Women Reservation Bill – Discriminatory, Undemocratic, Unconstitutional

May 23, 2008


The Women’s Reservation Bill was introduced amid much controversy in the Rajya Sabha a few weeks ago. The manner in which the proceedings unfolded, convey the sorry tale of democracy in our country and the practice thereof, wherein MPs get physical over disagreements over policy. But more importantly, it clearly highlighted, yet again, the degradation of what was once a noble and just cause of women empowerment, which has been reduced to a shameless greed for power in the name of one’s gender.


Firstly, the policy of reservation as an elixir to uplift sections of society is flawed. Reservation systems sacrifice merit for mediocrity. Right from the birth of India as a republic, leaders have spoken out against the reservation system.  In a letter to all chief ministers on June 27, 1961, Nehru said the following about reservations –  …I have referred above to efficiency and to our getting out of our traditional ruts. This necessitates our getting out of the old habit of reservations and particular privileges being given to this caste or that group…I dislike any kind of reservation, more particularly in services. I react strongly against anything which leads to inefficiency and second-rate standards….If we go in for reservations on communal and caste basis, we swamp the bright and able people and remain second-rate or third-rate. I want my country to be a first class country in everything. The moment we encourage the second-rate, we are lost. I am grieved to learn how far this business of reservation has gone based on communal considerations….This way lies not only folly but disaster.




Proponents of the Bill generally give the following arguments 

  1. This Bill will ensure proper representation of women – In the elections of 2004, about 53.57 % of women exercised their franchise and sent their representatives to the legislature. The basic assumption behind this bill that women vote only for other women, is deeply flawed and against the fundamental principles of democracy. The members elected in the parliament have been chosen by both male and female voters and represent the people of their constituencies – both men and women. Ironically, reserving 33% seats for women would limit the choices of other women for electing their chosen representative.
  2. More women in legislature will empower women – Women have made great strides in all spheres of life and today, they are empowered like never before. A case in point is the employment data available from the Labor Bureau. Since 1971, the rate of employment of women has risen by more than 100%, while the rate of employment of men has decreased by a few percentage points. In case, anyone wonders about rural India, the rate of employment of women in rural areas has increased by an even greater margin (132%) since 1970. Today, numerous laws have been enacted in favor of women and equal opportunities abound. Women lead major political parties today and hold key positions in others. This all was achieved with the representatives in the legislature that were democratically elected and not by reservation. Since the purpose of legislation is to enact laws, one wonders what new laws can be enacted by artificially increasing the number of women law makers in an undemocratic fashion. The elected members of the legislature have been sincere and efficient about enacting laws for women empowerment.



The primary reason why the Women reservation Bill is a myopic piece of legislation, that furthers vested interests and ideologies, besides imposing arbitrary criteria, is because it is discriminatory, undemocratic and might even be unconstitutional.

  1. It is unconstitutional because Indian constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste, religion or gender. The proposed Bill perpetuates gender discrimination. While it does allow for special provisions for the welfare of women, these provisions should not be permitted to infringe on the basic democratic rights of the rest of the population. 
  2. It is undemocratic because of two reasons – it disenfranchises about 33% of the electorate – or about 22 crore people, as per the figures available from the Election Commission, and takes away the democratic right of about 11 crore males to contest in elections.The basic tenet of democracy is that people should be able to choose their representatives. The state should not be allowed to limit the pool of representatives available to the public to choose from. Should this be permitted, democracy loses its meaning because the state could potentially declare its own agents to be the only available representatives. Limiting the available representatives based on religion, gender or caste is completely antagonistic to the fundamental principles of our democracy and constitution.This Bill also violates the right of about about 11 crore people by preventing them from contesting in elections. It discriminates against emerging male leaders who would not be able to contest in elections from their constituency and hence the nation loses out on the contributions of these people.  
  3. Lastly, the concept of reserving 33% seats is totally arbitrary and no reason or justification has been provided for this number. Even in advanced western democracies like the US and UK, the number of women in legislature is less than 20%.

 Celebrated women leaders like Sarojini Naidu have been against preferential treatment to women. In particular, they have vehemently opposed reservation for women in the legislature and very vocal about it. When asked about this issue, this is what Sarojini Naidu had to say – “Why do you want to make women realize that they are not at par with men? Why reservation for them when they can do equally well or even better than men in many spheres of life? Why this discrimination of reservation against women, yes discrimination. Let them gain confidence and allow them to be proud of their achievements. Let them feel that what they are today is only because they deserved it and not because they were given any special treatment or they enjoyed any special privileges.”


