Summary of Report No. 257 of Law Commission of India

My unbridled opinion on report no. 257. I found few child rights activists singing praises on it. After going through the report, I realized how feminists-advocates mafia lobby is brainwashing people and how even the activists are not fully invested in reading the fine print and understand the nitty-gritty of complex drafting of law. It is my hurried attempt here to uncover the devil hiding in this report. 

If you want to go into details of this report, I suggest you to open GWA-1890 and Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act -1956 and then look at the annexures starting P 72/85 in this report. For every amendment proposed in the annexure, read the original text and the proposed amendment and form your opinion yourself.

Report No. 257 by Law commission of India is an eyewash in name of shared parenting as it fails to recommend "rebuttable presumption on shared parenting" which is the only expectation from law in this area. 

Unfortunately, the report does not delve into any discussion or research or facts or evidence against it but mentions it as a passing comment at end of chapter 3 with reason that India is different from other countries. While the feminists are happily copying other laws like PWDVA, 2005 & other laws from other countries, in case of "default presumption of shared parenting", India and its parents and children have become different from the rest of the world. Just this shows how much corruption rots in the heart of people involved in this.

Quoting verbatim 3.3.5 - 

"We have already referred to the inequalities in parental roles, responsibilities and  expectations that exists in our country. Therefore, we are not in favor of the law placing a  presumption in favour of joint custody.". 

Nowhere, the reference to inequalities is mentioned in the whole document but this last para in chapter 3, which was supposed to look at the concept of joint custody, is cleverly inserted as conclusion. We can infer from this report that India is not ready for joint custody and it is left to the discretion of judges whether and how much access they want to give to other parent if they demand and fight for it. 

How does this help the corrupt mafia is because without default presumption of shared parenting, every non-custodial parent has to fight for their rights, the onus is on them to convince the judge that child's welfare lies with access to both parents. Advocates need to paid heavily, allegations will be made from both sides, custodial parent i.e. mother in 99% of cases will say father is abusive and should be kept away from the kid. The onus will shift on father to prove he is a good parent before he can even exercise his parental right of access to the child. With "rebuttable presumption on shared parenting", father just need to go to court and claim he is a father and he will get access to child. There's no need to engage expensive advocates. The onus is on opposite party to prove "exceptional circumstances" due to which child should be kept away from his father. Many countries have "rebuttal presumption to shared parenting" as part of their law.

For above mentioned reason alone, we can say that this law commission report has just wasted taxpayers' money and has completely failed in its purpose. In simplified words, 

this report is nothing more than a piece of garbage which should be thrown into dustbin. 

Anyone mentioning about this report is actually an enemy of little children who wants to use child as an instrument to create conflict between parents and milk money out of both sides and also, those stupid women and their families who, misled by lofty dreams of those greedy advocates, sell their children to them. I see you and May the wrath of Goddess Shashti not spare your soul and body.!

The proposed changes can be read in last two annexures beginning from Pg. 72/85. 

• Natural guardian should be changed from "father" to "the mother and the father". "the mother" is inserted before the father at every place. Even though courts rarely recognize any right of a father, the proposed amendment allay any fear of that in future as well. (P 72/85)
• Define standard of living of children and try to ensure same standard by looting money from father and keeping the child away from him. Standard would be imaginary so as to maximize extortion and let child grow up as drunk and spoiled, fatherless generation. (P 77/85, 2.b)
• Support children till the age of 25 (P 77/85, 4.b)
• If father dies, his property should be used for payment of child support and maintenance (P 77/85, 4.d)
• Find trick to harass male and extort more money by conducting annual review of the income of each parent, and to file the same before the court. (P 79/85, Pt 2)
• Puts onus on parents to create a shared parenting plan when, if they had studied even one real world case study, they would have realized that strongly irrational people are involved who cannot create an mutually agreeable shared parenting plan. That's why we needed the research and recommendation from law commission and not some irrelevant mumbo-jumbo with ulterior motives. (Pg 83/85, Pt 1.b, Pt 5)

In one line - why all this is BS because it is not fair to all parties involved. If the basic law cannot guarantee fairness prima-facie, it has failed and when the law fails, the country fails. That's why the people who are creating bad laws are true enemies of the state and we must stand up against them.

Other important passages - 3.2.4

"In addition to the above examples, there has been a growing demand to institute shared custody in India, from ‘father’s rights’ groups, who argue that the Indian family laws, including the law of custody, are biased towards the mothers. Consequently, these groups demand that fathers must have ‘equal rights’ over custody of children. This assertion about the law being biased towards the mothers is not only factually incorrect, but the demand is also based on a faulty understanding of equality in our constitutional and legal framework. As we have discussed below, the father is still deemed the natural guardian under both religious and secular family laws, while the mother is not. Further, in our society, equality in conjugal and family life is still a distant dream. A large number of women continue to disproportionately bear the burden of housework and childcare, even when they have a paid employment outside the home. Thus, when during the subsistence of marriage, there is no equality in parental and caregiving responsibilities, then on what ground can one claim equality in parental rights over children after the dissolution of the marriage? Our Constitution and the legal framework direct the state to pursue substantive equality. Substantive equality recognizes the difference in the socio-economic position of the sexes within the home and outside of it, and aspires to achieve equality of results. We therefore reject the position of the father’s rights groups on shared parenting based on the rhetoric of equal rights over children."

