TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

An Indian High Court rules: "Divorced women can't claim alimony if they have sex with other men"

PWhat

August 17, 2015
127 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-divorced-women-can-t-claim-alimony-if-they-have-sex-with-other-men-madras-high-court-2115173
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title An Indian High Court rules: "Divorced women can't claim alimony if they have sex with other men"
Author

PWhat

Upvotes 127
Comments 44
Date August 17, 2015 3:07 AM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3h9rxx/an_indian_high_court_rules_divorced_women_cant/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/an-indian-high-court-rules-divorced-women-cant.973173
https://theredarchive.com/post/973173
Top posts by PWhat

Supreme Court of India says "Unwed Mother Can Be The Sole Legal Guardian of a child without Father's Consent"

10 upvotes
July 6, 2015
/r/MensRights

Pay Commision that recommends the salaries of government employees of India recommends 2 year paid paternity leave (X-post r/india)

3 upvotes
November 21, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]epicstoner86 14 points15 points16 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I like this even tho im against alimony. It allows the woman who needs the help getting started after a divorce but it does not give her the ability to sleep around well someone else pays the bill.

[–]gvs77 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I like the idea. If she has other men, her ex should not pay anymore. I'd like that to apply both ways here also and in case of divorce, an adultering partner should not get compensation and leaves the home.

[–]PWhat[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That is already the case. In the article, it mentions alimony is not granted in case of adultery. The judge extended that logic to post divorce.

[–]gvs77 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean here :-). For me europe

[–]dominotw 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol this sounds stupid.

[–]I__Just__Wanna__Help 15 points16 points17 points 10 years ago* (55 children) | Copy Link

Ill play devils advocate here and pretend this sub isnt heading the way of the RedPill.

This is hardly fair for the women.

Sex is, in the modern world, a part of relationships - married, casual, and everything inbetween. How many of the people on here have EVER had sex without being financially dependant on the person they are banging? Man OR woman?

I think its in the rights for a woman to have sex and to expect her rightful financial support. Of course, Alimony law in many places is dodgy at best, with today's fair employment of women, but having sex shouldn't completely disqualify anyone from financial support.

Mens Rights is about fair treatment, Period. It is not about one-upping the other sex - thats what redpillers and the latest feminist wave are about.

Unless, somewhere, ive missed a memo that this sub is not longer supporting complete fair treatment.

The Mens Rights Movement is pro-equality.

Not applauding women being unable to do something men could.

Every time i see a thing like this, i think, "If the gender reversed, would there be a problem?"

Lets play that game.

"India declares that Men having sex with other women are now not allowed to be able to visit their children."

I mean, actually read this:

...held that a divorcee would lose her right to claim maintenance if she breaches her sexual obligation

Her obligation?

Thats fucked up.

In my idea of a healthy world, no woman is obligated to have sex with any man - and the reverse. In Marriage, it is expected, as that is part of the point of marriage, but in divorced couples?!

And adultery is a fair enough reason to call divorce, depending on your views and vows, sure, but to cut financial support after the marriage has already ended?!

Edit: here I was arguing for the fair treatment of men and women in divorce proceedings. Turns out, big mistake.

[–]HAESisAMyth 42 points43 points44 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

how many of the people on here have EVER had sex without being financially dependant on the person they are banging?

Most the men

[–]dungone 13 points14 points15 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

How many of the people on here have EVER had sex without being financially dependant on the person they are banging?

All of the men. How is this even a question?

I think its in the rights for a woman to have sex and to expect her rightful financial support

So you are saying that women should be paid for having sex?

What exactly is "rightful" about it in the first place? Where are the rights of men who end up homeless and in and out of jail because they owe money to a woman who is happily banging away with another man? Even if we supposed that it should be a man's duty to pay, why should it be the man she left instead of the new man she decided to be with?

In my idea of a healthy world, no woman is obligated to have sex with any man - and the reverse.

The obligation being discussed in the article is that she doesn't bang one man while receiving financial support from another. If she moved on and started a relationship with another man, it is an indication that she no longer needs nor desires the financial support of men in her distant past. Why can't those men move on, too? You're taking money away from them that should be going towards their new relationships. You might have some semblance of an argument if we were talking about child support, but this is alimony. "Maintenance".

