LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

'DIVORCE' & 'JUSTICE'

A lot of us men are suffering from this prison syndrome. We feel that we are somehow 'imprisoned' in a marriage. Your prison is only in your mind.


Any judgement given by any court of law is only a recognition of the fact. It means your divorce has already happened when your wife left you and filed a criminal complaint. Legal Divorce is only a piece of paper with ink and words. And for this piece of paper we keep on waiting half of our lifetimes, looking left and right at every Supreme Court judgement. What you have to realise is that you are already free of your wives. Your divorce has already happened. Free your minds. Breathe the free air. Enjoy your lives. The papers will follow.


A legal divorce gives you two things;

1). A legal way to remarry


2). A denial of further claim on your properties.


As for the first, why do you want to enter the same trap again? Have these laws not slapped you hard enough for you to learn? Keep a dozen girlfriends purely for your physical and emotional pleasures. If you want children, adopt a few.


As for the second, properties, do you think you will live long enough to enjoy it after you get your Supreme Court judgements. You will probably be 99 yrs old by then. Dont compromise and give it to the bitcH3s. Money can be earned and earned again. But Your Time wont come again. Learn to enjoy the fight. But realize that you have already won.


The Betterment of men is not in the Laws. At least not in this biased society. Justice is in our minds. Justice has already happened. You have been freed. Realize it now. It is Now or Never.



Learning

 6 Replies

Supratim Paul (E)     22 August 2010

Hello Arun Kumar, Well said. Also I am also in the same boat. My wife has left now divorce is going to happen.I tried my best to save the marriage but in vain. You know what there were times when I used to respect womens,girls. But now after this has happened to me I see my wife in every women. I dont know why. But I am bit upset with life as of now. But we say the life must go on. I am just alive just for the sake of being alive.I was a lively person once upon a time but time has made me opposite. Anyways ... its all because of our gender biased laws. I have decided not to remarry again.But to help the men who are suffering to what ever way I can. I am from B'lore.If any one from B'lore in same situation then we can help each other. But I will fully devote my self when my divorce case is over. Today only in CNN-IBN news channel there was a show at 8:00 pm on "498a" then I saw Mr. Saurav from SIFF was there. He was the only person who was there to speak on men and the problem they face and not even a single person said in men favor. The society in India is changing and especially in urban India and so in rural India.So as the laws must also change as per time. There are lot of things we say that that must change in the laws but till now nothing is happening. The laws are fully female based.The lawyers,police men,girls party take advantage from the boys party using this laws.And I am facing this.And that is the saddest part of it. "We say in Hindi na ...zakham mein namak lagana so we get more pain emotionally as well as financially" I things its time that laws change with change in times.I dont know who will take this to the parliament else nothing will happen.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     22 August 2010

Fully agreed with you, along with this correction,

"Justice is in our minds. Justice has already happened" - it is an imagination only. This is philosophy. This philosophy should be understand by

1) Perliament of India;

2) Government of India;

3) Supreme Court of India;

We cannot overlook the reality. The reality is, we need a divorce paper, Just like a marriage certificate.


(Guest)

Further reality is that we all have forgotten "Mimans Rules of Interpretation" and instead take cover of mud slugging in the name of empowerment..........

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     22 August 2010

What is "Mimans Rules of Interpretation"?


(Guest)

First apologise for wrong spelling kindly read it as "Mimansa Rules of Interpretation"


Mimansa Rules of Interpretation: According to the Court, every legal system has a hierarchy of laws. Whenever there is conflict between a norm in a higher layer in this hierarchy and a norm in a lower layer, the norm in the higher layer will prevail. The hierarchy in our country has the Constitution of India right at the top. Next comes the statutory law, which may be either the Parliamentary law or law made by the State Legislature. Third is delegated or subordinate legislation, which may be in the form of rules and regulations made under the Act. And last in the hierarchy are administrative orders or executive instructions. The theory of the eminent positivist jurist Kelsen (The Pure Theory of Law) [see Kelsen’s ‘The General Theory of Law and State’], were relied on.
 

On the basis of existing rules of interpretation generally followed by Courts, the Court has summarized the position with respect to statute and rules, as hereunder –

(a)    If there are two possible interpretations of a rule, one which serves the object of a provision in the parent statute and the other, which does not, the former has to be adopted because adopting the latter will make the rule ultra vires the Act.


(b)   The Act falls in the second layer in this hierarchy, the rules made under the Act fall in the third layer. Hence, if there is any conflict between the provisions of the Act and the provisions of the Rules, the former will prevail.


