Mr. Arup,first this Rakhi Sawant is just a daughter of media.She no good for society in any way.

If she has supported the statement written here by you,then she is supporting something very biased.

Indian laws are favouring women too much ,must be amended shortly.

just now i heared this in tv. indid tv. rajat sharma.

her complain was against media.

must be amended shortly. - thanks.

@ Arup ji,

What she means is that Marriage is a "CONTRACT" and when a empowered women says so then you should not be making mockery of her stature. Young teens watching her on TV skipping dinner have now grown up to become empowered marriageable age ladies respectively so do not take such comments lightly on how socity transists. She actually means it 100% and I agree that marriage is a CONTRACT TODAY. 

@ Arun ji,

Marriage is a "CONTRACT"!

It can not be a contract. Components of contract are diffrent. If you want to compare it with contract, then better to say, 'Marriage is a MOU, rather than contract.

she did not tell it in diffrent sense ie Marriage is a contract and according to that contract - your money ....

@ Sh Arup ji,

In a "contract" where money is one of the party to it does not it become a "contract" instead of generic meaning you are rebutting to my point about? Sir, I am doign a healthy discussion so pay less attention to some of my usage of words here and there and let us see where these discussion leads to afterall !


Scenario 1:
A women is basic educated. She is able bodied. She is eligible for marriage. She is ideating at her home before marriage. She is married off. Husband works and draws money from his job. He brings bread and butter and also gives money to upkeep his wife. So your (husband) money is my (wife) money and this money is her money is right if we see the sequence of supply chain. So what Rakhi says is quite right. Moreover this money that she piggy gets from income of husband may have different usage which is not explained further to cloud once judgment further.


Now suppose, the husband stops this supply chain for whatever reasons then will not the ideal wife ask her money ? Yes, she will ! Is there any contract here, yes there is, How? She looked after the home when husband working so she has contracted her ideal time to rear the home and now since husband has stopped bringing that money supply cahin so it has become a house not a home. This is where the wife money comes into picture which many readers tried to explain in their own judgment ways. So marriage is a contract (unspoken by educated persons) and can very well be put under "contract" heading.


Scenario 2:  
A women is basic educated. She is able bodied. She is eligible for marriage. She is ideating at her home before marriage. She is married off. She picks up a job after marriage. Here Husband also works and draws money from his job. He is given primary responsibility (majority share) to bring bread and butter and gives part of his money to upkeep his wife too inspite of she working and drawing a income out of her job. So your (husband) money is my (wife) money and this money is her money is also there in this scenario, is it not !. So what Rakhi says is again quite right in this second scenario too. Moreover this money that she blung from income of husband inspite of her drawing a seperate income may have different usage which is not explained further to cloud once judgment further.
 

Now suppose in this scenario, the husband stops this supply chain for whatever reasons then will not the still in job wife ask her money (it is seperate discussion why she should ask et al)? Yes, she will ask ! Is there any contract here, yes there is, How? She looked after the home when husband working so she has contracted her shifts (balanced between job and home) time to rear the home and now since husband has stopped bringing that money supply chain so it has become a house not a home. This is where agsin the wife money comes into picture which many readers tried to explain in their own judgmental ways. So marriage is a contract (unspoken) and can very well be put under "contract" heading.


You give same scenarios for readers also to understand what exactly you are trying to discuss and matters between readers become clearer at the end of the board say......

Hello,

I totally agree with Arup Kumar. If wife have the right to the property of husband and money.

So now the society is equal so what should the money of wife be ? There should be a law where the money and property of wife have equal rite to both.

Also .. wife is also part of the family so her money is also part of the family. Equal rite must be there. As the society changes the laws must also change. 

Sh. Arup ji,

I am preety sure you have put me on your 'watch list" after I made above comments so here are some inputs to understand the true (hidden) meaning of a "libertarian" like Rakhi the fox !