[–]eletheros 35 points36 points37 points 10 years ago* (35 children) | Copy Link

This is hardly fair for the women.

Alimony is hardly fair for the payer, of which it's always men in India.

If a court wanted to require that women receiving alimony sung the national anthem on a street corner 16 hours a day, every day, or they stop receiving their alimony it's still the better option than unfettered alimony.

There is no legitimate reason in 2015 that after a marital asset split, a woman cannot support herself.

I think its in the rights for a woman to have sex and to expect her rightful financial support.

That's known as prostitution.

Unless, somewhere, ive missed a memo that this sub is not longer supporting complete fair treatment.

Alimony is unfair treatment, it is never unfair to put conditions on it, no matter what the conditions are. The better option is always complete elimination.

[–]ventixi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think this law might be a good direction to go if it was implemented in America (although the condition is weird). But this is India, maybe I'm reading too much biased news, but I think it's likely that a law like this can be exploited to make it really unfair for the women.

[–]eletheros 7 points8 points9 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

but I think it's likely that a law like this can be exploited to make it really unfair for the women.

The only time alimony is unfair to women is when they pay it. The simple act of alimony existing is unfair. Steps taken to terminate alimony early are more fair than not taking those steps.

[–]ventixi 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

My point is that because this is India, other factors aren't there to support women if this is exploited. Again I might be biased cuz of the news articles I read but I feel like if a woman is raped the husband can exploit this law and divorce her with no financial support? Obviously in the case where she just marries the other guy it works but I'm not sure how often that would actually happen given how conservative it is there.

[–]eletheros 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My point is that because this is India, other factors aren't there to support women if this is exploited.

Alimony is exploitation. Not having it is never exploitation.

[–]Sanguifer -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's just retarded.

No alimony is hardly fair to anyone. And I'm saying that in the knowledge that Men receive alimony, too. It's rare, but it happens.

It's well documented that the family unit where the parents specialize is the family unit that is the most successful. It's not surprising - someone has to take care of the kids and the household. If both parents try to juggle career, kids, and chores, they'll half-ass everything. If both parents prioritize career, they'll end up spending a lot on daycare, nannies, maids etc, plus the added costs of commuting, professional attire etc etc, which often will add up to more than the lower-paid parent's salary - or they end up neglecting their kid and home.

So someone has to go "I'll stay at home and take care of thins while You work". And without alimony, 20 years later, when the mid-life-crisis hits and the kids are adults and the married couple has grown tired of each other, the stay-at-home parent is fucked. 'cause the working parent can just divorce and has a salary that used to support 3 or more people all for himself, while the stay-at-home parent is free to... flip burgers? Assuming they'll even take him/her over some student.

This is just as unfair as stripping one parent of all of a lion's share of his income and giving it to the other parent. The current system is broken, but that doesn't mean that it is fundamentally wrong. It just needs fixing.

[–]Fiorbeth 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say you are somewhat half right. Though in some ways your'e argument is a bit flawed. Yes one half of the group may have to say "I will stay at home and look after the house/kids" (though in some cases both parents could work alternating shifts and look after half the house as well though that is a bit difficult to get set up with) in the relationship that is what the other partner is essentially paying them to do. I know that makes it sound like one partner is hiring the other as a wife/husband but it makes sense to look at it that way.

But then when the alimony starts getting paid you are expected to pay to keep them in the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to, but what about the opposite the lifestyle that the person paying alimony has become accustomed to having somebody there that does look after the house and whatnot and that is gone. So from that standpoint each should have to keep the other in the lifestyle they are accustomed to, the working partner should have to pay the other for the lifestyle they provided minus any fees incurred getting the services that the non working partner provided such as hiring a maid to clean while they are at work. Yet that side of it is never considered.

To me a step in the right direction to fixing the idea of alimony would be make it a temporary measure to help the person get on their feet in a better situation. So when the couple gets divorced the non working partner is provided with alimony to give them the lifestyle they are accustomed to. In exchange they have to provide sufficient evidence that they are looking for work to cover all or part of the alimony that is being paid to them. Then when they find work they lose part of the alimony equal to their wages but are expected to keep looking for better work or promotions/raises to make up the extra.

