Last updated:

October 24, 2024

Women, Sacrifices for Strengthening the Foundation of Family/ Maryam Amiri

“این عکس یک پروفایل است”

“This picture is a profile picture”Maryam-Ameri1
Maryam Amiri

Last week, a news was reported by the head of the Department of Social Welfare and Counseling Services of the Cultural Deputy of the Judiciary regarding the “ban on issuing mutual divorce judgments without consultation from 2016”.

At the beginning, it should be noted that mandatory counseling before a mutual divorce was implemented in Mashhad family courts from March 2012 to July 2013, even before the passage of the Family Protection Law and solely based on the “Comprehensive Plan for Sustainable Family” in Mashhad family courts. This means that for 11 months, Mashhad family courts refrained from registering and accepting mutual divorce requests without any legal authorization and referred the applicants to family counseling centers. The reason for the suspension of the plan was due to the statement of the Deputy for Social Affairs and Crime Prevention of Khorasan Razavi Judiciary on 6/5/2013, citing a lack of funding.

With a look at the family laws and the established procedures for mandatory counseling before a mutual divorce, it is clear that once again women are expected to sacrifice at any cost for the preservation of their family foundation.

The “Family Support Bill”, which was proposed by the government and approved by the judiciary in July 2007 to be passed by the parliament, was a clear violation of women’s rights in many aspects. Articles 23 and 25 of the bill imprisoned our souls for a moment, it took a long time for the blood to reach our brains. “Strengthening the foundation of the family by facilitating remarriage for men and taxing dowry as the only legal advantage for women!” was a sign, whether intended or not, of the violation of women’s rights.

The women’s movement made every effort to remove that substance and succeeded. But it seems that in that hustle and bustle, we overlooked a part of the mentioned bill and perhaps did not expect such a terrible decision to be awaiting “women” behind articles 17 and 27 of the previous bill (16 and 25 of the current law).

The mentioned materials refer to the fact that “divorce” should be used in order to strengthen the foundations of the family and prevent the increase of family disputes and divorce, with the intention of creating peace and reconciliation. If the couple seeking divorce agree, they should refer to family counseling centers, and after the evaluations of the relevant counselors and their opinions, which may take up to one year, the court should issue the appropriate verdict.

Although a divorce agreement can be approved without the need for mandatory counseling in court, after more than two years and five months since the approval of the Family Protection Law, it seems that it will no longer be the case.

The establishment of family counseling centers, according to Article 17 of the Family Protection Law, was subject to the approval of a regulation which, after two years of the implementation of the aforementioned law, was approved by the head of the judiciary last year and is now on everyone’s lips. This regulation is intended to provide the prerequisites for prohibiting the registration of mutual divorce petitions in court before mandatory counseling.

A look at the structure and function of family counseling centers.

Chapter 2 of the mentioned regulations covers 9 topics and 26 articles (from article 30 to article 56) dedicated to family counseling centers, which include objectives, organization, monitoring unit, conditions for obtaining establishment license, method of providing services, procedures and penalties.

I will suffice to say that: “Matasadi” is the center for family counselors, according to Article 32 of the regulations, it is intended to be the center for official counselors, lawyers and experts of the judiciary. A center that was established under Article 187 of the Third Development Plan Law and aimed to maintain the 60-year independence of the Bar Association as an independent entity from the government and authority. A center that has detailed discussions and conversations about its illegality, which cannot be included in this article; now it is also responsible for another important duty, preserving the foundation of the family!

Basically, why should a sick family be kept at any cost; a family in which the husband and wife have been estranged for years. If the true goal is to preserve the foundation of the family, why is this counseling not included in the training and education programs so that at an age when individuals have not yet formed their personalities, they can learn the necessary communication skills.

I do not want to discuss the social and psychological consequences of this mandatory counseling, especially in the context of a mutual divorce, because I am neither a sociologist nor a psychologist. I leave it to the experts to talk more about this decision and I will present my argument with a look at the current laws in the field of family and divorce.

Article 1105 of the Civil Code: In family relationships, the head of the family is one of the characteristics of the husband.

Article 1114 of the Civil Law: A woman must choose her residence in the home designated by her husband.