Her contrary take on National TV has a libertarian justification in the background: Marriage is a contract among mutually consenting adults is what she hints at. For illustration, she treating marriage as a combination of a free association of consenting individuals and an institution licensed by the State. You will agree when I say "Registration of Marriage" has been made compulsory by State ! Why, State should interfere in a association of free individuals ? So is it not that the essence of such association lost other than be called henceforth as "contract" in between two indiviuals?. Here one individual brings in money and that money reaches supply chain to logical receipient that is a wife who is in another part a second party to such contract whereas the initiator here of first part is the husband himself (a contract).

Flip above frekonomics and read between the paradox which evaporates when we realize that the "dissolution of marriage" breaks the family into successively smaller units that are less able to "sustain themselves" without State assistance (see money comes again when State comes into picture). See here again the State role comes into free union of two individuals ! Why ? should State intervene when two individuals did the marriage State was silent but just after marriage State says Register yoru marriage, what far man? Who is the spoilsport here the watchdog called State is it not so!

People instinctively create marriage, both as couples and as a culture, without any support from the Government whatsoever. I hope you agree this much from above para !.

Flop the above and see from retrospective angle, the s*xual urge is an engine of human sociability. You agree ! Our desire for s*xual satisfaction draws us out of our natural self - centeredness and into connection with other people. Tell me is it not the divine truth of marriage be it Indian context or firang context ?

Just as the desire to make money induces business owners to try to please their customers (contract), so too, the desire to copulate induces men to try to please women (see contract), and women too try to attract men (see proprtionate residual contract theory comes here too in gender arena). So you see my justification here is how libertarian thoughts pervades the idealistic social fabric such as prevalent in India centruries upon centuries to bring it into the fold of "contract" if it is not so then why bring or speak only of "money" in a marriage? Is it the most important necessaist to continue a marriage (contract) or break the marriage (contract) ? I say NO but since State sponsered such two individuals union (Regsitration of Marriage) which is nothign but a "State contract" then at the time of breakage the same "State" plays its role as protector of marriage (that is contract - read my other paradox on Protector and Preserver title in Family Law forum posts).

The couple argues through the court system over how much he should pay (see role of money comes again). The woman wants him to pay more than he wants to pay (is it not true the entire bhajan mandali got reducled on this count only till recently ha aha). The court ultimately orders him to pay a particular amount (see role of contract comes again - Execution petition is what other than a contract of Judgment debtor with Judgment creditior is it not so !). He insists on continuing visitation rights with his child (natural labor instincts). She resists (again natural instincts like a pawn shop deal - contract) . They argue in court and finally settle on a periodic visitation schedule to which he is entitled (contract). Here the court orders maint. for child (see money honey comes again and who is receipient - wife man)

Carrying on from above the agreement works smoothly at first. Then the parents quarrel. At visitation time, the mother is not cooperating. He files a nasty Contempt of court order application. They quarrel some more. She says his behavior is not appropriate. He smokes (see money comes again bze she is bound to quantify his smoking) too much and overindulges the child in sweets (see money comes again bze she here again quantifyes his love and affection into clubsoda of money). She says the child, who is now a toddler, is impossible to deal with after visits (see money comes again  bze if she says previously that he overindulges child which she is not able to cope with bze she is minus money to provide the same standards). He quits paying child support (see money comes again). The court (State) garnishes his wages to force him to pay (see money comes again). He goes to court to try to get his visitation agreement honored (courts aks him to pay the arrears - money comes again). The court appoints a mediator to help the couple work out a solution. The mother announces that she plans to move out of State (see hint of money comes again why bze she takes a plea that better job opportunity for her in another State - see my post on an Indian mother who took child from SC to Australia in the name of that she has enrolled into higher education and she openly said to SC that she does not have a job there but hopeful - again money comes here Sir). He goes to court and gets a temporary order to restrain her from moving. She invents a charge of child abuse and gets a restraining order forbidding him from seeing the child (money he has but honey is not in fit stage to even consider this offer of money rama bze she is waiting for clarity on figures of money she can take now under change of circumstances form him - see again money comes).