If the person does not provide sufficient evidence that they are looking for ways to provide for themselves their alimony gets stopped until they can provide evidence.

In that sense it would work somewhat like the British benefits system but with no money coming from the state. Of course some kind of independent third party would be required to look over the evidence and to ensure that both parties are upholding their sides of the bargain.

[–]eletheros 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So someone has to go "I'll stay at home and take care of thins while You work". And without alimony, 20 years later,

20 years later, they have half the marital assets. They're welcome to sell some to live day to day.

[–]sillymod -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In the case of no marital assets, I can understand a short term (1y) moderate alimony in order to give time for the lower earning partner to establish themselves. Otherwise, I agree with you.

[–]eletheros 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In the case of no marital assets, I can understand a short term (1y) moderate alimony

If there are no marital assets then they're a poor couple, and rightfully will be two poor single people. It is not acceptable to make one of them less poor at the cost of making the other more poor.

[–]sillymod -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It is possible for a couple to have no/few marital assets and yet still have sufficient income. I am not suggesting taking someone who is making barely enough money for themselves and splitting it in half.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]eletheros 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Im certain the users in this post lauding the positives of this court ruling aren't all indians.

Irrelevant. The case, and thus the ruling, is Indian.

I know that i, as a man, cannot simply walk out of the door, right now, and get a job

Not your spouses problem. You're divorcing, remember.

Are we against prostitutes, now, or is this the 21st century?

We're against forced payments like alimony.

The better option is always complete elimination.

Source plz

You're discovered a stupid question. You're demanding a source for an opinion.

How has the cancellation any form of social support, fair or otherwise, always been preferable to reform?

Alimony is not social support, it's direct transfer from one individual to another.

Thousands of divorces from abusive, wrong, or simply unhappy marriages wouldn't happen because one of the partners would be without money.

And if they never had been with them, they wouldn't have their money either.

[+]hyperkron -12 points-11 points-10 points 10 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

Alimony is unfair treatment, it is never unfair to put conditions on it, no matter what the conditions are. The better option is always complete elimination.

Any condition is better than none? How about every alimony receiver must slap /u/eletheros once per day? I think that you shouldnt use absolute statements like that. Ethics is the weighing of conflicting values. Defining one of those values as absolute (here: conditional alimony is always better than unconditional) leads to absurd results - like you advocating being slapped by millions of people every day.

I would suggest that you rephrase your statement to: Alimony is unfair and putting reasonable conditions on it will lead to a smaller prevalence of this unfair act.

[–]eletheros 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Any condition is better than none?

Any condition is better than no conditions. No alimony is the best.

How about every alimony receiver must slap /u/eletheros once per day?

I'd treat it as violence and act accordingly.

I would suggest that you rephrase your statement

No.

[+]hyperkron -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I'd treat it as violence and act accordingly.

Praise this law because it is a step in the right direction?

[–]eletheros 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

I'd treat it as violence and act accordingly.

Praise this law because it is a step in the right direction?

That's not accordingly. That's some pathetic leftist fantasy where I'd have to take the abuse without response. I absolutely would respond, and nobody would slap me a second day.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]IronJohnMRA 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Believe it or not something like this already exists in some states. For example, in California, a divorcee paying alimony to a former spouse is freed from this obligation if their former spouse remarries. Granted, this is a much more serious commitment in terms of a relationship, but the idea is not that far off from what you are proposing here.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it's a good idea to punish people for getting into a relationship with someone who's significantly less wealthy than their previous partner. A fair alimony system should of course take the income of any current partners into account, but as long as poverty is still a big problem in the US, it's bollocks to completely get rid of all allimony payments automatically when someone gets into a new relationship.

[–]dungone 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If it is the previous partner's job to ensure the same quality of life for their ex, then it should be the ex's job to ensure that they find themselves a new partner that is of the same quality as the last. How is it the former spouse's problem if someone chooses to start a new relationship with a broke partner?

[–]ClemsonPoker 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a great example of why men's rights will never get anywhere. Even here we have people who think that alimony is a woman's right.

