Re: Differing with our Esteemed Founder

[Charu datt <charuX@lucent.com>]

At 10:37 PM 12/4/98 -0800, Subroto wrote:
> . . . 49 out of 50 States of the USA permit so-called "no-fault"
>divorce, by which either party can quit a marriage at any time for any
>reason or lack therof, making marriage no more meaningful than any
>business contract.  .  .   Moreover, its own baneful effects are only
>slowly being recognised in the West itself, . .   Facts are facts.
>

The definition of no-fault divorce is incorrect- BOTH parties must
declare
that they do not hold either to be at fault. Based on, admittedly
unscientific but personal, experience I speculate that many cases are
filed
as no-fault to avoid litigation and legal costs.

Subroto is correct about the inequitable social consequences. At least
one
study that I read found that [no-fault] divorce almost always worked in
favor of the husband and against the wife in monetary terms.

-Charu


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------