Posts Tagged ‘Divorce’

Smriti Shinde – Double standards of the Supreme Court

December 17, 2009

Here is an interesting news item – “Shinde’s daughter moves SC for divorce” in Times of India on Dec 17, 2009. In this case, the tables are turned where husband is refusing to sign a mutual consent divorce that the wife wants. Wife approached the apex court stating that being forced to live in an unhappy and unwanted marriage “violated her fundamental right to live life with dignity, which was guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life) of Constitution”.

Now, instead of doing what they customarily do when husbands approach the Supreme Court with a similar plea, the Supreme Court “issued notice to ministry of law and justice as Smriti alleged that because of the husband, she was forced to live a married life against her free will”.

When woman wants out of a marriage staking a claim on her right to live a happy and dignified life, the Supreme Court issues notice to the ministry of law and justice, why her claims could not be taken seriously under our constitution. When several men approached the apex court requesting to be released from marriages under identical circumstances, the wise old patriarchs, with the weighty burden of “social engineering” on their “shoulders”, lecture them with a gratuitous advice – “listen to the diktats of your wife to stay out of trouble”. Time and again, scores of men having spent decades trying to get out of the clutches of cruel, violent and adulterous wives, approached the courts seeking justice to live out the rest of their miserable lives in peace, the courts, led by the High Courts of the respective states and the Supreme court,  in their infinite sadism, pooh poohed their misery as “normal wear and tear” of marriage and refused divorces. Unable to find a way out of their miserable existence, hundreds of men have committed suicides. The stony of hearts of the powers that be never melt upon these tragedies. You see – causing a man to commit suicide is not only not a crime in India; in fact it is considered a social service. And the judiciary, led by the High Courts and Supreme Court, is playing its part in this social service – pretty diligently.

Pathetic!

Indeed!!

———————————————————————–

Here is the text of the article –

NEW DELHI: Hinging hopes on an apex court advisory to the government to consider “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a valid ground for divorce
, Union minister Sushil Shinde’s daughter Smriti on Wednesday moved SC seeking to end to an unhappy marriage with her husband.

Frustrated by persistent refusal of her husband to consent to a mutually agreed divorce, Smriti’s counsel, senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohtagi, pleaded before a Bench comprising CJI K G Balakrishnan and Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan that this violated her fundamental right to live life with dignity, which was guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life) of Constitution.

What the SC, which had previously dismissed her appeal against an HC order rejecting her divorce plea as her husband had refused to consent for ending the marriage, was whether such withholding of consent by one party violated other party’s fundamental right. It issued notice to ministry of law and justice as Smriti alleged that because of the husband, she was forced to live a married life against her free will.

NEW DELHI: Hinging hopes on an apex court advisory to the government to consider “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” as a valid ground for divorce Frustrated by persistent refusal of her husband to consent to a mutually agreed divorce, Smriti’s counsel, senior advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohtagi, pleaded before a Bench comprising CJI K G Balakrishnan and Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan that this violated her fundamental right to live life with dignity, which was guaranteed by Article 21 (right to life) of Constitution.

What the SC, which had previously dismissed her appeal against an HC order rejecting her divorce plea as her husband had refused to consent for ending the marriage, was whether such withholding of consent by one party violated other party’s fundamental right. It issued notice to ministry of law and justice as Smriti alleged that because of the husband, she was forced to live a married life against her free will.

, Union minister Sushil Shinde’s daughter Smriti on Wednesday moved SC seeking to end to an unhappy marriage with her husband.

// <![CDATA[
var RN = new String (Math.random());
var RNS = RN.substring (2,11);
var b2 = ‘ ‘;
if (doweshowbellyad==1)
bellyad.innerHTML = b2;

// ]]>

 
&amp;lt;a href=”http://netspiderads2.indiatimes.com/ads.dll/clickthrough?slotid=36036&#8243; target=”_blank”&amp;gt;&amp;lt;img src=”http://netspiderads2.indiatimes.com/ads.dll/photoserv?slotid=36036&#8243; border=”0″ width=”670″ height=”90″ alt=”Advertisement”&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;
Advertisements

Terms of Debate

August 20, 2008

While the debate is still raging on the fairness of existing illegitimate laws like PWDVA, taxpayer funded NCW in cahoots with the foreign-funded Lawyers Collective, is busy churning out more and more such legislation. Often the family rights and men’s rights activists are sucked into arguments with the feminist liars and their supporters regarding these illegitimate laws.

 

One constant refrain one hears from the supporters of these laws is, that there is nothing wrong with the laws per se, but their implementation is wrong. We must not allow this reasoning to become mainstream argument in our debates. This is the most dangerous red herring. If poor implementation of illegitimate laws in itself is resulting in so many victims, imagine what a properly implemented illegitimate law would result in – definitely orders of magnitude more victims.

 

These laws (e.g. PWDVA) are WRONG – plain and simple. They are drafted with malicious intentions. They fail the test of fairness in any dimension you measure them in. They are discriminatory. They are based on lies, propaganda and anachronistic assumptions. They deny due process to the accused. They are based on summary penalties and confiscation. No matter how they are implemented, they will result in injustice. In summary, these laws are indefensible.

 

Therefore, in our debates, we should never deviate from the main argument, that these laws are wrong and that they are poorly drafted with ample scope for misuse, extortion and blackmail. Point after point, we must show them the different loopholes intentionally left in these laws. We must show that the supporters of such terrible and unjust laws do not believe in human rights, in liberty and dignity of the individual, in constitutional protections, in fairness and in due process. We must counter them with the truth. We must counter them with the statistics. That is the way to expose them. That is the way to alter the terms of the debate.