"India declares that Men having sex with other women are now not allowed to be able to visit their children."

The inverse would be that men who sleep with women after their divorce are not eligible for alimony. Nobody is taking these women's children away.

[–]Magnissae 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree with alimony being a woman's right, but then again I disagree with the concept of alimony altogether.

[–]ICantReadThis 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Alimony law here is in desperate, scary need of reform. Something like this would never even come up in discussion, and I have a feeling they have an incredibly different setup over there to warrant this even coming up. That's a place where dowry fraud is a real and active problem.

Realistically, I assume this law's in place because a lot of divorces are happening as a direct result of cheating, their suicide rates for recently-divorced men are skyrocketting (it's 10:1 here), the resulting payments are falling onto the state to make up afterwards, and they need to stave that effect off. That's just a guess, though.

Over here, I'd just rather alimony laws be updated so that the partner initiating a no-fault divorce immediately gives up the right to alimony by filing. It would remove a rather blatantly abusable financial incentive to leave someone who's not actually in breach of martial vows.

[–]andejoh 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't really see a purpose in preventing women from having sex with other men after a divorce, but I do see valid reasoning.

  1. The marriage in theory benefited both spouses. She received the benefit of financial support. He received the benefit of domestic labor.

  2. She still receives financial support after marriage keeping her benefit, but he no longer gets domestic support so he is at a disadvantage.

  3. Preventing her from entering into another relationship would provide her incentive to become financially self sufficient, however, it would be better to limit alimony.

Though it's punitive, from the position of a "level playing field" it makes sense. Each former spouse now loses something in the divorce. From a position of incentive, it makes sense but it would be better to make alimony temporary.

[–]89898645634590 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

How many of the people on here have EVER had sex without being financially dependant on the person they are banging?

THE FUCK????!?!?!?!

What planet do you live on, because it does not appear to be planet Earth, and under the assumption you are indeed a space alien who has never met a human being before, especially a human male, you really should keep your mouth shut.

[–]I__Just__Wanna__Help 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was a retorical question. I don't see how people keep missing that.

Of course people have quick sex. That's the point I was making.

[–]xNOM 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sex is, in the modern world, a part of relationships - married, casual, and everything inbetween.

This is India dude. They still have dowries. It is a traditionalist society. Men still get something out of marriage. Your western argument makes zero sense sense.

[–]Magnissae 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In this day and age where men and women are held to be equal, there should be no reason whatsoever for a financial obligation to exist between marital partners after the marriage dissolves. One should not be able to profit off of non-financial contributions to a partnership.

The flipside of this is that both parties in a marriage should contribute equally, both monetarily and in non-financial work. If this is not possible, an equitable arrangement should be developed where both parties are satisfied. In this situation, when the marriage is over there should be few grounds for arguing that either party has an obligation to the other.

Realistically, unequal arrangements do exist. However, there is no reason for the presumption to be that of financial liability rather than equitable arrangement.

[–]GottlobFrege 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In my idea of a healthy world people vowing their lifelong fidelity to one another in front of their family and friends would be either an entirely private affair or done within your religion and the state would have no part in the matter.

[–]sillymod 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It comes in waves. Right now there seems to be a RedPill push. Typically someone makes an RP-like comment, which gets the other RPers up in a tizzy and they start posting more, and then the non-RPers push back, and it goes back to the way it was.

As for the content of the post, I agree. I don't believe that this is a fair solution to alimony laws. This is basically saying, "You agreed to be married to this person, and if you want them to keep paying for your lifestyle then you have to at least not have any relationships with other people after your divorce."

[+]AcidJiles -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Well said. Maintenance/Alimony Law still needs serious reform but there is good reason for it to be in place at reasonable levels after many divorces, we shouldn't lose sight of that.

[–]wasthereadogwithyou 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hell yeah, India!

[–]eaton80 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Why is this getting down voted? India is the most populous democracy in the world.

[–]wasthereadogwithyou 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Idk, man, probably just scripts written to downvote posts with certain keywords. Watch this: I love China, too! Hillary Clinton is a filthy whore!

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I knew India had the bomb but I never imagined they'd use it on themselves.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter