Forget about freedom: SC to husbands

Justice Katju had said: “If men want to rule their life then they should always be on the right side of their wife. Otherwise, a defiant husband’s life would be ruled by others.”  He has mentioned nothing surprising, by others he means the mother or sisters of husband. So choice is his, by whom he wants to be ruled. Same is true for the girl, if she does not allow her husband to rule her, she will play in hands of others and be ruled by her parents, relatives etc. So why not happpily rule and pleasently each other and enjoy life?  Were is the problem?

"From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.  Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.  When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.  So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.  From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all."  Guru Nanak, Raag Aasaa Mehal 1, Page 473

GURU NANAK JI HAD NOT SEEN FAKE 498A WOMEN

Is right to life and liberty of husbands guaranteed u/a 21 of the constitution is scrapped by SC?

IT IS UNder pretext of 51e and 243 G (eleventh schedule so called 20 sutri karyakram of congress) And 15(3) power of State to make special provision for—backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
women and children that these laws were created to be misused by progressive urban women. in villages women are still maltreated and in urban areas women legally rape men thru these biased laws. there need to be a borderline where these laws shud be applicable.

 b4 marriage ,if men keep scrutinizing girls' families b4 before marriage to know if they will host the marriage in a baraat ghar or in a hotel,in a temple or in a farmhouse,in a banquet hall or in a tent,,men will end up marrying wrong women

if while finding a suitable match for themselves, men give priority to extreme beauty and fairness in a girl,they will end up marrying wrong women 

if while finding a suitable match for themselves, men allow their parents to scrutinize how good dowry her parents can give, ,they will end up marrying wrong women 

on the other hand,if they look for good qualities ONLY instead of her financial status,they will be saved from harassment of cunning women whom they ended up marrying.....

they shud verify before marriage the girl's character,her nature,her family members' nature etc....thru neighbours,workplace of her/her family members,etc instead of screening and finally interacting with only those girls  b4 marriage who have a good financial standing

Look at the matrimonial ads for seeking brides.........u will know that grooms use statements like want girl from status family,similar status family(if groom is rich),decent marriage expected, only families of v.fair and extremely beautiful girls may respond,etc,etc, etc....

at the time of screening girls b4 marriage,they make a big mistake of leaving out all those girls who have real attributes just becoz they may be orphaned,whose father is no more,who use statements like DOWRY SEEKERS EXCUSE OR SIMPLE MARRIAGE).... becoz they are unable to host a good marriage.

And in the end they are left with very few choices and end up marrying a wrong person who may act too smart becoz she paid a hefty dowry(here i m not saying that all gals who give good dowry misbehave)

.

they shud remember all that glttiers is not gold........... foolishness ends up in misery........

dats y our elders have always focussed on sansakaari family while choosing a match.....but we  no more pay heed to such sacred advice now...as we want booty alongwith the bride

PERIOD

our only consideration shud be:

girl's education

girl's profession(if the boy desires so)

her attributes & temparament

family's moral values.

matching of kundlis by a GOOD astrologer(kundlis give a v.good idea about the prospective spouse's temperament..........whether u believe or not,provided u have appointed an expert astrologer for the same)

PS.-I'm also a woman,so obviously i m not saying all women are cunning....my advice is only that only the girls's qualities shud be main consideration

The breed of jogeshwar, who are talking about Article 21 have forgotten those human rights available to wife when she enters into the matrimonial home.  Recently an  advertisement is coming on T.V.  When brother in law, a small boy runs behind the car which is carrying his jijju and didi,  worrying about his sister's safety.  When jijju shows his baritone voice by daunting brother-in-law saying - "Khulke bole Chotu".  The boy eats some chocolate and changes as the famous vijender singh, the boxer and showing his gloves, says - "Jijju, dil pe hat rakh ke, muh pe smile chipkake bol - didi ko khush rakhega".  The sister smiles cheerfully and says "Aate rehna bhayya".  That advertisement shows real picture of the plight of women in matrimonial home.  Every errant husband needs Vijender Singh type of brother -in- law to keep them in track and to understand human rights.

Is right to life and liberty of husbands guaranteed u/a 21 of the constitution is scrapped by SC?

WHY NOT ?

right to life and liberty of husbands guaranteed u/a 21, COI.

MS. HEMA,

SURPRISING, HERE ALSO YOU ATTACKED MR JOGESHWAR!