Re.: Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal Vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University (on 6th. Aug. 2008) https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1268797/


Para 18. It is deeply regrettable that in our Courts of law lawyers quote Maxwell and Craies but nobody refers to the Mimansa Principles of interpretation. Most lawyers would not have even heard of their existence. Today our so-called educated people are largely ignorant about the great intellectual achievements of our ancestors and the intellectual treasury which they have bequeathed us. The Mimansa Principles of interpretation is part of that great intellectual treasury, but it is distressing to note that apart from the reference to these principles in the judgment of Sir John Edge, the then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court, in Beni Prasad v. Hardai Bibi, 1892 ILR 14 All 67 (FB), over a hundred years ago and in some judgments of one of us (M. Katju, J.) there has been almost no utilization of these principles even in our own country. Many of the Mimansa Principles are rational and scientific and can be utilized in the legal field (see in this connection K.L. Sarkar's `Mimansa Rules of Interpretation' which is a collection of Tagore Law Lectures delivered in 1905 containing the best exposition of these principles in English. Most other books on Mimansa are in Sanskrit).


Para 19. The Mimansa Principles of Interpretation, as laid down by Jaimini around the 5th century B.C. in his sutras and as explained by Sabar, Kumarila Bhatta, Prabhakar, Mandan Mishra, Shalignath, Parthasarathy Mishra, Apadeva, Shree Bhat Shankar, etc. were regularly used by our renowned jurists like Vijneshwara (author of Mitakshara), Jimutvahana (author of Dayabhaga), Nanda Pandit (author of Dattaka Mimansa), etc. whenever there they found any conflict between the various Smritis, e.g., Manusmriti and Yajnavalkya Smriti, or ambiguity, ellipse or absurdity in any Smriti. Thus, the Mimansa principles were our traditional system of interpretation of legal texts. Although originally they were created for interpreting religious texts pertaining to the Yagya (sacrifice), they were so rational and logical that gradually they came to be utilized in law, philosophy, grammar, etc., that is, they became of universal application. Thus, Shankaracharya has used the Mimansa Adhikaranas (principles) in his bhashya on the Vedanta sutras.


Para 20. The Mimansa principles were regularly used by our great jurists for interpreting legal texts (see also in this connection P.V. Kane's' History of the Dharmashastra', Vol. V, Pt. II, Ch. XXIX and Ch. XXX, pp. 1282- 1351).


Para 21. In Mimansa, casus omissus is known as adhyahara. The adhyahara principle permits us to add words to a legal text. However, the superiority of the Mimansa Principles over Maxwell's Principles in this respect is shown by the fact that Maxwell does not go into further detail and does not mention the sub-categories coming under the general category of casus omissus. In the Mimansa system, on the other hand, the general category of adhyahara has under it several sub-categories, e.g., anusanga, anukarsha, vakyashesha, etc. Since in this case we are concerned with the anusanga principle, we may explain it in some detail.

Para 22. The anusanga principle (or elliptical extension) states that an expression occurring in one clause is often meant also for a neighbouring clause, and it is only for economy that it is only mentioned in the former (see Jaimini 2, 2, 16). The anusanga principle has a further sub- categorization. If a clause which occurs in a subsequent sentence is to be read into a previous sentence it is a case of Tadapakarsha, but when it is vice-versa it is a case of Tadutkarsha.


Para 23. The Anusanga principle of Mimansa was used by Jimutvahana in the Dayabhaga. Jimutvahana found that there is a text of Manu which states: "Of a woman married according to the Brahma, Daiva, Arsha, Gandharva and Prajapartya form, the property shall go to her husband if she dies without issue. But her property, given to her on her marriage in the form called Asura, Rakshasa and Paisacha, on her death without issue shall become the property of her parents."


Para 24. It can be seen that in the second sentence the word `property' is qualified by the words `given to her on her marriage', whereas in the first sentence there is no such qualification. Jimutvahana, using the anusanga principle of Mimansa, said that the words "given to her on her marriage" should also be inserted in the first sentence after the word "property", and hence there also the word `property' must be interpreted in a qualified sense.


Para 25. In the Mitakshara also the anusanga principle of Mimansa has been used. Yajnavalkya II. 135-136 lays down the order of succession to the wealth of a person dying sonless. Yajnavalkya II. 137 deals with succession to property of a forest hermit, an ascetic, or a perpetual Vedic student. The Mitakshara then holds that Yajnavalkya II. 138 `samaristinastu samaristi' is to be construed as an exception to Yajnavalkya II. 135, 136 and understands that the words `of one dying without having a son' (grand son or great grand son) are to be supplied before Yajnavalkya II. 138 from II. 136, i.e., there is to be anusanga of the word `svaryatasya-putrasya'.
 

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     22 August 2010

Thanks


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register