Can marriages in india be treated as contracts?

Belief exposes a man or woman entering into marital relationship to a great degree of vulnerability and exploitation. However without being vulnerable no one can have trust in the relationship with the spouse. Being vulnerable means allowing the spouse to exploit the weakness of the other if necessary and be prepared to sacrifice. Good faith means, being prepared to sacrifice in the process of being vulnerable, and believing that spouse is not capable of that conduct. If a man or woman is not prepared to be vulnerable and sacrifice and experiment with life, there is no point in marrying. Such marriage is not marriage at all.

There is a great joy in worshipping the spouse and in being worshipped by the spouse. For that both of them should display exemplary conduct towards each other and try always to be worthy of such worship by the spouse. To keep on making such attempts to be worthy of worship by the spouse is the true essence of marriage. If one is feeling I am worthy of being worshipped, I don’t have to worship other, that person is suffering from Rajas, and where there is Rajas in anyone of the life partners, marriage does not work. Both of them should strive to be worthy of each other’s worship.

One who guards to protect oneself from the other in a marital relationship is simply conveying the message that he/she is not trusting the other. Such person is not worthy to be considered for marriage. Such person on self analysis should consider himself to be unfit for marriage.

Coming to the question of whether a marriage is a contract, before we discuss we should question ourselves, whether a marriage is a spiritual bond or a materialistic bond between man and woman. India had always been spiritual country and the foundations of institutions of family and marriage are based on age-old traditions, values, customs and religion. Couple involved in a materialistic bond would see each other as "You and I", and ask each other "what do I get from you". There is no "you" and "I" in a couple involved in a spiritual bond, because the Advaita says, "that which you see is yourself". There is no difference between the observer and the observed. There is no duality in the world, whatever we perceive is part of our own self. Based on this, they realize oneself in the other and the other in oneself, thus becoming soul-mates. Love is one mind in two bodies. Very few relationships, people perhaps, one in a crore achieve this through marriage in modern times. But in olden times, this was the aim of couple, because then spirituality was the touchstone for a marital relationship. Divorce was not allowed for the reason that marriage was treated as a lifetime bond. So no one could think of other options once marriage is over.

If marriage is treated as contract, people involved in a contract expect a consideration, necessarily a gainful consideration. People ask "what do I get from you, what you get from me, who amongst us benefitis more, is this a win-lose relationship, lose-win relationship, lose-lose relationship or win-win relationship?". When other options are there (because divorce option is always there), people get lured for "better" options, they get dissatisfied by what they have in hand. It becomes a materialistic bond between husband and wife, who see each other as parties to contract having expectations to fulfill from each other. Each of them become self-centric. "I have to get this", "you have to do this for me"....like thoughts pervade their minds because they always perceive each other as "you" and "I" rather than as "We". In a spiritual bond, couple is only concerned with "We". Whether it is happiness or sorrow, pleasure or pain, riches or poverty, we have to share with each other. Either both of us win or both of us lose or I lose you win. There is no question of I win you lose. But in a materialistic bond, people carry a tendency to always think of "I win you lose", because they are in a contract for "gainful" consideration. A manufacterer is a businessman by nature. If he makes a product for a cost of Rs.20/-, he will charge Rs.40/- for it from the buyer though including service cost, taxes, profit etc, it can be sold only for Rs.30/-. Because he wants to indulge in a "I win you lose" relationship with buyer. Similarly, in a contract of marriage, the parties involved carry the mindset of "I win you lose" which is typical of a businessman. They do not want to lose from the other. The reason - unlike a spiritual bond, in a materialistic bond, the spouses involved can perceive life without each other. There is life for me despite you, inspite of you...the spouse conveys to the other in a materialistic bond. In a spiritual bond, the spouse says to its life partner, "You are my life, you are my life-force, I have no life without you".

Trust is essential element in a marital relationship. Even in a family relationship. We always think, whether the other person is worthy of being trusted. Before that, we should ask ourselves, "are we capable of trusting".

