Rights of women after divorce

 April 11,1993

Q In Carayacarya it states that if a woman ends her marriage she  has no right to the property of her husband. Also that if she keeps her children without the consent of the husband,  he  is exempted from any financial liability for the upkeep of the children as long as they remain with her. In many countries now, women have considerable property in their marriages, and men get custody of the children. Therefore  does the reverse apply?

     Caryacarya is written for India in this regard. You know, time place and person are a factor here. What was said in Caryacarya was relevant to the time and the place. Now, in different cultures there are different customs regarding the inheritance of property, the freedom of  women, and the role and the responsibility of men. So I would say this is an entirely cultural issue. But there is an underlying moral issue. When a man brings children into the world it is easier for him to lose all sense of responsibility for those young beings than for a women, for she has a biological tendency to feel they are close to her, a part of her and for most women this tendency is very dominant. So, due to this, most women will cling to the children, especially if the children are young. They will not want to let the children go. In many cultures, the men may easily abandon the children and take no responsibility for the children whatsoever; abandon the wife, abandon the children, and find a new wife, leaving the old wife without a penny. This is due to their lack of attachment or bonding with their children and unless cultural values promote this attachment and bonding, men will act in this way. So, although this is primarily a cultural issue it is also a more universal issue in that culture should promote the feeling of responsibility and attachment in the male towards the offspring.

     Now, in cultures where this is promoted and many men find great attachment to the children, it can be very painful if they are taken away by the wife, so pain can go both ways. The wife can feel great pain to lose the children and also husband can feel pain in cultures where these sentiments are promoted. So, in that case, if the wife takes the children, hurting the sentiments of the husband very much, it is not that the welfare of the children should be injured and I do not care for it being put in this way. I would say that it is more that the male should be given some rights to the children, not merely be expected to support the children but he should be given rights unless there is a very strong reason to deny them. The same is in the other case. If the husband takes the children, wife has a good position, she should contribute financially. But likewise, she should get some rights to the children so that her sentiments are not wounded. So you see it should go like this. It is not that. The emphasis is placed incorrectly here. The emphasis should be that the husband is not left without any say, any access to his children but expected to pay for their support. It is not that he should not pay, but it is that he should have the access, and the same should hold in the other direction. So you see, it is written with wrong emphasis. Do you understand more clearly what is being said?

     Also, the point regarding if the women leaves the husband she has no right to his property. This means that she should support herself and what property was hers when she came to the marriage, she takes with her. Likewise if the man leaves the wife without her consent, her properties should not go with him, there should be equality in this. But if the women is pennyless and her family will not take her back, she is in a culture where she has no capacity to work, family will not take her, she is left on the street, husband has beaten her so she has left without his consent, then I would say all of this is off. If husband has harmed the wife, if he has done psychological or physical harm to her, then there should be ruling against this and he should pay recompense to her for the damage he has done.

     So, this is not to approve the harming of the women so that she must stay with the husband no matter what, it should not be like this. If she is harmed physically or psychologically, then this should be brought to the court, there should be strong punishment against this and damages paid to her. The same may be true if a man is harmed by a women. Though you will find it more the other way, it can happen both ways. But this statement was made merely to point that if at her whim she leaves the husband, then what need has he to support her? Let her have her own wealth, her own family, her own inheritance, let her use these, her own career and vice versa. So this is the meaning of this statement. Alright?