On 16th Nov, 1931 a memorandum on the “Status of Women in the proposed new Constitution” jointly written by Sarojini Naidu and Begum Shah Nawaz was presented to the British Prime Minister. The draft memorendum was circulated in May to various constituencies inviting their views on the “reservation” issue. As noted in the 1931 annual report of All India Women’s Conference, there was, at the time, only one constituency that favored reservation of seats in the Legislature – “But even this constiuency has since completely changed its mind”


In their letter to the Premier and Chairman Minorities committee on the status of women in the proposed new Constitution (Government of India Act, 1935), the three organizations (All India Women’s Conference, Women’s Indian Association and the Central Comittee for the National Council of Women in India) demanded complete and immediate recognition of women’s equal political status. However, they insisted that no reservations be made for women in Legislature.


We are … enjoined to resist any plea that may be advanced by small Individual groups of people of any kind of temporary concessions Of adventitious methods of securing the adequate representation of Women in the legislatures in the shape of reservation of seats, nomination or co-option whether by status, convention Or at the discretion of the provincial and central governments. To seek any form of preferential treatment would be to violate the Integrity of the universal demand of Indian women for absolute equality of political status.


What the great women leaders of yesteryears saw as a threat to the integrity to the cause of women, is something that the new brand of feminist leaders vehemently espouse. This fact alone speaks volumes about what women empowerment has been reduced to – a naked greed for power in the name of one’s gender !


Unfortunately, very few political parties in India have the will power and determination to serve the best interests of the nation. The political parties have consistently sacrificed the nation’s interest for their own political agendas. Reservation on caste and religion and caste politics to divide the nation was bad enough. Now, gender politics seems to be the new frontier.


The proposed Women’s Reservation Bill is discriminatory, arbitrary , undemocratic and unconstitutional. This is yet another attempt by radical feminists to use their gender for furthering their own political interests, at the cost of the nation and ironically, other women.






The Real Killer of Amit Buddhiraja and Rinku Sachdeva

March 26, 2008

Here are the details of the case that rocked the nation.


Two lovely people in the prime of their youth, gone …. forever. The blogosphere is rife with rumours, allegations and what not. Some people are blaming Rinku for being an adulterous wife and others are blaming Amit for what they see as a jealous, possessive husband.

Unfortunately, both the camps miss the true picture. The real killer of Amit and Rinku is something else.

Amit did not have any option. Consider the situation. Your wife talking to her lover in your house and talking of filing a false harassment case against you, putting you and your family in jail, taking away your future and damaging you for your life ! What women don’t realize is that the unjust laws like the dowry law and Domestic Violence Law are pushing men towards the edge. I can tell you what Amit’s future would have been – He and his parents would have been behind bars due to the false dowry allegations that Amit alleges that Rinku was contemplating. Generally, husbands have to shell out anything from 5 Lakhs to 4 crores to the wife to “compromise” so that she takes the case back. That is when the husband had been a gentleman (like described by Amit’s colleagues). The threat of false accusations and seeing his family behind bars can push anyone to the brink. Add to that the infidelity (atelast perceived by Amit. We’ll never know whether he was right or wrong) by the wife. His future would have been destroyed. He and his family would end up penniless, humiliated and socially destroyed while Rinku would have ended up richer and would probably have led a normal family life with her lover (if one existed).

Who is to blame ? The Ultra feminist laws. Had the threat of a false case not been there, Amit would have probably thought of his future and who knows, maybe this tragedy could have been averted. But when your future is in jail due to a a cheating wife, the injustice gets to a man and he ends up taking law in his own hands.

We should be prepared to see many more Rinkus and Amits unless the laws are made fair and just.

God bless them both. They didn’t deserve to die.. just because of the travails and tribulations of marriage. Its the Law that killed them

I regret the loss of lives.

Domestic Violence ACT – Hugely Unpopular

May 31, 2007

While the radical feminists have been trying to shore up support for the tragedy of Indian democracy aka the Domestic Violence Act, the fact is that the general populace is very aware of the pitfalls and the gender skewed law.

