THE prominent case about the distribution of assets amassed in the course of a matrimonial relationship has ended after years of litigation with the Privy Council making the final determination. It is not the first case of its kind to come into the glare of public scrutiny. On this occasion, it has resulted in victory for the female litigant, who is to receive an equal share of the assets for which she petitioned.
The response from the court of public opinion is that the law lords' ruling is a victory for women, especially those who have been victimised in the sharing of family property which they helped to amass. Conversely, there is the masculine viewpoint that this is but more evidence of the "marginalisation of the Jamaican male".
What we are witnessing, in fact, is an aspect of the dramatic changes in gender relations in this country, as elsewhere. The concept of gender equality, of laws clearly defining the status of men and women as equal partners in the eyes of the law, might be new and even alien to some of us, but as part of a global community, we have to come to terms with it.
The Matrimonial Property Act, now part of our laws, is an indicator that in matters of disposal of assets acquired by two individuals in life partnership should each be entitled to a just and fair distribution of such.
The feminine response can be understood against the background of the past when women were not even entitled to inherit property. We've come a long way from then, but even in contemporary times, there is evidence of women still being deprived of the roof over their heads when they were replaced by a new partner in the matrimonial home. Sometimes, even offspring of the original union have ended up disinherited.
Men, to a lesser extent, also have been unfairly treated when a partnership ends. It is for this reason that some are unhappy about the laws which appear to favour the cause of women. All things considered, they should have nothing to fear because the law takes into account their contribution to the acquisition of assets also and they should be prepared, just as women should, to seek redress against injustice.
Few persons enter into a relationship with a balance sheet at hand. We've not yet reached the stage where it is accepted as social custom for us to have prenuptial agreements as part of the pact. Sadly, however, what begins with love and trust can deteriorate into litigation and bitterness with courts called upon to provide the anodyne of fairness and equity.
It is time for wider public education and awareness for men and women alike to know their rights and how to achieve justice. It must be noted, however, that while the law is there, ostensibly for all, not everyone can afford access to it. Litigation is expensive. With the best will in the world, programmes like legal aid are still unable, through lack of resources, to fill the demands of persons in the poorer class where the denial of property rights, mainly the family abode, is often at the heart of abandonment and abuse. Such cases hardly, if at all, make the headlines, but they should not be ignored. Above all, we need to re-examine our attitudes overall to justice and equity, especially within the ambit of family relationships.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
