LCI Learning
Master the Art of Contract Drafting & Corporate Legal Work with Adv Navodit Mehra. Register Now!

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

An message for all litigating husbands & wives

Page no : 2

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     23 September 2010

Prabhakar


IrBM in HMA and or SMA is not defined and or was not in the wisdom then because marriage in Indian customs and traditions is sacrosanct which you as a Lawyer should be knowing better to educate general readers here instead of cribbing about butter chicken and karela to deviate the whole topic.


In Western Jurisprudence IrBM is 98.99% the in thing and they have already this well placed in varient forms in respective Supreme Courts. It is pervaiding into India family law by feminists and thanks but no thanks to wife centric lawyers collective like a lollipop to a husband and hence it will break more Indian families which is what lawyers colletive want so as to protect their commercial interest.  


If you tell me one more time fool then let us play fool to each other and I publically ask you to give me one good thing about proposed S. 13 D IrBM as gender neutral statement point of Law which will benefit a couple undergoing IrBM when already so many civil Laws in existence to safeguard S. 13 D?.


Lawyers like you keep quite in public platform when such proposed amendment talks goes on simple reason being to protect your commrcial interests. (all you and your here are generic) and deviate the topic to corporate law as if family law is charity for lawyers what a stale arguments come lawyers come up with sometimes.


Cm'n I am waiting...... 

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     23 September 2010

Prabhakar


IrBM in HMA and or SMA is not defined and or was not in the wisdom then because of few simple visions; marriage in Indian customs and traditions is sacrosanct which you as a Lawyer should be knowing better to educate general readers here instead of cribbing about butter chicken and karela to deviate the whole topic. Philosophies of a lawyer is also not lesser than few repliers here it seems when the topic in this board is spirtuality and meditation !


In Western Jurisprudence IrBM is 98.99% the in thing and they have already this well placed in variant forms in respective Supreme Courts. It is pervading into
India family law by feminists and thanks but no thanks to wife centric lawyers collective like a lollipop to a husband and hence it will break more Indian families which is what lawyers collective want so as to protect their commercial interest.  


If you tell me one more time replier(s) are (is) fool then let us play fool to each other and I publicly ask you to give one good thing about proposed S. 13 D IrBM as gender neutral statement point of Law which will benefit a Hindu couple undergoing IrBM when already so many civil Laws in existence to safeguard S. 13 D?. And what about other Personal Law stake holders ?


Lawyers like you keep quite in public platform when such proposed Amendment talks goes on simple reason being to protect your commercial interests. (all you and your here are generic) and deviate the topic to butter chicken and karela and if these eatables were not enough then rocket it to corporate law where money is like statement posps up in family law forum as if family law is charity for family law lawyers what a stale arguments a lawyer come up with sometimes.


Cm'n reader(s) are waiting for answers......  

Guest (Guest)     24 September 2010

It is well settled in law from the lowest court to the Highest court that if you want to understand any document and rely on it, it has to be read wholly and not rely some parts of it, which are suitable to you.  You cannot go on quoting some parts of the document out of context so that a distorted interpretation can be given about the document. That basic principle is being violated by some members here for vested interests.   They have not even common sense and as and when they fail to win over in their arguments, commercial interests are attributed to the authors, who hold different view points.  If they lose the steam they start to critisise the other members sarcastically about their profession of gender research and make fun by saying that they have no legal knowledge and they shall go to social websites.  In a nutshell, they are just like road-rollers in their arguments and they are entitled to be ignored for their lack of decent attitude in posting their comments. 


(Guest)

Try to understand relations. no relation can work only because law does not allow it to break.

LOVE & Trust are the essence of any relationship. once both are lost no court in world or even GOD can make relation work. IRBM takes care of financial need of wife. wat else she needs if there is no love in relation. why shud she cry daily or get beaten by her husband or beat him or get abused or abuse him. let them live separately and if not happily at least peacefully and respectfully.

if u make tem live together by force they will keep fighting over karela and butter chiken. actually these karela and butter chiken are not the real issues. if there is no love these are ways to vent out frustation and make false issues to fight upon.

so prabhakar is right in saying karela and butter chicken as issues. these are planks/ploys to fight on a war.

IRBM after 3 years is too long it shud be 2 years rather. life and time both are precious. 

if wife is not financially independent / disabled / uneducated there is provision in IRBM for her to get financial security. so IRBM will be a boon for warring couples and partly for lawyers too as you will see a marginal rise in  divorce cases.

Read OSHO, nothing (relation) on earth can work without LOVE.