Radical Feminists have been making false claims, nothing really unusual about it, that the DV Act is supported by most men and women. The fact is the DV Act is hugely unpopular.

In a survey by Times of India, 87% people said that the Domestic Violence Act will cause Innocent men to suffer. 

Times of India Poll on Domestic Violence

Almost 80% of the people who responded to a Hindustan Times Poll said that the Domestic Violence Law would divide families.

 Hindustan Times Poll on Domestic Violence Act of India

 As recently as May 12, in a research study, Delhiites gave the feminists a crackin’ slap on the face. 61% of them said that DV Act will be misused and about 60% said that it will be misused intentionally. 

[ http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/12/stories/2007051219930300.htm]

Of course, the radical feminists tried to attribute it to the “lack of understanding” of the DV Act !!  I must say that, on the contrary, people have  a very good understanding of the Act and its provisions. This has indeed caught the radical feminists by surprise. While making all the biased laws and while trying to shore up support for them, they forgot to consider one factor – The intelligence of Indian people !!

Possible changes in 498A ?

February 16, 2007

1. Gender Neutrality – All laws should endeavor to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, irrespective of the gender. Given the existing social situation in the country, cruelty by wife and her relatives towards husband and family are rampant. There is no recourse for these husbands and families who are at the mercy of the vicious wife. We suggest that the law be made gender neutral to protect the interests of any innocent, be it a man or a woman. We stress that the gender specific words like “husband” and “wife” be replaced by gender-neutral words like “spouse”.

2. The law be made bailable and compoundable – We suggest that the law be made bailable and compoundable, unless grave physical torture is evident, to prevent harassment of innocent families.

3. Stringent punishments for abusers of law – One of the primary reasons for the misuse of this law is because there is absolutely no penalty for filing a false case. The punishment for misusing this law should be equally stringent. Once a complaint has been found to be false or malicious, severe penalties, including prison term and fine, should be imposed to discourage misuse of this law. The argument that this will discourage genuine victims of dowry harassment to not come forward is fallacious, as it has been comprehensively proven that the majority of the cases filed under this section are false.

4. No Arrests unless absolutely necessary – An arrest on a criminal charge has grave consequences – social, mental and financial, for the individual. Unless there is irrefutable evidence to suggest that the complainant is in grave danger, no arrests should be made. Also, senior citizens, minors (children below the age of 18), pregnant women and people with medical conditions should be excluded from arrests. The final decision in this regard should be taken by an authority, not less than the Superintendent of Police of the District, who too should have general instructions to apply his mind judiciously in each individual case on its merits and then pass suitable order(s) in writing.

5. National Commission for Domestic Harmony – In its overzealousness to protect women rights, the National Commission for Women is working towards ridiculously gender-biased legislation, which is encouraging the disintegration of family as a unit and is against the basic paradigm of justice and social wellbeing. We urge the government to establish a National Commission for Domestic Harmony to protect the rights of men, women and children and to work for the welfare of families and the society in general.


November 10, 2006

Feminist organizations have unequivocally and unanimously hailed the implementation of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act in India. They claim that this law will empower victims and protect them from abuse.


Most people in their right state of mind would agree that domestic violence in a relationship is not acceptable. It is only fair that for their own mental and emotional health and for the well-being of the children, that the victims be protected from abusive partners.


On the face of it, the law appears to be a blessing for people in abusive or violent relationships.  However, a careful analysis reveals that, under the ploy of “women and children welfare”, this law is yet another misguided attempt to enact legislation to grant women legal supremacy over men and to create a society where men are deprived of their rights.


There are three fundamental problems with this law – a) it is overwhelmingly gender biased in favor of women, b) the potential for misuse is astounding and c) the definition of domestic violence is too expansive.


The DV act singles out men as perpetrators of domestic violence and assumes that only women are victims. As per this law, only a woman can file a complaint against her male partner. A man, who is a victim of domestic violence, has no rights under this law. The fact is that it has been comprehensively proven in numerous studies [please see references] that women are no less abusive as men in intimate relationships. Giving such sweeping legal powers to women while withholding protection to male victims is tantamount to systematic legal victimization of men. In the western world, the domestic violence laws are gender neutral and provide protection to the victims, both men and women. The fact that the Indian version explicitly prohibits any male victim to seek relief under this law defies all logic and is beyond comprehension.