THIS IS NOT AN ENTERTAINMENT CHANNEL. DISCUSSION ON A TV SERIAL OR ADVERTISEMENT SHOULD BE AVOIDED HERE.

QUITE UNNECESSARILY SOME MEMBERS DISTURBING THIS FAMILY LAW SECTION. BETTER POSTING YOUR MATTER IN 'OTHERS' SECTION.

@arup

I was reading the forum postings of all forums including the family law forum.  this was the most polluted forum.  this is the forum where women are degarded, abused and heckled.  read the civil law forum positings and criminal law forum postings.  advocates and legal law experts give replies there.  there every thing and every one is courteous.  here, every quack is giving replies abusing women.  one year back, several advocates were replying to the questions in legal manner on this forum.  now, only two or three advocates are answering the questions. only copy paste people like you left in this forum. 

Miss Hema FYI lawyers or people who are in law use to do the copy and paste not the general public. General public only writes those things which come from there heart and they are practically experienced persons.

Charanpreet Hora, in another thread you were claiming that all women are "chalu" and on other hand you claim youself to believe in God. When you are claiming all women to be "chalu" creatures, you are also including your mother, sister and daughter. You should unconditionally apolize on this forum and refrain from such sweeping, obnoxious statements. Read the following and learn some sense:

"From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.  Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.  When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.  So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.  From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all."  Guru Nanak, Raag Aasaa Mehal 1, Page 473

Avinash Kaur, the above quote is a fact of life, whether 498A is there or not, the facts mentioned in quote cannot be erased.

TO MR DEMOCRATIC UNION,

"From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married.  Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.  When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.  So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.  From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all."  Guru Nanak, Raag Aasaa Mehal 1, Page 473

- AFTER SALUTING GURU NANAK, I WANT TO ADD THE FOLLOWING:-

EVERY SUCCESSFULL CONCEIVE, NOT ONLY A WOMAN, A MAN IS ALSO EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE.

MAN IS ALSO EQUALLY HONOUEABLE AS THE WOMAN IS.

THERE IS A TREND THAT POSTING  THE ANTI MALE PROPAGONDA, & POSIONOUS MATERIAL, IN THIS FAMILY SECTION IS BECOMING A REGULAR BUSINESS OF A GROUP. THEY SHOULD NOT THINK THAT, THEY ARE OUT OF REACH OF THE LAW.

You have highlighted a very important aspect. Those women who do not have backing of "muscle power" they are abused. Human rights are not only for husbands and their parents. I illustrate for all with the following TRUE incident:

An Army officer had divorced a girl. His mother had told the parents of another(girl for second marriage) that previous wife of her son was abusive, cruel etc. etc. and also started crying to evoke sympathy(came to know now these are all lies). Reality is that all that was wanted is a house maid with the "label" of wife and large dowry. Physcological abuse of domination started from day one. The girl in second marriage is well educated. Parents of girl agreed to marry her to Army officer thinking that he might have learned something from mistakes of his previous marriage and would not compel for dowry etc., but things are just oppossite. He is highly manipulative,abusive and violent, playing in the hands of his mother and sisters. He has no love for his daughter from second marriage. All that he does is domineering, even his daughter is terrified by his presence. Instead oblique comments are made to girl by his mother for giving birth to a girl child. He beomes violent like a mad man, sometimes his wife has to run for safety and hide in neighbors house. What I have written here is just the tip of the iceberg of the actual situation suffered by the girl in question. And a fact to be noted is that even though advised by all to file 498A the girl is refusing to file 498A with hope of saving marriage.

If would appeal to all those reading this to think again about reality on ground level. Thing about the situation that girls have to go through. Just because some girls are misusing does not change the hard reality and requirement of laws. Just writting on this forum or internet is not going to help. If any womens organisation wants to make a representation about the hard reality on ground level to Law Commission, National Commision for Women, MPs to make laws detterant enough to discourage these things happening in society, I will also accompany them. They can PM me.

@ MS HEMA,

I NOTED YOUR  COMMENTS.

I ALREADY REPLIED YOU IN A DIFFRENT THREAD HOPE YOU ALREADY SEEN IT.

JUST CHECK WHERE I ADVISED AS QUACK AND POST IT.

IT IS A CHALLANGE TO YOU.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU ARE NOT A LAW PERSON.

YOUR REPLIES  I NOTED,

IT IS FULL OF THREATNING. & NO LEGAL ADVICE IS THERE  - WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER,THOUGH YOU DEMAND YOURSELF AS A LAW OFFICER.