An acquaintance of mine got divorced recently. He is a pretty street smart kinda guy..he hasn’t made his million yet but he has his own condo, car etc. I won’t go into the details of how he made his money but lets say he is a go-getter and financially stable. Last year he got married to this chick….a very confident and assertive personality…looked like a perfect couple but yesterday I found out that they got divorced.
Buddy is literally on the street..well, he is living with his parents. His wife supposedly owns his condo now and god knows what happened to the sports car. Well, actually he transferred his condo to her name..he was filing bankruptcy & wanted to show zero assets ..oh well long fraudia story..
Anyways, I was chatting with another friend of mine and we were discussing if he had a prenuptual (Haq mehar if I am right?) agreement signed he might not have lost all his assets. Apparently, desies don’t appreciate such agreements. Are these contracts offensive? I don’t understand how it works in arranged marriages…and this one was supposed to be a not so arranged one.
Thank god these guys didn’t have any children…so there is one less issue to deal with. Aaj kul ki laRkiaN, tobah
I’m not sure about offensive but it makes things sound fishy. I remember this one rishta for my sister, the guy said that he would like to sign a prenuptual agreement, after clearly telling us that he had a lot of ‘jaidaad’. My parents took it as a red flag and ended it right there. There stance was that he must have some issues and is already thinking of a divorce scenario, in which case he would have himself well-protected with nothing to hold him back if the question for a divorce arose. Even though I personally think that if money is the only thing holding the guy back then from divorce its not worth staying in the marraige to start with..but still. You can’t know if it is being done for security or some ulterior motive.
I have a friend who went through the same scenario as u mentioned Boss. She has lost everything…her condo, her sports car, her savings…everything. And it was all her own hard-owned money that he cheated her out of. So it’s not just the aajkal ki larkiyaan
If you start a marriage wich such distrust..it's not likely to last to long...if I was that unsure of my partner I'd put everything on my mothers name...:D
FF, so it is fishy if not offensive I suppose.... and people say marriage is a contract by itself.
Does it sound better if you sign a contract in which you are willing to share your assets with your spouse instead of keeping ‘em all to yourself?
People who marry don’t marry thinking they will get separated after a year or ten, but unfortunately things are not perfect. This couple looked perfect when they got married. We are talking humans here not objects. I get along with some people today..chances are I might not wanna see their face tomorrow. I trust them today I might not trust them tomorrow vice versa.
LK, u talk about trust and then suggest that he should have transferred his assets in his mom’s name…wow
LK, u talk about trust and then suggest that he should have transferred his assets in his mom’s name…wow
[/QUOTE]
Bhai saab..I said if he/she MUST do it..then rather than showing distrust (even if you reall don't trust the person) you can be a bit more discreet and think of other ways to protect your assests rather than signing a prenup!
That's what I mean...avoid that "contract signing" bit as it shows out and out distrust and can ruin a perfectly normal relationship..if you're that worried about assets then think of other ways to protect them...
I am surprised to hear that your friend didn't exercise Haq mehar; I could be wrong about this but isn't hag mehar part of the Islamic marriage or nikkah? Even if it's not, it accords religious overtones to the "fishy" pre-nup matter (and making it more palatable).
It beehoves both parties to sign a pre-nup as some posters have already asserted.
Just to clarify for some members who are probably operating on incorrect terminology.. Haq Mehar is "wedding gift" given by the husband to his wife. Its not covered by pre-nuptual agreements because it is an amount negotiated by husband and wife before marriage.
Pre-nuptual agreements don't cover wedding gifts, as such. They cover any and all property owned by either of the couple. The assumption is that even if only one of them (e.g. husband) is earning, the wealth created by him (before and after the marriage) is to be shared equally with his wife in case of divorce.