The second significant flaw in this law is that it lends itself to such easy misuse that women will find it hard to resist the temptation to “teach a lesson” to their male relatives and will file frivolous and false cases. A similar trend is already being observed in the case of anti-dowry law (498a), which is being misused to such an extent that the Supreme Court has termed it “Legal Terrorism”. To illustrate how easy it is to misuse the DV law, consider the scenarios below. [She means wife/female live-in partner and he means husband/male live-in partner]


a)      If she demands any amount of money from him, for any reason whatsoever, he is legally bound to pay that amount in full, failing which he can be imprisoned. Under the pretext of preventing economic abuse of women, this law legalizes the extortion of money by women. Interestingly, if he asks for money from her, he can be jailed for that as well. Furthermore, he is responsible for paying the rent if the couple resides in a shared rented accommodation.


b)      As per the law, she retains the right to the residence. This is a very convenient means of getting control of the house regardless of whether she has any legal right on the property. Moreover, if he is booked under DV, he is responsible for paying the rent as well, even though he may not be allowed to live in the house or he might even be in jail.


c)      If she decides not to cook and wishes to eat out in a restaurant everyday, he cannot afford not to oblige, lest he invites the DV provision for “not providing food”, for which he could be jailed.


d)      If she has an affair and he tries to prevent her from meeting her lover, he could be punished under the DV act, as he is preventing her from meeting someone.


e)      He can be booked under the DV act if she feels that she has been insulted. Insult is a relative term, which is totally left to her discretion. Interestingly, if she insults and abuses him verbally or even physically, he does not have any legal recourse in this law


These are just some of the ways in which women can exploit men in a legally permitted manner. The fact that the complaint by a woman will be treated, prima facie, as “true and genuine” opens up a whole new realm of possibilities where innocent men will be accused and implicated in false cases, just because they refuse to give in to her unreasonable demands.


Most people readily agree that the law will be misused. Their counter arguments generally are

a)      The number of miuses will be very low OR every law is misused – The objective of any law should be to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The persecution of innocents cannot be justified in any circumstances. As is the case with 498a, this law will be heavily misused in urban India.


b)      If she is happy, then why will she file a complaint – Ah ! So, the man exists at the mercy of the woman. If the wife wants to kick out old parents from home or wants to pursue an affair and should the man dare to object, she can get him incarcerated with alacrity. Any law that forcefully subjects a section of a society to conduct as per the pleasure of another section is deemed oppressive and should be vehemently opposed.


c)      There are other provisions to deal with the misuse of this law – The fact is that there are other legal provisions to deal with domestic violence as well. If a strict law is made for a specific purpose, then the provisions for dealing with its misuse should be in the law itself.


The third major flaw in this law is that it provides an all-encompassing definition of domestic violence and some terms (insults, name calling) are extremely subjective. The radical feminists claim that 70% of women in India face domestic violence which comes as no surprise as even an insult is considered domestic violence.  Interestingly, they are mum on how many indian men suffer domestic violence using the same criteria. This law strikes at the very foundation of marriage by promoting intolerance and litigation for petty domestic disputes. It is universally recognized that from time to time differences arise in a marriage and sometimes people, both men and women, behave in hurtful ways towards each other. Most people, though, are able to work them out and lead a more or less happy life with their loved one. However, this law makes it very easy to escalate the domestic problems in daily life to such a level that it eventually leads to a breakdown in marriage. Once a man has been accused of domestic violence for a something relatively minor (insult), while he might have been subjected to the same treatment from her, he will perpetually feel threatened by his partner and that is the beginning of the end. This law will lead to more divorces, broken homes and the children will pay the ultimate price by getting deprived of a pleasant childhood.


There are degrees of domestic violence and not all conflicts in a relationship can be termed as domestic violence. This law trivializes the issue of domestic violence by including minor differences in its realm and by explicitly denying protection to half of the population.

The law in its current form is grossly inadequate to tackle the problem of domestic violence. It imposes a lot of responsibility on men, without giving them rights. On the other hand, it gives lots of rights to women without requiring them to be responsible. At the very minimum, it should be made gender neutral, offering protection to both men and women. Also, provisions for stringent punishments need to be incorporated into the law to prevent misuse. Moreover, the law needs to be made more practical by differentiating between various degrees of conflicts and by unambiguously defining what constitutes domestic violence.