(Guest)

osho on love and relationship:

relationship destroys all the love.

i differ a liitle bit here  forced relationship certainly destroys love only hatred remains.

oshos interview:

BELOVED OSHO,
IS RELATIONSHIP THERE BECAUSE LOVE IS NOT?

yes. Love is not a relationship. Love relates, but it is not a relationship. A relationship is something finished. A relationship is a noun; the full stop has come, the honeymoon is over. Now there is no joy, no enthusiasm, now all is finished.
You can carry it on, just to keep your promises. You can carry it on because it is comfortable, convenient, cozy. You can carry it on because there is nothing else to do. You can carry it on because if you disrupt it, it is going to create much trouble for you.
Relationship means something complete, finished, closed. Love is never a relationship; love is relating. It is always a river, flowing, unending. Love knows no full stop; the honeymoon begins but never ends. It is not like a novel that starts at a certain point and ends at a certain point. It is an ongoing phenomenon. Lovers end, love continues. It is a continuum. It is a verb, not a noun. And why do we reduce the beauty of relating to relationship? Why are we in such a hurry? -- because to relate is insecure, and relationship is a security, relationship has a certainty. Relating is just a meeting of two strangers, maybe just an overnight stay and in the morning we say goodbye. Who knows what is going to happen tomorrow? And we are so afraid that we want to make it certain, we want to make it predictable. We would like tomorrow to be according to our ideas; we don't allow it freedom to have its own say. So we immediately reduce every verb to a noun.
You are in love with a woman or a man and immediately you start thinking of getting married. Make it a legal contract. Why? How does the law come into love? The law comes into love because love is not there. It is only a fantasy, and you know the fantasy will disappear. Before it disappears settle down, before it disappears do something so it becomes impossible to separate.
In a better world, with more meditative people, with a little more enlightenment spread over the earth, people will love, love immensely, but their love will remain a relating, not a relationship. And I am not saying that their love will be only momentary. There is every possibility their love may go deeper than your love, may have a higher quality of intimacy, may have something more of poetry and more of God in it. And there is every possibility their love may last longer than your so-called relationship ever lasts. But it will not be guaranteed by the law, by the court, by the policeman.
The guarantee will be inner. It will be a commitment from the heart, it will be a silent communion. If you enjoy being with somebody, you would like to enjoy it more and more. If you enjoy the intimacy, you would like to explore the intimacy more and more.
And there are a few flowers of love which bloom only after long intimacies. There are seasonal flowers too; within six weeks they are there in the sun, but within six weeks again they are gone forever. There are flowers which take years to come, and there are flowers which take many years to come. The longer it takes, the deeper it goes.
But it has to be a commitment from one heart to another heart. It has not even to be verbalized, because to verbalize it is to profane it. It has to be a silent commitment; eye to eye, heart to heart, being to being. It has to be understood, not said.
It is so ugly seeing people going to the church or the court to get married. It is so ugly, so inhuman. It simply shows they can't trust themselves, they trust the policeman more than they trust their own inner voice. It shows they can't trust their love, they trust the law.
Gandha, forget relationships and learn how to relate. Once you are in a relationship you start taking each other for granted. That's what destroys all love affairs. The woman thinks she knows the man, the man thinks he knows the woman. Nobody knows either. It is impossible to know the other, the other remains a mystery. And to take the other for granted is insulting, disrespectful.
To think that you know your wife is very very ungrateful. How can you know the woman? How can you know the man? They are processes, they are not things. The woman that you knew yesterday is not there today. So much water has gone down the Ganges; she is somebody else, totally different. Relate again, start again, don't take it for granted.
And the man that you slept with last night, look at his face again in the morning. He is no more the same person, so much has changed. So much, incalculably much, has changed. That is the difference between a thing and a person. The furniture in the room is the same, but the man and the woman, they are no more the same. Explore again, start again. That's what I mean by relating.
Relating means you are always starting, you are continuously trying to become acquainted. Again and again, you are introducing yourself to each other. You are trying to see the many facets of the other's personality. You are trying to penetrate deeper and deeper into his realm of inner feelings, into the deep recesses of his being. You are trying to unravel a mystery which cannot be unraveled.
That is the joy of love: the exploration of consciousness. And if you relate, and don't reduce it to a relationship, then the other will become a mirror to you. Exploring him, unawares you will be exploring yourself too. Getting deeper into the other, knowing his feelings, his thoughts, his deeper stirrings, you will be knowing your own deeper stirrings too. Lovers become mirrors to each other, and then love becomes a meditation. Relationship is ugly, relating is beautiful.
In relationship both persons become blind to each other. Just think, how long has it been since you saw your wife eye to eye? How long has it been since you looked at your husband? Maybe years. Who looks at one's own wife? You have already taken it for granted that you know her. What more is there to look at? You are more interested in strangers than in the people you know -- you know the whole topography of their bodies, you know how they respond, you know everything that has happened is going to happen again and again. It is a repetitive circle.
It is not so, it is not really so. Nothing ever repeats; everything is new every day. Just your eyes become old, your assumptions become old, your mirror gathers dust and you become incapable of reflecting the other.
Hence I say relate. By saying relate, I mean remain continuously on a honeymoon. Go on searching and seeking each other, finding new ways of loving each other, finding new ways of being with each other. And each person is such an infinite mystery, inexhaustible, unfathomable, that it is not possible that you can ever say, "I have known her," or, "I have known him." At the most you can say, "I have tried my best, but the mystery remains a mystery."
In fact the more you know, the more mysterious the other becomes. Then love is a constant adventure.