Faith and religion are words synonymous because, the duty of Law is to ensure the self-centred rights of a human being vis-a-vis his/her own relatives are defended, and the duty of Religion is to test the human being's ability to trust, and force him/her to stand vulnerable and defenseless in the sea of troubles and adverse circumstances he/she faces in life. Hence law is materialistic and religion is spiritual. Religion no doubt exposes human being to the risk of facing difficulties, but as human beings win the test of religion, it immensely contributes to the general well-being of society. Don't we feel safe and secured if we have someone to trust without a pinch of doubt? That kind of emotional security human beings enjoy only when they stand the test of religion and learn to trust. The qualities required for it, is patience and perseverence. Stand exposed to the risk of losing. Stand defenseless. Spend till last rupee from your pocket is consumed by the ones that we have trusted. After that watch whether they can still ditch you. What is the point in losing everything, and see whether the other is going to ditch or not? It is wiser to not allow them to ditch you rather than getting into a position where you give them a choice to ditch. Yes. You can do that. If you are doing that, you are a materialistic person. You want to defend yourself from people around including your family members and wife. That means you don't trust them. That means you have an understanding that there is life for you, without them if you have control over your wealth. That means, you are not trustworthy. So the conclusion is, if you don't trust others, that does not mean, others are not trustworthy. It means you are not trustworthy. That is what is called in Advaita, "that which you see is yourself". Why do you want a family if you have desire to control them, exercise authority over them by having control over wealth?

Such feudal desires can be fulfilled even by employing people for respective services that you want them to do for you, including s*x. If you cannot trust family members and wife, why expect to be part of a family or marriage? If you cannot stand defenseless and trust, and stand for the test of religion, then you are unfit for both marital and family life.

Discussing philosophy,spirituality doesn't,t mean anything in reality. The reality is one is forced to deal with man made laws. The courts do not deal with Vedas,Ramayana, Mahabharata Upanishads,Puranas, quran,bible or whatever. They deal with laws passed by indian parliament. That is the reality. Others are only for intellectual thoughts. Living in dream world is ones prerogative.                                                                                                      In the whole of HMA there is no mention of any such thing. Also apart from seven steps as needed for marriage ceremony, nothing else is considered. The so called sacrament is out of the window when divorce was introduced. Still discussing sacrament, sacred, heaven etc is just ridiculous and not applicable. It is all good for lecturing-but that is it.                                                                                                                                                                          In the entire HMA there is no mention of responsibilities. How come? What is the responsibility of a wife? Does she have any responsibility?hindu scripttures have indeed given a comprehensive function of both husband and wife in this material and spiritual world. However those are not part of the law. In fact the vow taken by husband and wife can be treated as a verbal contract. If so can it be enforced.? Are wives and DIL following any of these.how can parliament make laws which excludes evaluating factors breaking down marriage?if marriage is treated as such and husbands are the ones suffering the consequences, why can't they protect themselves?

discussing philosophy is dangerous business as much as discussing religion.it is not an area to be treaded, in a forum such as this. 

Since marriage acts are woefully inadequate and ridiculous a thorough review of the entire law is needed. Every aspect must be discussed. All views elicited and thoroughly vetted. The haphazard manner it is being done shall be extremely detrimental to the society and country at large. It looks like woman's organization are puppeteering the government, parliament and the judiciary. I hope sanity prevails.

The above widely differing interpretations of the text of Vashishta shows how by creative interpretation the law developed in different parts of the country.

We may take another example. The son of a man from his legally wedded wife is called an ‘aurasa putra’. On the other hand, an adopted son is called a dattak putra. As regards the right of an auras putra, they are mentioned in various legal texts (the Smritis and the commentaries). On the other hand, there is no mention anywhere what would be the rights and duties of a dattak putra.

This legal vacuum was overcome by our ancient jurists by using one of the Mimansa principles of interpretation. It may be mentioned herein that the Mimansa principles of interpretation were the principles regularly used by our great jurists whenever they faced any difficulty in interpreting a legal text (because of ambiguity, conflict etc. therein). The books on Mimansa are all in Sanskrit, but there is a good book in English called ‘Mimansa Rules of Interpretation’ by Prof Kishori Lal Sarkar, which may be seen if one wishes to go deeper into the subject.

One of the Mimansa principles is called the atidesh principle, and this was used by our ancient Jurists to solve the problem of the rights and duties of a dattak putra. What is this atidesh principle? To explain this it may be mentioned that the rules for performing certain yagyas are given in religious books called the Brahmanas, e.g. Shatapath Brahmana, Aitareya Brahmana, etc.

The yagyas whose rules of performance are given in the Brahmanas are known as Prakriti yagyas. Thus, the Darshapaurnamas is a prakriti yagya, because the rules for its performance are given in the first chapter of the Shatapath Brahman. Similarly, the agnihotra is also a prakriti yagya, because its rules of performance are given in the second chapter of the Shatapath Brahman.