The fact is domestic violence is a serious problem and a neutral and unprejudiced law is needed to protect the genuine victims of domestic violence, irrespective of gender. The perpetrators of domestic violence need to be appropriately punished and dealt with. At the same time, protection cannot be withheld from real victims for any reason whatsoever, least of all their gender. One can be certain that there is something sinister about a law, when it intimidates and instills fear in innocent people. When a person who has not committed any crime, begins to fear punishment under the provisions of a law, it is not a law anymore – it is state sponsored terrorism.




1.      The US Govt. National family violence surveys of 1975 and 1985 (http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-21.htm),

2.        Various studies by univ of New Hampshire (http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ipv-violence-by-women.htm)

3.       “When She Was Bad – Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence”, written by Patricia Pearson, a self-described feminist



November 5, 2006

I was talking to the mother of a close friend, who was looking for a “bahu”(bride) for his son and she said that nowadays it is better to disown the sons after marriage. Going by the disowning notices  in the newspapers, I was not totally surprised, but I insisted that she elaborate. She said that she had seen one of her friends being implicated in fasle dowry cases (498a)  and heard of several others. The trend was rapidly increasing in urban India, where the daughter in laws put false cases if the husband and his family doesnt dance to her tune. I asked her if she was prepared to live away from her only child in her old age. With her voice breaking she said “beta ! is kanoon ki wajah se main apne pote potiyon ke saath jee bhar ke khel bhi nahi paungi. Agar kuch ulta seedha ho gaya to is umar mein court kachari ke chakkar kaun lagaega” (Due to this law, I wont be able to play with my grandsons/granddaughters to my hearts content. If something bad happens (ie if they are implicated in a false case) I cant afford to run around the courts with my age.)

So, here was a well educated family with good values and the only practical solution that they had was to break the family. Such is the terror of this law. The sad part is that there is no provision by which the innocent can safegaurd themselves. The daughter in law can implicate any member of the family at any time, regardless of the length of the marriage. Some have done it within a day of marriage, some have done it after 16 years of marriage and some have even done it after divorce.

The anti-dowry law has transformed marriage, which was supposed to be a happy occasion into one where the husband and his family fear being incarcerated if the wife decides to file a false complaint against them for any frivolous reason. The law compels the police officer to take action and if an innocent person is jailed, it only breeds hatred and disgust in him/her for the injustice meted out. After a person has been falsely accused, he/she would not be very willing to live with the person who put false charges with them. Then its a fight to the end. You will be surprised at how many people I have come across who refused to take back their wives after they filed a false 498a. And I have come across many many instances, where the wives deeply regret using the provisions of this law, but the family is too paranoid to accept them. As so aptly described in GodFather – “You get only once chance to prove your loyalty”. These are the cases where the marriage would have worked out BUT for this law. However, there are numerous instances, where the wive used this law to get back with her lover and more often to extract as much money from the husband as they could. The innocent husbands, who were otherwise productive members of the society, after being falsely implicated by this law, get traumatized and scarred for life.

So, to avoid the consequences of being hit by this torpedo the old parents decide to live separately much to the glee of the daugher in law. However, the children and grandchildren miss out on the experience and wisdom of the older generation and the aged parents suffer because there is no one to take care of them. The indian culture places a lot of respect and trust in the elders and this law is chewing away at the basic foundation of the society. Strong family values will start to erode and soon our culture and heritage will be lost as the generations start moving away from each other.

The Domestic Violence Act of India – The death blow to harmonious marriages

October 30, 2006

Nowadays, marriages are tough. It takes a lot of love, understanding and patience to make a marriage work. Marriages are based on trust. Once the trust is broken, it is extremely hard to make the marriage work.

The Domestic violence Act Of India, under the garb of “women welfare and protection” is an attempt to create a society where men are robbed of all their rights. The law makes it very easy to escalate the domestic problems in daily life to such a level that it eventually leads to a breakdown in marriage. 

From time to time, differences arise in marriages. Two people who love each other and are in general happy with each other, sometimes behave in a hurtful way. This is true for both the men and the women. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people do mistakes and regret it later.