If the husband has created a lot of assets before his marriage he may feel its not ok to give 50% of that to his (new) wife in case of divorce, hence they enter into pre-nuptual agreements in which the couple agrees that the wife will only get 'x' assets, in case of divorce. Or a more popular kind of prenuptual is where the husband lists down his existing assets before marriage, and specifies what he is going to gift to his wife at the time of marriage. Any additional assets created after the marriage are split 1-1 in case of divorce.
This is also true if the wife has amassed huge assets before marriage. The husband has equal rights in the property. So when a wealthy women marries a bummer, she (or her lawyer) is likely to insist that the husband sign a pre-nup.
from what i know, haq meher, as Faisal bhai said, is the amount of money in the nikah contract that the husband agrees to give to his wife in case of talaaq khuda na khasta...
it is farz in islam...
however, in our country, usually, the aount of haq mehr is usually kept traditionally very small [like a lakh or so] and the dulhan is just made to sign the nikah contract like that to fulfil the formality n religious obligation...
if the woman takes khula then she doesn't get the meher, its only if the husband gives her talaq that she gets mehr...
According to my understanding Haq Mehr needs to be given to the wife even if the husband does not plan to divorce his wife and should be returned incase the wife asks for khula.
True. Haq mehr has nothin gto do with talaaq. It should be paid as soon as possible after the nikah, unless the wife waives her right.
It is for this 'trust' issue and out of concern of offending the other party that haq mehr is kept within reasonable amounts. Intentions may be doubted if the amount is too large. I guess if someone wanted to sign a pre-nuptual agreement before marrying me I would beef up the haq mehr. We both have a right to protect our future.
Seems like it’s a matter of perception. It can be viewed from as a cheap, narrow minded ploy or security agreement for both parties.
Thanks for explaining haq mehar guys (now give your personal views as well)…sounds like a sugar coated version of pre-nup with a religious touch to it. Call it a gift not a pre-martial agreement… but I guess Islam has room for such ‘contracts’ if I may. A hundred thousand rups for haq mehar sounds ridiculous. Have we started dodging god as well as humans now? Whats the law in Pakistan to financially secure women incase of divorce?
Femme, you are a smart girl..yeah! beef up the damn thing! :-D that makes perfect sense.
Pre-nup all the way. I dont believe in this whole trust concept. Marriage of course is the ultimate contract. But a prenup is mandatory if either of the parties wishes to break off the marriage and following the legal precedence in the west, the male normally gets screwed if there isnt a pre-nup. I personally see nothing wrong in a pre-nup or haq maher as long as it is fair to both parties.
Like all legal contracts both have to agree to the drafting and framing of the agreement.
Because its insulting. It implies that you dont trust the other party at all. Considering you have arranged marriage, which almost always implies some family connection or friendship, it is saying effectively:
"Oh we have been friends for so long, but i dont trust you a bit so we have a pre-nup agreement"
Personally believe following the level of abuse women have to go through in marriage as a norm of society, a pre-nup should be mandatory or if not atleast discussed and then mutually agreed to.
Offensive or not offensive that's not the point. Point is what you are primarily interested in? Truth is, desis esp' residing in Pakistan, may not be very open to such ideologies, it may seem dubious to them (pre-martial contract concerning distribution of assets). They foresee it as a planned step incase of the possibility arrising to a divorce. Now that obviously seems unpleasant and disreputing to the candidate party.
The common law in Canada and States demand that you share 50% of your assets with the divorced spouse. This may be quite disastrous in the cases of such couples as you have exemplified here. Therefore, a pre-marital contract is wiser in the long run. Btw, your story seemed somewhat one sided and exaggerated dude.