Article 1117 of the Civil Law: The husband can prohibit his wife from engaging in a profession or trade that is contrary to the interests of the family or her own morals or dignity.

Article 1108 of the Civil Code: If a woman unjustifiably refuses to fulfill her marital duties, she will not be entitled to alimony.

And finally, according to article 1133 of the Civil Law: A man can request a divorce from his spouse by following the conditions specified in this law and going to court. The conditions referred to are a set of formal conditions that do not restrict the man’s will to divorce his wife.

The complete control over a woman’s body and soul is in the hands of a man according to these laws, and ultimately it is only the man who has the power to “divorce” a woman without needing any explanation or reason.

Two people who make a pact with each other and form an institution called family, have the right to terminate the pact jointly at any time and for any reason that concerns them. However, if there are laws in place to restrict this will and freedom for the purpose of preserving this institution, namely the family and maintaining social order, why have only women been targeted? When according to law, religion, custom and tradition, all rights and privileges of a life are entrusted to one of them, it is natural for that person, no matter how noble they may be, to be driven towards abusing those privileges.

The right to have multiple wives and the unilateral right of divorce for men make them independent from having to file for divorce; because they can legally and religiously enter into a new relationship without needing to legally end their current one.

But a woman can only be freed from a life when she has a strong reason; not just any reason, but a strong reason like being abused by her husband, her husband being sentenced to more than 5 years in prison, and so on! Of course, even having reasons like the ones mentioned is not enough, the woman must be able to prove these reasons in court with full force, how? With witnesses, with legal medical certificates, with…!

Consensual divorce

According to Article 1146 of the Civil Code, Khula divorce (divorce that is recognized by the agreement of the spouses and the courts) is a divorce that a woman can obtain from her husband by giving him a sum of money, due to her dislike of him. This sum of money can be equal to or more or less than the original dowry.

This means that the legislator has made it possible and considered it for a woman to have a strong aversion towards her husband, but this aversion alone is not a reason for divorce and is only a way for women who do not have the right to divorce, reasons such as the mentioned reasons or do not have the ability to prove those reasons and are not willing to wander in family courts. Therefore, they are forced to give up all their financial and non-financial rights and even go beyond that and with paying more money than the dowry to the man, convince him to “divorce” and perhaps even men who, despite all these conditions, are not willing to divorce, and no agreement is reached.

The reason for the popularity of this type of divorce is that it is a mutual divorce, unlike divorces that are requested by either the man or the woman in court. In this type, one party is the petitioner and the other is the respondent, and the court does not need to hold a session or investigate and issue a verdict. This means that the woman has convinced the man to be present in court and the court records the agreements of both parties and issues a certificate of non-reconciliation, allowing them to go and register their divorce in the registry office, in exchange for giving up all her rights.

Although the story has not yet ended, it means that even with the issuance of a certificate of irreconcilable differences, the man may regret it at any moment and by not being present at the divorce office, he may create an obstacle for the woman to register the divorce; while the man does not have such concerns.

“Now it seems that according to the Family Protection Law and its regulations, another major obstacle will be placed in the way of women’s separation from their lives, under the name of mandatory counseling before divorce, which apparently aims to preserve the foundation of the family and prevent the increase of divorce rates.”

“The counselors who have been selected by the Judiciary Selection Committee to discourage men and women from making the decision to divorce, encourage them towards peace and reconciliation, and address the root of the problem; a man and a woman whose character, attitude, and behavior in life are a result of a lifetime of gender discrimination that has been accepted by both genders, culture, custom, tradition, and “law”.”

With a brief look at civil and family laws, judging who will be harmed in this path will not be difficult. A man who still has the exclusive right to divorce or a woman who has no right to divorce; unless they prove the unbearable reasons for it.

I wish that the respected officials were more concerned about the increase in cases of infidelity and domestic violence instead of worrying about the rise in divorce rates. They should think seriously about taking measures to address these issues.

Created By: Maryam Amiri
July 28, 2015

Tags

Consensual divorce Consultation Magazine number 51 Maryam Amiri Monthly Peace Line Magazine Women