 This law makes it impossible for a woman to rectify her mistake. By making such a one sided extreme law, women will be tempted to use it against their husbands. The law lends itself to such easy misuse that women, on the strength of this law will try to teach a lesson to their husbands by filing frivolous and false cases. The husband will always feel the heat and feel threatened by his wife.

The fact is that if anyone feels cornered and threatened in a marriage, its the beginning of the end. The Domestic Violence Bill of India does exactly that. It gives sweeping powers to females and takes away all the rights of men. It imposes a lot of repsonsibiity on men, without giving them anything in return. For the women, it gives lots of rights without asking them to be responsible.

This is gender bias at its worst. It victimizes men and the law has been so poorly drafted that it will get blatantly misused. Many innocent men will suffer because of this law. 

 I have the following questions for the Govt of India

1. Why is there no protection for men from domestic violence ? If you say that not many cases occur, then do you have any statistics ? And regardless, if a man suffers domestic violence, shouldnt the law protect him as well ?

2. DO you think women are capable of violence ?  [ Just today, there was a news item that a woman killed her husband to get his property so that she can live with her lover]. Since it is well proven that women are capable of violence, shouldn’t the man be protected as well ?

3. So, according to the law, if a man insults a woman, he can be jailed for a year. So, it is domestic violence if a man insults a woman. How about if a woman insults a woman ? Is not necessary to protect a woman from another woman? Also, is it not domestic violence if a woman insults a man ?

4. According to the law, if a woman asks for money from a man and if the man is not able to provide it, then the woman can get the man jailed. However, the law prevents the man from asking for money from the woman. Isn’t this economic abuse of the men ? If a woman uses this law to blackmail and extort money from her husband, what protection does a husband have ?

5. My wife says that if I dont kick my parents out of the house, she will file a domestic violence case against me. What protection do I have under this law ?

6. My wife says that if I do not transfer all my property to her name, then I am economically abusing her and she will file a domestic violence case against me. What protection do I have under the law ?

7. My wife is having an affair and she threatens that if I try to prevent her from meeting her lover, then she says that she will use the domestic violence law against me, as according to the law, I am preventing her from meeting a person. I do not want a divorce because I have small children and I do not want them to suffer. Please tell me what should I do ?

8. My wife wants to go a 5 star hotel every day for dinner. When I object, she says that I am not providing her food and hence she will file the domestic violence case against me. I have tried to reason with her, but she is not willing to budge. Please tell me what should I do ?

9. This law gives tremendous rights to women and a lot of reponsibilities to man. What responsibilities or liabilities do women have under this law ?

10. DO you realize that there is generally some amount of friction in most marriages and by giving such absolute power to women, you are victimizing men. The results are going to be more divorces in which vindictive women will frame false cases on men, take away their property and put them in jail. Many many children will grow up in broken up families and will suffer. Ms. Minister, is this your idea of women and chilren welfare ?

11. Due to the poor drafting of this law, this law will be misused heavily and many many innocent men will go to jail and their lives will be destroyed. Do you have any message for them ?

12. Is there a provision that a woman who misuses the law will be punished as severely as a man is punished ?

13. You say that why will a woman file a case if she is happy in the marriage. In other words you are saying, that the man is at the mercy of the woman. If she is not happy for any reason, she can teach a lesson to her husband by filing a false case, reagardless of whether any violence occured or not. Where is the justice here ?

14. DO you think that men are second class citizens ? If not, then why have they not been given any rights in this law. Are you planning to release a similar law for men ? If you are not because you are the minister for women welfare, then is there a minister for men welfare ?

15. Do you know if any other country has a domestic violence law, in which only the woman can file a case on man, if she is abused, but the man can not file a case on woman if he is abused ?

16. Do you think this law will promote domestic harmony in the society ? DOnt you think that husband will be victimized by the wife who can use these threats to get her way ?

It takes a man as well as a woman to make a marriage work. Such nasty one sided laws will only promote marital discord and will lead to more divorces, where men will be victimized and destroyed.  But then, alas, the people who are trying to make this law are women who do not have a good family life. Most of them are either unmarried or divorced, so they do not realize what it takes to make a happy family. And they are tyring to destroy the happy families of others as well.

Eventually, the children suffer – both boys and girls. They will grow up in a fatherless world and there will be no MAN in their life to help them build the strength of their character and to teach them to take responsibility and take care of families.