Guppies: WHY the need to drag in Islam into each subject? Most of us don¡¦t even get the depth of it, but just grab the closest hadees to justify the topic. There's no such limit to specify the amount of Haq Mehr. Saying one lakh or two lakh doesn't substantiate anything. Haq Mehr means dowry, or in a better way: exchange of gifts. It can be as little as a brass ring. It's not meant to break the backbone of the spouse. Pakistanis influenced highly by the Hindu culture, have blown this Haq Mehr (dowry) concept out of proportions. It has been given a wrong twist. It's approached with a materialistic and greedy manner. Now why Haq Mehr goes in the favor of the bride in our society is a good question. Here's why:
In a typical arranged marriage, Haq Mehr is always preferred, by the bride's family. It's an old belief, that such agreements are one of the miracles, that will keep the couple intact (not true anymore sadly). It's understood that higher the price of the Haq Mehr, more difficult will it be for the man to reconsider his decision. Also, it somehow provides temporary financial security to the bride. So if you were to divorce the girl, you will only be bound to pay her the dowry/Haq Mehr amount according to the norms of desi culture, you are not bound on sharing former assets with the ex-spouse. Especially if you haven't registered your marriage contract with the authorities of the northern America.
Your subject wasn't offensive; however your statement of Aaj kul ki laRkiaN, tobah was quite rude. Men are no less! FYI: Iniquity dominates the hearts of men/women alike. To generalize about one gender is quite wrong and unwise. Take care!
CM, thanks for your reply. I am proud of the new generation.
*Tamer: They foresee it as a planned step incase of the possibility arrising to a divorce. Now that obviously seems unpleasant and disreputing to the candidate party. *
Is it less unpleasant when one’s daughter comes back to her father’s house. I’m sure if you provide latest statistics on divorce rate and women employment rate in Pakistan that would immensely help in decision making and thought process. Its ok to question ‘bura lugta hai’ and ‘log kya kahain gay’.
*Tamer: Therefore, a pre-marital contract is wiser in the long run. Btw, your story seemed somewhat one sided and exaggerated dude. *
I agree it is wise to have a pre-nup if you are living abroad but it gets a little tricky if you are holding on to you desi traditions. Women have nothing to lose under desi traditions and western laws. Sounds like a win win situation. Do you agree? As for my story, call it Nissan sentra and not a CLK if that helps.
Thanks for explaining Haq mehar again…although the word says it all. Irem, please note its not one lakh rupees. I was planning six visits/ yr to Pakistan. huh!
*Tamer: Your subject wasn't offensive; however your statement of Aaj kul ki laRkiaN, tobah was quite rude. *
Yes, I have a rude and rough side..but u know what aaj kul ki laRkiaN dig that..nomsayin ;)
[quote]
Is it less unpleasant when one’s daughter comes back to her father’s house.
[/quote]
Man, don’t force me to open an entire can of worms, let’s keep it simple.
[quote]
I agree it is wise to have a pre-nup if you are living abroad but it gets a little tricky if you are holding on to you desi traditions. Women have nothing to lose under desi traditions and western laws. Sounds like a win win situation. Do you agree?
[/quote]
Why should it get any trickier if holding on to desi traditions. In fact, you are better off just signing the haq mahr. Negotiating and then setting the amount of haq mahr is extremely important. Emotional feelings at that moment should be set aside.
I disagree with your win win situation regarding western law. I’ve seen cases where the husband received 50% of the assets, though he had no contribution in it at all.
I am married, did not sign a pre-nup but i was just finishing b-school and had no money really so nothing to worry about as far as previously amassed wealth goes.
I dont however see a pre-nup as a bad thing, people here are saying that it can be seen as a sign of no trust..hey no one can guarantee teh future right? one can argue that by not signing it the other party is showing that they dont trust the other as well.
I think that the pracise should be that a pre-nup is a standard part of a marriage licnese, which states that what each party brings to the marriage belongs to the individual in the case of divorce, and things they amass together will be divided equally, or on a pro-rated basis of some sort..the couple can opt out of it if they wish otherwise it is a binding contract that goes with each marriage certificate. This will lessen the whole cultural issue with it as well.
Boss..aaj ki larkiaan is fine, but aaj kal kay larkay bhi.. had yer pal not been doing fraudia stuff to declare bankruptcy yet protect his assets..maybe he would not be completely screwed over.
