Legal Forget About Freedom: SC To Husbands

[kds1980]

Forget about freedom: SC to husbands

1
2
3
4
5 Written by IANS
Friday, 11 June 2010 11:16

NEW DELHI: Married men should forget about their freedom after they tie the nuptial knot as restrictions on their independence are like “dividends” they have to pay for matrimony, the Supreme Court said on Thursday in a divorce suit.

“Whenever a person is married, there is no question of independence,” Justice Deepak Verma said, hearing a divorce suit between Colonel Ajit Sharma (name changed) and his estranged wife and software professional Seema Sharma (name changed).

By making the observations, the court revisited the remarks of the vacation bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Verma of 2009 wherein it had said: “Do what the wife tells you and never question her authority.”

Justice Katju had said: “If men want to rule their life then they should always be on the right side of their wife. Otherwise, a defiant husband’s life would be ruled by others.”

He said that if the “wife says turn right, turn right and if she says turn left, then turn left”. On Thursday, the observation about husbands surrendering their independence came when the court was told that Seema had wished “happy Independence Day” to her husband when both of them filed a divorce suit by mutual consent.

The bench of Justice Verma and Justice K S Radhakrishnan was hearing an appeal filed by Ajit seeking divorce from his wife. They have a 14-year-old daughter Priyanka (name changed) studying at a boarding school in Dehradun.

Initially, the court said: “We are not made to break up marriages.” Thereafter, the court counselled the couple to go for reconciliation. The two were told by the court that for them, the welfare and the future of their child should be the top priority.

However, soon realising that the couple could not live peacefully under one roof, the court worked out a package that could mitigate the difficulties of the mother who was to bring up Priyanka after separation.

The court asked Ajit to suggest a package that he was willing to offer his estranged wife so that she could bear the expenses of bringing up their daughter. The court said that the package should factor in inflation, price rise and the cost of child’s education, her marriage and other needs. It gave Ajit time to think over it.

When SC resumed hearing, Seema was told that besides Ajit bearing entire expenses of Priyanka’s education till senior secondary, he would pay her Rs 4 lakh and give a 250 square metre plot in Secunderabad in Andhra Pradesh.

Ajit said she could dispose the house to mop up more money. The package was in addition to the Rs 1.50 lakh that has already been given to Seema by him. An insurance policy of Rs 5 lakh in the name of their daughter has also been given to her.

After a second adjournment, Seema told SC that she wanted a plot of land in Delhi or Gurgaon and demanded an arrangement for their daughter’s education after school.

 

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

OK, I understand. SC is not South Carolina and this has nothing to do with Nikki Haley.

I will never understand Indian law. This judgment seems to be totally at odds with what I know of Indian society. Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[kds1980]

OK, I understand. SC is not South Carolina and this has nothing to do with Nikki Haley.

I will never understand Indian law. This judgment seems to be totally at odds with what I know of Indian society. Time will tell, I suppose.

Indian society and Indian laws are two different things.Indian society favour men while Indian laws becoming more and more pro women and anti men.Many laws are now being used by Clever women and their families Just to extract more and more money from husband or he will be in jail.There is already a men's right's movement in India

SIFF - Save Indian Family Foundation

 

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

So the pendulum is swinging a bit wildly. It takes a bit of experimentation, I suppose, before anyone can get it right. Gender equality is the goal, not favouring one over the other, I hope.

 

[kds1980]

So the pendulum is swinging a bit wildly. It takes a bit of experimentation, I suppose, before anyone can get it right. Gender equality is the goal, not favouring one over the other, I hope.

Gender equality is nearly impossible to define?Is it mutual respect for each other,or is it women doing men's job?

Anyway we all are human beings whenever whatever benefit is given to us by society ,law we never hesistate to use it and when anybody say that the benefit should be now taken away then we all use gender card,caste card,religion ,region card or whatever card is available

 

[spnadmin]

Gender equality is nearly impossible to define?Is it mutual respect for each other,or is it women doing men's job?

Anyway we all are human beings whenever whatever benefit is given to us by society ,law we never hesistate to use it and when anybody say that the benefit should be now taken away then we all use gender card,caste card,religion ,region card or whatever card is available

Kanwardeep Singh ji

What do you mean by "is it women doing men's job?"

 

[kds1980]

Kanwardeep Singh ji

What do you mean by "is it women doing men's job?"

I mean the jobs that traditionally men have been doing from centuries

 

[spnadmin]

I mean the jobs that traditionally men have been doing from centuries

Which ones would those be? I am not trying to be an idiot about this. But in the history of Sikhism almost every role held by a man was held by a woman -- though perhaps not in large numbers. Wives of gurus even wrote hukamnamas. ???????

 

[kds1980]

Which ones would those be? I am not trying to be an idiot about this. But in the history of Sikhism almost every role held by a man was held by a woman -- though perhaps not in large numbers. Wives of gurus even wrote hukamnamas. ???????

