis of marriage in America. As editor Leslie Friedman Goldstein points out, Anglo-American law had held that the “legal core” of marriage was a woman’s obligation to provide sexual and domestic services and a man’s obligation to provide financial support. The Court’s ruling in Orr v. Orr was a complete rejection of such assumptions and one that, in Goldstein’s words, “seismically altered” the marriage institution.”

Here is the link to the analysis of this judgment: Orr v. Orr

Here is the link to the full text : Orr Vs Orr, Full Text

_______________________________________

SC Dismisses The Review Petition Of Mrs. Swarup Sarkar

Here it is:

ITEM NO.CHAMBER MATTER                        SECTION XVIA

        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

REVIEW PETITION (C) NO(s). 735 OF 2007 IN T.P.(C) 32/2007

SUSHMITA SARKAR                            Petitioner(s)

              VERSUS

SWARUP SARKAR                              Respondent(s)

Date: 22/08/2007 This Petition was circulated today.

CORAM :
   HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA

                             By Circulation

      UPON perusing papers the Court made the following
                ORDER

                   The review petition is dismissed in terms of the signed

        order.

                   (Neena Verma)                           (Vijay Aggarwal)
              Court Master                         Court Master

                             Signed order is placed on the file.
             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
              CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                   REVIEW PETITION (C) NO.735 OF 2007

                                  IN

                         TRANSFER PETITION (C) NO.32 OF 2007

Sushmita Sarkar                                    ....... Petitioner

                         Versus

Swarup Sakar                                       ....... Respondent

                     ORDER

          We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected

papers. We do not find any merit in the petition for review. The same shall stand

accordingly dismissed.

                                                   ...................J.
                                                   (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

                                                ...................J.
New Delhi,                              (S.H. KAPADIA)

August 22, 2007.

______________________________________________

SC: Concensual Sex Not Rape

NOTE: I sourced this judgment from a dynamic young lawyer.

I am amazed that it took the Supreme Court to drill some sense into the women who willingly consent to a sexual relationship and then scream ‘rape’ when the marriage doesn’t materialize.

We are turning into a land of promiscuous morons and wannabe victimized virgins.

Here is the link to the HT article

Here is the judgment: SC: Concensual Sex Not Rape

_____________________________________

Woman Fined For Abusing DV Act

The original article has been taken down by The Statesman.

You can read the pdf, think of it like a news clipping, here: Woman Fined For Abusing DV Act

_______________________________________________

LATimes: Post Divorce Women May Have It Worse

This is a great article by LATimes on the financial outlook of post divorce women. The original link is lost, but I had saved a copy of it.
————————————

Old story: Women may have it worse

Divorce and lost earning time could put living standards in a free fall late in life.

You can read the rest of the article here: Old story: Women may have it worse

______________________________________

A Guide To Divorcing The Modern Desi Woman

Here is the link: Fire Your Wife

You need to buy the book from this site and they accept USD only. Sorry guys, can’t do more than this. The book talks about how to prepare for divorcing the American woman.
How does it apply to the desi situation? I’ll explain.
I now believe that there are more Americans in India than in America. Our country is on a downward spiral, morally and sexually and I think, inspite of our moronic laws that make ditching the witch difficult, some of these ideas at this site may apply. So check out that site to get some ideas on how to ditch your desi biwi.

PS:
Also read the Survivors Guide To IPC498A to prepare for the inevitable 498A and DV act that will follow once you file for the divorce.

________________________________

Domestic Violence: Online Books From Questia

These books are from the online library. You need to negotiate through the window. Unfortunately couldn’t download it.

• Here is an online book.
• Domestic Violence: The Changing Criminal Justice
• Domestic Partner Abuse
• Abused Men: The Hidden Side of DV
• No More Secrets: Violence in Lesbian Relationships (Only morons would ever say that women are incapable of violence.)

______________________________

Some Stats On Divorce Rates In India

Here is the link: http://www.divorcerate.org/divorce-rate-in-india.html

__________________________________________

Women Misuse DVA To Get Even With Spouses

An article from Deccan Chronicle.

I don’t have a link, just a scan of the article: Deccan DV Act Misuse

_______________________________

 

Investigating Domestic Violence In Other Countries

In most cases, a DV or 498A complaint is a he said/she said situation. T question I had in mind was, how are these cases investigated by thes agnecies ?

Here are some links:

• Here is Alberta Police DV handbook
• IACP Domestic Violence
• Mass. Law about DV

More to follow.