DR.SANAT KUMAR DASH (Eye Specialist)     24 September 2010

DABONG  LADY  JI,    MANY   THANKS................2    YOU       FOR   THE    NICE    DESCRIPTION.


(Guest)

Dabang Lady

thanks ,now everyone loves osho...

1 Like

Renuka Gupta ( Gender Researcher )     24 September 2010

I did not read that reply which commented on  gender researcher/s. some replies are pretty predictable and  as far as I am concerned, I  just ignore them. Now if it has been said that technical legal knowledge is a necessity to be a member of this forum I do not agree. I did not say I do not know laws, laws are interpreted and anlysed through gender lens, a gender researcher does analyse policies and laws alike. When I said I am a non legal person, I referred to a simple fact that I am not an advocate. Law making processes are interdisciplinary processes, and are essentially rooted in the historical forces or resistant to historical forces and social, cultural, political and religious contexts. So gender researchers have everything to do with this forum.

Dialogues needs to proceed on mutually respectful way to have some outcome. When dialogues degenerate into throwing challenges, one may or may not like to engage further and depending on so many factors may like to ignore such postings. 


(Guest)

there's a famous so called spiritual guru who was famous for his obsession with s*x.

in one case i heard that in his workshop he urged people to have s*x multiple times so that they get tired of it...and learn to concentrate on other things..and dont have obsession for it any more....what an odd idea of inculcating this "morality" in people!

 

he has many followers in india...i m sure some of u will be knowing by now whom i m referring to..

 

so it's better to be one's own guru than to follow these modern day so called gurus...when one proceeds on spirituality properly,he will get answers to all his problems himself..he wont need a guru


(Guest)

Trouble comes when we don’t know what we have to do and find help,ask for experienced persons.

One cannot be happy, get answer if he does not know what he has to do. A guru  is one who is regarded as having great knowledge, wisdom and authority in a certain area, and who uses it to guide others (teacher)

We  come to this forum( This site is also our guru) because of why ? Getting knowledge and sharing thought to the people.

If one can be one's guru he did not ask to anyone .

After gettind great knowledge one can be one's guru he will get answers to all his problems himself..he wont need a guru.

Don’t see negative side, see positive thought. You get knowledge from your enemy (I repeate positive side), from good person and bad person also.


(Guest)

aishwarya divorced status is a stigma to men as well as women.

as per ur post

"Many men/women want to divorce the current spouse and then have a 2nd marriage.

It's understandable if divorce is due to reasons like aduletry and cruelty."

1.what is adultery as per u (not legal definition), i mean how much space u wud give to ur spouse

2.and define what constitutes cruelty to spouse according to you for which a spouse should go for divorce


(Guest)

AISHWAYA i am still waiting for your response


(Guest)

Dabangg Lady,

You said that AISHWAYA i am still waiting for your response

AISHWAYA has deleted her profile.

So,this query  ends here.

1 Like

dream (individual)     28 September 2010

First of a suggestion @Aishwarya and other like minded feminazis,

You should have given the examples of the women instead of men to have made it juicier. I further suggest that in the guise of this topic, donot promote male-hatred or misandry by giving "males are the ones who do this, etc."  You are encouraged and empowered to quote examples of women. After all, you want women empowerment and upliftment, dont you?

 

Next, I pity all those men who jumped into this discussion when, after reading the male example, started justifying.


A visit to any of the family courts in the country and a simple skim thru the cause-list, it does not require any qualifications to know that it is the petitioner-wife vs petitioner-husband ratio would 70:30.

Even of Aishwarya has deleted her profile, there are other such women who are capable of replying to Dabangg Lady's queries.

Guest (Guest)     28 September 2010

Why cause list of matrimonial courts be checked up?

Cheque the cause list of "labour courts".  In 100 per cent cases, the petitioner is always a workman.

In rent control cases, 100 per cent petitioners are poor landlords, who cannot get the tenant vacated from the places and the tenant squatting on expired leased premises refuses to vacate and push the landlord to court.

In motor accident cases, all the victims or dependents of deceased are petitioners against the fatty insurance companies.

In criminal cases, the state against whom offence has been made are petitioners.

The people who suffer and cannot retaliate due to lack of money power and muscle power resort to court process.  If they have muscle power and money power, they get redressal out of the court by using "ultimate" power.  In matrimonial matters also the same principle apply.

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register