The hukamnama of wives of Guru's are quite controversial anyway I don't want to get into it.

I was reffering to all the jobs like politician,police ,army CEO etc or anything which always men use to do

 

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

The hukamnama of wives of Guru's are quite controversial anyway I don't want to get into it.

I was reffering to all the jobs like politician,police ,army CEO etc or anything which always men use to do

When I was a kid, my Dad had a favourite line he used withg me often:" Princess, there is only one thing you can't do just because you are a girl.":blueturban:

Playing my part, I'd respond, "What's that, Daddy?"icecreamkudi

"There are all sorts of things you can't do for different reasons. You're too tiny to be a weight-lifter and you couldn't carry a tune to save your life. And there are lots of things that you are perfectly capable of that society won't let you do because you're a girl. But there is only one thing that you really can't do just because you're a girl."rangesingh:

"Daddy, what's that?"

"You can't father a baby!":redturban:

So I became a mathematician, something that the pundits of the day said a woman's brain simply couldn't handle. I did not become an astronaut - my dream still today! - because of physical and national disabilities. I also became - joyously - a wife and mother at age 18.:happykaur:

I ran a farm. OK, a very small farm, but I did run it myself. I successfully raised a Gursikh son, although I really can't take credit for the Gursikh part. I kept a husband happy, an easy task because he wasn't hard to please. And when the time came, I took my place beside them as an equal in battle. swordfight:khanda3:

My life shows that it is possible to do it all. There is nothing special about me. With determination and encouragement, any Sikh girl could do what I have done. For the most part, we do not encourage our girls to excellence. Instead we consider them to be an economic drag and so worthless that we kill them even before birth. yellingsardarni

The point of this is just to point out that there is very little a girl is not capable of. We don't need special privileges or pro-female discriminatory laws or anything else unfair. India is mistaken in this. What would be most helpful would be a level playing field. Give us that and watch us go! cheerleader Or don't give it; we'll just take it! swordfight

(What are you dear Singhs afraid of, anyway?) :blinkingkaur:

Oh, and please stop killing us.icecreamkauricecreamkudi

 

[kds1980]

First of all let me clarify I am not saying women are not capable of doing most kind of jobs
but different countries have different situations.

My life shows that it is possible to do it all. There is nothing special about me. With determination and encouragement, any Sikh girl could do what I have done.

I am sorry to say but this is where Americans and canadians and people living in other countries don't understand life in India.One or few personal lives of people Living in developed countries cannot be examples for all Indians that they can do what people are doing in Canada or America.You people have truck load of resources and small population we have truck load of population and less resources.The difference is exactly like heaven and hell.Our lives in India are even less valuables than Dolphins of America both in the eyes of american govt and Indian govt

[ quote] For the most part, we do not encourage our girls to excellence. Instead we consider them to be an economic drag and so worthless that we kill them even before birth.[/quote]

If you have knowledge of urban sikhs then you may know that there are many many sikh families where girls are encouraged to make careers.The only problem is that whatever girl
earns it goes to her husband's family or kept aside for her future family.This is the biggest reason why boys are preferred over Girls.

The point of this is just to point out that there is very little a girl is not capable of. We don't need special privileges or pro-female discriminatory laws or anything else unfair. India is mistaken in this. What would be most helpful would be a level playing field. Give us that and watch us go! Or don't give it; we'll just take it!

You can write letter to Indian feminists about it that we don't need special treatment and then see how many of them support it.forget about it a very large majority of women of India will never give up special privilages given to them either by society or by law

 

[spnadmin]

I am not sure how the ignorance of people living in the West and the observation that women will never give up special privileges given to them are connect, Kanwardeep Singh ji.

We are continually reminded of our ignorance but the fact is that women in the US/Canada also contend with discrimination because they are women. Though perhaps not on the same scale. And women who immigrate to the US/Canada also have problems unique to their cultures.

It does not add up. Do women have special privileges in India or are they given equitable treatment under the law? First you say that women in India will never dig themselves out of the discrimination that comes from being in a country with few resources and a oppressive culture. Then you say that women have special privileges.

Don't we need to return to the issue of the judge's decision? He is in India. I think basing your reply on the ignorance of westerners doesn't help with understanding the issues in the article.

Or are you saying that westerners should not voice opinions on topics like this?

 

[kds1980]

It does not add up. Do women have special privileges in India or are they given equitable treatment under the law? First you say that women in India will never dig themselves out of the discrimination that comes from being in a country with few resources and a oppressive culture. Then you say that women have special privileges

I think I have already said in one of the post that special privilage is given to women under Indian law o/w why organisations Like SIF are rising .Are these men mad? If legally everything is in favour of men then these organisation don't need to arise.Yes culture is oppressive against women

Don't we need to return to the issue of the judge's decision? He is in India. I think basing your reply on the ignorance of westerners doesn't help with understanding the issues in the article.


Or are you saying that westerners should not voice opinions on topics like this?

