Forget about freedom: SC to husbands

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.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/legal-and-advisory/30911-forget-about-freedom-sc-to-husbands.html

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.

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________
http://www.scoopthemock.co.in/

OK, I understand. SC is not South Carolina and this has nothing to do with Nikki Haley.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=30911

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

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

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

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