However, there were certain other yagyas whose rules of performance are not given anywhere e.g. the Saurya Yagya. Such yagyas are called Vikrit yagyas. How was a vikrit yagya to be performed ? For resolving this difficulty (in fact all the Mimansa principles were created for resolving the practical difficulties in performing the yagya) the atidesh principle was created. Atidesh really means going from the known to the unknown. Hence, it was held that a Vikrit yagya should be performed in accordance with the same rules as the Prakriti yagya of the same category. For instance, the Saurya yagya, which is a Vikrit yagya, belongs to the category of the Darshapaurnamas, which is a Prakriti yagya. Hence, the Saurya yagya has to be performed in accordance with the rules of the Darshapaurnamas.

Now, we may consider how the atidesh principle, which was created for religious purpose, began to be used in the field of law. As stated above, a son which a man has through his legally wedded wife is called an ‘aurasa putra’. His rights and duties are given in the smritis. But as regards a dattak putra (adopted son) his rights and duties are not given anywhere.

Hence the atidesh principle was used and it was said that legally a dattak putra stands on the same footing as an aurasa putra, and hence he has the same rights and duties. Thus, an adopted son is legally exactly like a natural son (except that his prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage are on both sides, his natural family as well as his adoptive family). In other words, the aurasa putra is treated as a prakriti yagya, while the dattak putra is treated as a vikrit yagya.

The atidesh principle will have even greater utility in modern times because since society in the modern age is fast changing often cases will come up before the Court where the law is silent (because the legislature cannot contemplate all the situations which will arise in the future).

I am not going into the further details about the ancient Hindu law principles which would require a great detailed analysis. It can be said in brief that Hindu law was not stagnant but underwent continuous development as society developed, and this development was aided by the creative thinking of our ancient Jurists.

That was part of speech delivered by Justice Markandeya Katju, Judge, Supreme Court of India.  Those who say, religion, morality and law are different from each other have not known anything about jurisprudence, one of the most essential elements of modern law.  Even the principles of natural justice, Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) and Nemo Judex in Causa sua (no one can be a judge in his own cause), which are basis for entire structure of CPC and Cr.PC where both sides are given reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, evolved from the Romans who believed that some legal principles were "natural" or self-evident and did not require a statutory basis.

These two basic legal safeguards govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they take quasi-judicial or judicial decisions.
 

Three common law rules are referred to in relation to natural justice or procedural fairness.

So my dear friend.  Do not think, modern law is created from vacuum.
 

The post of Mr. Chandrasekhar says the requirements of good marriage. I do not say whether he is right or wrong, because that is not the question here. The question here is whether a marriage is a contract. In a Muslim marriage the terms of the marriage are spelt out by the Kazi on behalf the bridegroom. The bride will be behind a curtain unseen by the bridegroom. After the Kazi spells out the terms the bride has to say ha!!. Then only the marriage will take place. Thus Muslim marriage is a contract.

In the case of catholics, marriage is a sacrament. Until the 16th century the whole of Europe was under the Pope in Rome. Afterwards various countries broke away from the Catholic Union for various reasons. King Henry VIII of England had several wives one after the other. He suspected each one of them of infidelity and beheaded them. Finally he decided to divorce his then wife and sought the permission of Church at Rome. The Pope refused permission saying it was unchristian. Then he broke away from the Catholic Church  founded the Anglican Church, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as the Head. Still it cannot be said that Anglican marriages were contracts.

Hindu marriages are sacraments. They are still so even after the Hindu Marriage Act came into force. In the case of a contract, the contract itself contains the terms of the Agreement.. After a contract is entered into the contract can be dissolved by mutual agreement. A Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved by mutual agreement only. An order from a court of law is necessary to dissolve the marriage. After the marriage certain laws have to be complied with. But that does not make a marriage a contract. Every citizen has to abide by the applicable laws of the land. But that would not make being born a contract.

I have a question here. A marriage can be dissolved if it was made on the basis of false statements by one of the parties. Horoscopes are matched in many cases before the marriage. If one of the parties had  produced a false horoscope for deciding a marriage, can the other party demand dissolution of the marriage?