Now you may think this is the best mere husband and wife can do and what is so unique and where all these leading to !. You may also think this contentiousness is the necessary price people pay for their adult independence (see money comes again). You and me and other readers may blame the mother or the father or both with our umpteen remarks. Or perhaps you think this is a nightmare for both adults as well as for children. But on one point we can all will agree down some stage of counter productive arguments upon arguments i.e: This is not a libertarian society we wishh to live in ! That is where Rakhi Sawant types of "liberatians" pitch in their rationale and housewife women watching the sitcoms gets the inspiration (see money comes again).

Further to above you probably will agree that pleaders of the State actively inquire into (ld. Advocates fraternity), pass judgments upon and intervene in the most intimate details of these sorts of couple’s life (see money comes again - who pays for the upkeep of a pleader it is the husband man as wife says give me State Pleader at tax payers cost!). Or we might view the entire existence of the court system as an outrageous subsidy to couples, paid by the rest of society (see money comes again - bl**dy tax payers money is used to fight 98% false S. 498a IPC complaint cases see my other news post on it under Taxation Forum in LCI). When the woman asks for the state’s help in collecting child support (see money comes again), the state provides this service at no charge to her (see money comes again). When she makes a charge of child abuse, the State keeps the man away from her and her child (State reasons that you have not met her "demand" for money) . If the charge is proven to be unfounded or frivolous, the State does not require her to pay compensation for its expenses or the man for his losses 9see again word money comes into picture).
 

Now count the "money honey" word in above large piece of write-up and still you say marriage is not a "contract" as hinted by liberatian like Rakhi, common Sh. Arup ji  you and mee shoudl read between lines !



However do throw in large pieceof logics to agree or disagree on above take as and when it pleases you or keep me on watch list anyhow I am under so many folks watch list ha ha................

"As the society changes the laws must also change." - exactly.

I want to say it exactly this line. 

Why only money? when they want to suck all the blood out from their husband and they will say that it is their birth rights.

i think that ............

it is not INDIAN culture.

it is....................

agriculture.

@Mr. Sarvesh K Sharma and @ Mr. Assumi

For a Ld. Advocate it is not at all becoming to reply to a well written write up by Mr. Arun Kumar( It does not mean I am in agreement with all that is said there) minus obvious derogatory language which is typically used by many here For example another advocate just before you have called wives suckers. So Mr. Assumi I assume you do not  take cases for these women who you have called suckers, or you use language like this in the court  while taking up cases for men? and Mr. Sarvesh What exactly do you mean by Culture being agriculture. Or is it  a mindlless effort for a silly rhyme where you redicule agriculture and those millions engaged in it?

And someone said so now we have reached equality!! Men declare we have reached equality and Lo! it becomes a gender equal society like we declare there is no caste discrimination because the constituion of India has declared no discrimination on the basis of caste, and the caste discrimination is over! How very simple!!

Renuka Madam, you have not repond the real issue: Your money is mine but mine is mine: That means you concurred with that right? But I dont blame you as women tend to see only red.

@ RG

Can readers such as me for instance have your specific take on title of this post instead of deviating the paradigm shift !

It is not deviating the issue or bringing in paradigm shift. The deviations was initiated by our Ld. Advocates. 

So please opine first on their shift. Yeah opinion would come but not necessarily after reading the post. Should we women remain so cheap that anyone feel free to call us suckers, commercial s*x workers, prostitutes, vampires, witches..? And we should remain silent? This in a way would be taken up in my reply to your posting and would be embedded in the context also, don't worry.

And Mr. Assumi, I keep my councel and don't get provoked by the reply  such as the one you have written. So forget it, it needs a level of maturity to understand a simple thing which I wrote and which you did not bother to read and understand.