__________________________________________

A Guide To Indian Laws

Here is the link: A Guide To Indian Laws

• The Indian Penal Code
• The Prevention Of Corruption Act
• Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPc) 
• The Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Talk about antiquated laws)

Also some other links:

• GOI Directory Of Official Websites
• National Law School Of India
• Vakil #1
• The whole set can be found here

__________________________________

US State Dept India Judicial Assistance

Here is the LINK. This link give you information on technicalities such as service of process etc. Here is an excerpt.

Summary: Judicial assistance between the United States and India is governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), 21 UST 77, TIAS 6820, 596 U.N.T.S. 261, to which the United States and India are parties and the bilateral Joint Secretary (Security), Ministry of Home Affairs, Treaty Doc. 107-3, 107th Cong., 2d Sess.

Service of Process: India is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters or the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol. If service of process from the United States is attempted in India by certain methods detailed in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as service by mail; or service by a local agent such as a local attorney or service by publication is effected, that may not constitute service of process under Indian law. See our general Service of Process guidance. This may be important if eventual enforcement of a judgment in India is foreseen. Service may also be attempted in India pursuant to a letter rogatory, transmitted through the diplomatic channel to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. See our guidance on preparation of letters rogatory. Letters rogatory for service of process should be transmitted to the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizens Services, Office of American Citizens Services and Crisis Management, Near East and South Central Asia Division, CA/OCS/ACS/NESCA. Mailing address: SA-29, 4th Floor, 2201 C Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20520. Express mail address: 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037.See also our Service Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) feature and FSIA Checklist for questions about service on a foreign state, agency or instrumentality.

_______________________________________________

A Basic Guide To US Courts

This is a pdf prepared by the Iowa state Judicial Branch. Thought this would be useful to NRIs.

Download the pdf here: A Basic Guide To US Courts

_________________________________________

Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

Swarup Sarkar won the Domestic Violence case filed by his wife.

Here is some background information from the TOI which sheds some light on the Swarup Sarkar story:  Man complains, wife summoned over abortion

Here is the judgment: Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

You may also want to read this: Indira Jaising On The First Anniversary Of The “Clumsily Drafted” DV Act

______________________________________________

Actors Entangled In 498A And DV Act

Here is the news item:

Another one in Orissa. 

http://www.idleburra.com/2007/06/srikanth-marital-problem-backfires.html

Here are some developments in the Chiranjeevi 498A case:

http://www.idleburra.com/2007/06/police-likely-to-question-mega-family.html

_______________________________

Dowry Harassment Or Mental Sickness

Looks like the Rajkot police had a woman attempting to commit suicide in their station as they didn’t “Help” her with her dowry harassment complaint. This feels more like a case of mental sickness than dowry harassment.

Here is the link from HT

_________________________________________

School Teacher Acquitted In 498A Case

Here is an inspiring story of a very forgiving school teacher and father in law. The cops humiliated him and his family.

Download the pdf here: School teacher Paraded by cops praised by court

___________________________________________________

The Indian Domestic Violence Act: Behind The Scenes

Looks like there was a lot of action behind the scenes. Here are some pdfs that explain what I mean:

• Govt version of the bill
• The version by the Lawyers Collective
• The non-negotiables
• Comparison of the DV Act bills

This happened on March 15th 2002.

Here is the link to the pdf: COMMENTS BY MR. ARUN JAITLEY, Union Minister For Law And Justice, in defence of the GOI Domestic Violence Bill Given to women’s groups on March 15, 2002

Here is a comment by Indira Jaising:

“There should be a policy underlying every legislation. The only possible objective of a law on domestic violence can only be to Stop Violence. Whereas the policy of the GOI Draft seems to be to preserve the family and the marriage, and the same is already achieved by all the marriage laws and civil laws. The only “unoccupied field” is protecting a woman from domestic violence and this present draft does not achieve that.”

Here is the pdf if the link is inactive: GOI DVA Bill Original Version Comments

__________________________________________

The Emotional Terrorist: Erin Pizzey

This is by a lady called Ernie Prizzy.

What she writes here is applicable to the kind of women proliferating through the Indian society and cheered on by the likes of Indira Jaising in the garb of women’s rights.

Here is the article: Erin Pizzey: The Emotional Terrorist

______________________________________

AP HC Quotes Dowry Prohibition Act In 498A Quash Judgment: 2005

Here is the judgment: AP HC Quotes Dowry Prohibition Act In Judgment: 2005

Here is the definition from a judgment of the AP High Court:

Dowry Prohibition Act

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry:- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:]

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than [five years.]

[(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,-

(a) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

(b) presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):

Provided that such present are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act:

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.]

[4. Penalty for demanding dowry:- If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.]