Mistakes in this para:

"This assertion about the law being biased towards the mothers is not only factually incorrect,"

Vivek> Where are the facts and data behind this before calling it factually incorrect. How can law commission publish this? This seems to be opinion of some lowly, demented feminist and by publishing it in law commission report, they have just lowered the image of neutral research body. This level of infiltration at various levels and such levels of impotency & obvious influence in super-senior legal experts leaves me dismayed. 

"Further, in our society, equality in conjugal and family life is still a distant dream." 

Vivek> This is again an opinion which should have no place or meaning in such research document. Women in my family always were much stronger than males. And who appointed them as commentators of society? Did they forget what they were doing in this report?

Also, if the father is considered as natural guardian, then there should be exactly 0% of fathers who do not have access to child or are not able to take sole decision on education, medical of child. Isn’t it surprising that these govt. funded, top law researchers in the country didn’t stress the need for basic fact finding which even an Intern is encouraged to do?

"A large number of women continue to disproportionately bear the burden of housework and childcare, even when they have a paid employment outside the home. "

Because Justice AP Shah's heart says so? The research by Vaastav NGO gave a completely opposite picture that men are burdened with not only as sole providers but with lot of other household activities. Here is the link to article & well researched detailed document . In fact, we can make an opposite claim that the men are the ones who are disproportionately saddled with responsibilities and work in a marriage and the laws are biased against women which will also be in-the-face once we see the court judgments and numbers of custody given to mother vs father. The gender-equality or say it in better way, gender neutrality, in law was badly needed and this report completely failed in it. 

For the same reason, the statement on Substantive Equality is based upon imagination of some demented feminists and should be thrown our as it deserves.

The report has few other tricks under its sleeve. In 3.3.2, it is subconsciously brainwashing us on "mother are biologically equipped" to take care of child. These same feminists argue that women are "forced (against their wishes)" to play the role of caregiver when talking about employment stats and if women work, they can contribute equally as men. Why can't we apply the same argument here that if men are allowed to take care of kids, they can do better than women. What scientific fact was used to make such a claim in 3.3.2. The real observation here is that this report is corrupted morally, spiritually, ethically, otherwise there was no way that such arguments and statements and "popular feminist opinions" would have entered such a critical report. It is disheartening to see the failed state of law commission.

Parental Alienation (PAS) did not even find a quick mention in this report which puts credibility of this research in question.

People involved in preparation (Typical Phds, Hindu males screwing other innocent males because they likely had a privileged upbringing in a corrupt country --- Thank you for being an abject failure in your life. I hope these people are retired by now and let's leave them to God for now. Many conspiracy artists in MRM spent their energies dividing us on religious lines and real culprits were Shahs, sharmas, malhotras, kapoors et al who are selling my India! Wow! Thoko Thoko!)

Justice A.P. Shah - Chairman

Justice S.N. Kapoor - Member

Prof. (Dr.) Mool Chand Sharma - Member

Justice Usha Mehra - Member

P.K. Malhotra - Ex-officio Member

Dr. Sanjay Singh - Ex-officio Member

Dr. G. Narayana Raju - Member-Secretary

R. Venkataramani - Member (Part Time)

Prof. (Dr.) Yogesh Tyagi - Member (Part Time)

Concluding Remarks

Any dog can bark. So, let this little bunny also tell what it should have been:

1. Rebuttable presumption on shared parenting. Period. No aruments, no discussion, no debates, no research, no bla, no tla. It's so obvious.

2. Quick and easy way to get access to the child, not involving the courts. Directing police to accept call from separated parent and restore access to the child immediately. Let police handle the complaints of safety. Claims of safety are abused in 100% of cases where one parent says the other parent would hurt the child. Such parent should be put into mental asylum. Child access is a time sensitive matter. The child is continuously growing and the lost time will never come back. Child will not be small again. You won't be able to play with child in your lap. The chances are low that you will ever develop that paternal bond with the child if you lose first 3 years. Child support should be in direct proportion to access to the child.

3. Massive amount of data mining to find out the pending cases, resolved cases, how those cases gets resolved, amount of money exchange, average amount spent on litigation which could have been spent on child & family well being, count of cases where father awarded custody, count of fatherless children, count of motherless children, survey using NGOs to find out cases where one parent runs away with child and other does not even go to court. Provide data and then provide perspectives. Let others make different observations from the data. There's no data involved, just random opinion of feminists behind the scenes.

4. Massive database of judgments with observations, ratio, results. Important SC judgments from year 1960s. Courts have the privilege of access to real world cases with lot of details and judgments from lower courts and main points of contention. 

5. Detailed research on parental alienation, alienating strategies, how to identify alienation in children. Suggestions for child rights commission to do more research and publish evolving state of art in this matter every 6 months mandatorily.

6. PENALTY. Penalty on alienating parent, penalty for denying access to the child, penalty for ignoring court orders, penalty for police to not help, instill fear of law, instill fear of MISUSE OF LAW, protection of rights of little innocent children through the iron hand of the state.

May the wrath of vengeful God settle the matters and re-establish THE TRUTH and protect the innocent children!

HAR HAR MAHADEV!