Develop the faculties of jurisprudence

We must know how jurisprudence helps evolve a law that is not exploitative, oppressive and serves all sections of society, by example.  Earlier in the ancient times legislative power vested with Kings.  Kings were imparted with knowledge of Vedas, Upanishads and all forms of Hindu philosophy evolved by various authors like Manu, Yajnavalkya from time to time.  Practise of religion used influence their imaginative faculties and using such imaginative faculties they use to make “Sasanas” (legislations).  Without practice of religion, no one can improve the faculties jurisprudence, and without jurisprudence no one gets the ability to make legislation.  Jurisprudence is indispensable for legislative drafting.

For instance we had a debate about whether married woman should get maintenance from husband if she is educated.  You have argued, married woman should not get maintenance if she is educated. So how do you make it a law.  How do you draft the legislation?

Let us take a scale to measure the ability of jurisprudence from ordinary to excellent. One being ordinary, two being above average, three being good, four being very good, five being excellent.

A person of ordinary level of jurisprudence would say, “A married woman should not get maintenance on divorce from husband if she is educated.”.  For him the law ends there.  He does not think of other consequences.  A woman complains, I have no jobs freely available in the market so I need maintenance.  You need to take into account the problem of such women even if that is one woman.  So you insert a proviso for it to safeguard the interests of a woman, who does not get jobs even if she is educated.

That is done by person of average level of jurisprudence.  Law will look somewhat better if he legislates, like this:

“A married woman should not get maintenance on divorce from husband if she is educated.  Provided, where she is not capable of making a livelihood out of earnings made out of job that she gets through her education, she shall get maintenance.”  (with this the problem of defining education is solved, otherwise the question arises from women, “If you don’t define education, the men will argue, even a 10^th pass as an educated women and avoid paying maintenance on that pretext, on the other hand the 10^th pass cannot get any job on the basis of her education”.  With this proviso, you need not define education. 

So that safeguards the interests of woman who complained, jobs are not easy to get even if we are educated.  If there are people who blindly argue with that woman, “No! Women can get jobs …. they are lying, so they should not get maintenance at all”, then they are of 1^st and lowest category, in the scale of jurisprudence mentioned above.

Now there is a man who complains, though she is educated, and not getting a job, she has lots of parental property which can keep her in better social and financial status than she can be with her husband.  But being a husband I have to take care of my parents, but being a person of lower financial status than my wife, I want court to consider my request of not paying maintenance to my wife on divorce, because she is more than capable of maintaining herself, despite not having a job.  In other words, she is not dependent on husband.  She will get her parental property in view of amendments to Hindu Succession Act which gave rights to Hindu women at par with males to inherit the property of parents and ancestors. 

So there is someone there whose interests will be hurt if you leave the law as it is.  Now the job of a good (good means 3 on scale) jurisprudent is to design a law safeguarding interests of these men who have an obligation to look after old parents which they cannot do if they pay maintenance to a divorced/parted wife who is wealthy by virtue of her lineage to a rich family.  Not having a job does not affect her anyway.  So he will make a law like this. 

“A married woman should not get maintenance on divorce from husband if she is educated. 

Provided, where she is not capable of making a livelihood out of earnings made out of job that she gets through her education, she shall get maintenance.

Provided, where the married woman is inheriting the property of parents and ancestors, and where the parental home is providing better standard of living to her by virtue of their social status, than a husband could otherwise provide for, and where the husband has obligation to serve the genuine needs of parents whose needs he may not serve if he pays maintenance to his wife who has sufficient means to maintain a better stand of living than husband despite divorce/parting, the married woman is not eligible for maintenance. “

It safeguards the interests of both women and men now.  A good jurisprudent will take care of interests of every section of society, even if that is one or two. 

Now some men argued that unless a marital relationship proceeds for at least 5 or 6 years she shall not be made eligible for maintenance, otherwise, there might be some women who with an eye on maintenance would marry some man and divorce him within a month or two and claim maintenance.  It will become an alternative route to job and here they can sit pretty and earn without even working.

How do you take care of the interests of such men?

Now comes the jurisprudent of 4^th level, who will also take care of the interests of such men.  He will make a law like this. 

“A married woman should not get maintenance on divorce from husband if she is educated. 

Provided, where she is not capable of making a livelihood out of earnings made out of job that she gets through her education, she shall get maintenance.

Provided, where the married woman is inheriting the property of parents and ancestors, and where the parental home is providing better standard of living to her by virtue of their social status, than a husband could otherwise provide for, and where the husband has obligation to serve the genuine needs of parents whose needs he may not serve if he pays maintenance to his wife who has sufficient means to maintain a better stand of living than husband despite divorce/parting, the married woman is not eligible for maintenance.

Provided, where the married woman applies for contested divorce within a period of two years of marriage on any grounds mentioned in Sec.13 of HMA, if the allegations made in the contested divorce are found false or inadequate to entertain a claim of divorce by a competent court, and where husband is not willing to accept divorce such woman is not eligible for maintenance.

Now come the women, with an argument, he does not harass, he does not give any reason to apply for divorce at the same time, there is no compatibility in marital relationship and simultaneously it cannot be termed as cruelty to claim as a ground for divorce.  I don’t like to stay with him.  But if I don’t stay, I cannot maintain myself.  Neither he gives divorce and maintenance nor I am able to live with him in the same home.  He is so clever that he can prove all my allegations wrong in court and society but at the same time, drive me to the position where I myself have to apply for divorce and if I do so, I will not get maintenance because if divorce is moved from my side. I won’t get maintenance according to your latest proviso.

How do you safeguard her interests?

This is a case where husband will not behave cruelly, does not give any scope for contesting a divorce but cleverly pushes the woman to apply for divorce with a behavior of indifference which you cannot call cruelty by any stretch of imagination.  He enjoyed all pleasures with me and forcing me to leave him cheaply so that he marries another woman to satisfy his carnal pleasures because he is a womanizer.  He is using marriage as a tool to use and throw women.

Now come the fifth level jurisprudent, the Excellent Jurisprudent.  He will design the law like this.

“A married woman should not get maintenance on divorce from husband if she is educated. 

Provided, where she is not capable of making a livelihood out of earnings made out of job that she gets through her education, she shall get maintenance.

Provided, where the married woman is inheriting the property of parents and ancestors, and where the parental home is providing better standard of living to her by virtue of their social status, than a husband could otherwise provide for, and where the husband has obligation to serve the genuine needs of parents whose needs he may not serve if he pays maintenance to his wife who has sufficient means to maintain a better stand of living than husband despite divorce/parting, the married woman is not eligible for maintenance.

Provided, where the married woman applies for contested divorce within a period of two years of marriage on any grounds mentioned in Sec.13 of HMA, if the allegations made in the contested divorce are found false or inadequate to entertain a claim of divorce by a competent court, and where husband is not willing to accept divorce such woman is not eligible for maintenance.

Provided, where a married woman applies for contested divorce within a period of two years of marriage and where the married woman claims indifference and incompatibility as a reason for divorce, she shall get damages from husband instead of maintenance which is equal to 5 years of monthly maintenance amount which she is otherwise eligible if she had not been educated or not having sufficient means of livelihood irrespective of whether she has sufficient means of survival from parental home and/or properties inherited from parental home, along with divorce, if husband is also willing for divorce; or where husband is not willing for divorce, for a monthly maintenance irrespective of whether she is job-holder or having sufficient means of survival from parental home and properties inherited from parental home, along with order of judicial separation which shall remain in vogue for a period of two years, during which the husband is eligible to claim for divorce any period of time.  In such case, the damages paid shall be equal to 5 years of monthly maintenance less the maintenance already paid during period of judicial separation.

Provided where the wife, does not join conjugal life with husband, during two years of judicial separation as mentioned above, she is eligible for divorce and remaining amount of damages in the form of maintenance for subsequent three years. “

One may say every woman will go for this if law is made like this, why she will contest divorce on grounds of cruelty as per Proviso 3?  But you see, she will get maintenance amount for 5 years.  If the intention is to leave husband marry someone, the husband will try to ensure she does not succeed in her plans.  He will not agree for divorce.  In such case court awards Judicial separation.  Woman is a flirt, wants to make money and go away with someone, she cannot get divorce during the tenor of judicial separation.  So that is a demotivating factor for women wanting to exploit.  Another, a woman will not get it lifelong.  She will only get five years maintenance here. 

@M.P.S. Ramani.  Regarding your horoscope question, there is a provision in HMA (italicised para).