To be honest I don't understand why judge said this either he trying to humurous or giving indirect message that Indian laws cannot help Indian men.On SIF site a person wrote an article and said that if someone's wife ask a man to throw shoe on judge should that man do that?

As far westerners are concerned they are have full right to voice their opinion but many times they also make sterotypes about India just like we Indians do it in case of western societies

 

[spnadmin]

Kanwardeep Singh ji

First I would ask you to point out the stereotypes that any westerner has been guilty of stating in this thread. So far the discussion has been about equal liberties for men and women, which is a subject that has international importance and is even addressed in the International Bill of Rights. So where is the stereotype? Where are the cultural blinders?

To say that Indian women are somehow manipulating the courts is in my mind a digression. Here are some very puzzling things that have made me wonder as this conversation and others have progressed.

Many laws are now being used by Clever women and their families Just to extract more and more money from husband or he will be in jail.There is already a men's right's movement in India

]

This is what I call real women empowerment unlike others like counting the percentage of women CEOs or women reservation in parliement

taken from http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general/30885-m-m-project-puts-women-drivers.html

Gender equality is nearly impossible to define?Is it mutual respect for each other,or is it women doing men's job?

And then you said an example of a man’s job would include being a CEO.

Are you saying that it is OK for women to drive tractors but not fine for them to aspire to be CEO’s? The image of women driving tractors – for sure they are bringing needed income – is one where they can do heavy lifting but not seek leadership of corporations.

But even to press you on this is a digression. In my opinion, the thread goes off track when we look at marriage laws as a matter of equality and equal liberty between genders. Marriage is not about equality of rights. Marriage is about equality of bondage. This is true in the US, India, Canada, and Borneo. A marriage license is a legally binding contract. Both sides are bound to their economic obligations through that contract. People tend to forget that aspect of marriage. Marriage laws attempt to sort out what the economic obligations, the bonds or economic bondage, are between man and woman. Courts are in every place on the planet set up to apply the law when there is a dispute. Again, not a stereotype or matter of cultural blinders.

It seems that some men are having a hard time getting used to the idea that they are in bondage too.

 

[kds1980]

First I would ask you to point out the stereotypes that any westerner has been guilty of stating in this thread

May be there are not many stereotypes On this this thread but I read on many forums what Westerners have think about India.

Btw please look at following statement

This judgment seems to be totally at odds with what I know of Indian society

What does This mean .What I understand about this is that is that Indian law hardly could favour a woman.That's why I posted the reply which you are calling digression

And then you said an example of a man’s job would include being a CEO.

Are you saying that it is OK for women to drive tractors but not fine for them to aspire to be CEO’s? The image of women driving tractors – for sure they are bringing needed income – is one where they can do heavy lifting but not seek leadership of corporations.

I am not saying that it is wrong for women to aspire to become CEO or head any political organisation.What I am saying is that traditionally Ceo or anything that was prestigious white collar job for men is now done by women.are they only one then considered as equals ?What about large number of women that are still doing job that women have been doing for centuries.

As far tractor thread is concerned I am in much favour of ground level equality rather than
Equality in corporate or political world because I believe that is what something almost completely missing in India.

 

[spnadmin]

Thanks for your clarification Kanwardeep Singh ji - as I myself did not see any stereotypes in this thread but am willing to be corrected.

It seems to me that the comment "This is hardly what I know of Indian Society" could be an admission or ignorance or it could be that someone has realized he/she has been wrong all along and is admitting an error. Without the background text it is hard to know.

You asked earlier about the judge.Was he trying to be funny. I don't know quite frankly [quote/] The judge said,
Justice Katju had said: “If men want to rule their life then they should always be on the right side of their wife. Otherwise, a defiant husband’s life would be ruled by others.”

He said that if the “wife says turn right, turn right and if she says turn left, then turn left”. On Thursday, the observation about husbands surrendering their independence came when the court was told that Seema had wished “happy Independence Day” to her husband when both of them filed a divorce suit by mutual consent. [/quote]

The judge may be a keen humorist, and again with on a few sentences from an entire decision, it is hard to know. The question needs to be whether the judge applied the law. He has the India Marriage Act of 1955 as amended to go by, and that is it. No more and no less. The judge does seem to be reminding the husband of his bondage. That the law is binding on husband and wife.

Fact is that marriage is a contract, legally binding, and as such the economic consequences of a divorce are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts -- much like a business partnership that is being dissolved.

So I did not read this story as a story equal rights of husband and wife, but instead as equal protection under the law.

(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.

India Marriage Act

The husband protested the conditions of his bondage. Maybe he did not realize he was under bondage, or it came to him as a shock. Women have known they were in bondage for a long time (my stereotype). "Some" men may be just now getting it.

In any case, a similar tale is told about a man in the US who was shocked by news from his lawyer that he too was in bondage. I have already sent this to you. Forum readers may find it humorous.

What does a marriage license, and ALL other state/federal documents do? | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul