you corrected me it is FREUD.
Power of negative is immense.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 16 December 2011
you corrected me it is FREUD.
Power of negative is immense.
Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate) 16 December 2011
"My whole effort is to make people spend less and less time in courts and more and more time in doing things they enjoy."
I appreciate your noble thought Mr. Shonee. I wish also the same and most importantly in the family matters, I always wish that the parties disputes shall not spill over to lawyers, police and courts. People should always put best efforts to keep away themseves from police, lawyers and courts.
But I also observe that except in tax matters and corporate litigation, I see only the weaker party approaches the court as they feel that the right is MIGHT and to enforce their might there is no other way except to invoke judicial process, where as in fact, in the society, the respondents (with exceptions) are really mighty persons (even though they are abusers of law) and have the least respect towards the law. If it is a dispute between the tenant and landlord, who ever is weaker, approaches the court first. In motor accident cases, workers compensation cases, accidents just like Bhopal Gas tragedy or Upahar tragedy, the victims are weaker and so seek the indulgence of court. I do not think you have any difference of opinion to this extent.
Here, we may differ. As the wife is the weaker party she seeks the indulgence of court through DV Act or Section 498-A. The husband in patriarchial system being mighty in real terms need not to resort to court to ascertain his rights. So, in MOST OF THE CASES, it is majboori for the wife to resort to law as she cannot enjoy her rights supposedly provided to her by the society.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 16 December 2011
Not necessarily true.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 16 December 2011
Master psycologist of twentieth century.