Sec.12 (1)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act

that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner 6[was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, 1978], (2 of 1978) the consent of such guardian was obtained by force 1[or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstances concerning the respondent];

-----The fact that the respondent's horoscope didn't match with that of plaintiff but it was made to believe otherwise 

-----The fact that the respondent concealed having been in debt of Rs.1.00 lac

-----The fact that the respondent concealed having an affair 5 years before marriage

------The fact that the respondent's grand father had been arrested by police in a corruption case

-----The fact that the respondent's brother is divorced

I don't think such facts can be such a serious factors for courts to consider as concealment but anyone of them can be pleaded as fact having the gravity to have caused the hurt to seek divorce.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Are-prenups-valid-in-india--57777.asp

 An interesting read that demonsttrtes the scholar Sir katju was. But the relevance of this is unclear. If it is to indicate religion is the basis of hindu law. I couldn't disagree more. The question arises where was the concept of divorce? If Hindu scripttures were the basis of hindu marriage act are the duties of husband and wife incorporated? I do not see any mention of that anywhere. The law does not reflect that either. Are hindu scripttures usd to deliver judgements?

How come english and american laws are quoted in Indian judgements of yore-when the fact is they advocate separation of church and state?

Laws have evolved and changed based on society. The current laws also will change based on society. It is good to have morality as the basis of law-otherwise it will be jungleraj and chaos. Even jungle have their own morality! 

 Jurisprudence is theory of law. It explains why a law is made-i.e the basis of law. That does not mean it is correct!

The basis of above law is: woman is abla naari, she is helpless.innocent, always good,infallible, dependent totally on man, cannot earn a living on her own, cannot behave or think as an adult.The man is an animal, full of carnal desires, irresponsible, manipulator, cheat, aggressive, cruel etc etc etc. I think such laws based on this kind of theory i.e jurisprudence, is obviously flawed.

The amendement that the cabinet recently cleared stems from same flawed theories as above.

 Although it seems like an improvement the above are seriously flawed.

The underlying basis of such theory is: How to protect a woman whether or not she is at fault. This is the crux of the [problem. Why should a woman who is at fault be 'protected'?

Let us take the scenario of educated but not working-Now this is couched cleverly that she must work in a job based on her education level.

1) Then the question is -is education essential for a job/ work? The answer is no! Why? There are millions of women who without education are working-as maids, as manual laborers, street sweepers, care givers, agricultural labourers, vendors etc etc etc. They make a living and are supporting themselves. They have self respect and expect to be respected. It proves education is not needed for earning a living!

2) Let us consider an educated woman-not working. Let us say she is a BSc in mathemetics. She cannot find a job and she is now divorced. Does that mean she should sit at home? How about studying further may be MSc/ BEd etc that may provide her with a job? Suppose she has received stridhan-which she will be getting with her divorce. Why can't she use the same to get education or skills in a field that will get her a job? How can she claim to be incapable? Should we all take her word that she can't work?

Such an educated idling woman is notoriously wasteful from a society's perspective. She has taken a seat from a male-who could have worked and contributed to society. She has consumed the resourses . Educating someone usually costs more to society , more than fees paid by candidates. So she by actually not working is hurting not only her husband but society as well.

Let us consider the situation where she has property more than that of husband. Why is the husband not eligible for a share in her property? Is it not equal-equal?

   Let us consider the scenario where husband files for divorce for wife's indifference/ incompatibility  :

 What should be done then? He should again pay the wife? He should pay for it either way whether it is his fault or not? How can that be justice?

This whole nonsense stems from the theory of jurisprudence that says men are bad, woman good! men cheat, woman are truth personified. The theory is false and the law based on such absurd theory is absurd itself!

Well adultery law in India also stems from same faulty jurisprudence!

If that was the case why then punish Nalini for killing shri Rajiv Gandhi and not let her off saying she was forced by a man-Prabhakaran? Why are so many women criminals punished?

The law must be based on sound theories-not on presumptions, assumptions and fantasies.

Hopefully the Parliament sees much more prudent debates rather than people outdoing one another as pro women. Hopefully laws are framed to punish guilty and protect innocents. Marriage laws punishes husbands irrespective of whether he is innocent or guilty!

 That means, that which is not understandable will get understandable when the time is ripe for understanding.  Whether the time is ripe for understanding or not depends on whether one is willing to understand is misunderstand or not prepared to understand at all. Those who can understand will understand, those who cannot understand will either not understand or misunderstand and claim to have understood that which is not understood. It would be a herculean task to tell someone who did not understand, you have not understood.  If everyone can understand things the same way, there would not be a difference between a Clerk and IAS officer.