Is forceful intercource with wife an offence?

What a question Menkaji!

ha ha ha ...

Taj ji aapko kya ho gaya hain..?

"Making Law is not amusement."

"Usage of Law is also not amusement."

"Reading Law is not amusement. "

Interpreting Law is also not amusement.

'Finding THAT post among 41976 posts under Family Law Forum in LCI only for you as "proof" is also not amusement.'


'Saying I could not read / find THAT post among 41976 by joining this forum on 07-06-2011 and making this posts your very first post reply is also not amusement OR

'Flip saying that I was reading all posts from last 2 years but decided to join just today to actively participate is also not amusing. '

PS: The general time pass women writer (Utpala Kaur's) remark to me and two thumbs up to you a NEW MEMBER who joined just today which shows how genuine legal interest you have in your question asked to me :-)


I find both of your comments to me really amusing.

Hence thank goes to both of you having tried unsuccessfully to engage me.

Ta ra rum pum...... 

ha ha a...ha ahh a..ha ah a...

Mr. Tajjobs sir,

Sir please keep yourself cool.Anger is not good for health.I am sorry if I offended you.

I have read all posts of this website for many months.I learnt that you are a popular lawyer here with sound legal knowledge.So I am asking you.Please imagine for a second that a younger sister is asking questions from her big learned lawyer brother.Then you will understand my viewpoint.

In your above quoted paragraph you say yourself that staring at a wife is Domestic Violence as per DV Act.If you cannot find any such posts where a woman wanted to file case against her husband for staring at her and making her feel shy,no problem..Atleast you can produce the DV Act clause which states this,which you said above,ie,

"However if a husband even looks at his wife for more than 3 minutes then it is "s*xual abuse" as per Bharat Ratna DV Act"

@ My dear little darling sister gurudevi ji


Chi chi trying again little sister


Here read these two links which is from 41967 posts which you claims to have read from months together BTW I could not read 41967 posts till date inspite of being here from I think Sept. 2010 as Law is such a vast subject ha ha  

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/PWDVA-LAW-INTERPRETED-Part-I-21794.asp

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-PWDVA-LAW-INTERPRETED-PART-II-21815.asp#103411

And I am right when I caught you having Momos inspite of Doctors caution to you

OR “'Flip saying that I was reading all posts from last 2 years but decided to join just today to actively participate is also not amusing.”

ha ha

Your elder sister @ Hema was refined she said 2 years when she made her first post ha ha   


PS.: I am making amusement of Laws easier for you being turned into 14 hours post joining; Mr. / Sirji / Brother / Popular Lawyer here and what nots yet to come from a little angel from other side of GATE……... Ha ha gurudevi ji, we see daily such emotions, sentiments politics of frivolous / vexatious filings by wives in various Courts and here in LCI.


But believe me we need little sisters like you to keep us entertained.

Thank you lady.

As per IPC, husband is immune to come under the purview of 375IPC. Wife gives irrevocable consent to intercourse after her marriagr to her husband.

This is a very tricky question and dark area of law. Any new or amendment act/law brought in this regard would face heavy uproar as could be heard due to 498A, DV Act etc. The apathy of such laws, is that, those who desperately need them, are never able to avail them. But those, who never need them, always misuse them to make themselves rich.

First we should understand the meaning of rape before we could reach the conclusion, whether to make such law or not. In my view, the present definition of rape is so poor, that it does not clearly covers all situations. If the definition of rape could be corrected, then I personally do not have any objection in making such law as against husband.

Rape according to my observation and study could be defined as," An unwelcome intercouse (v**ginal or anal) with any person by another. Such an encounter when unevitable and the victim never had any chance to say no, though the victim made all genuine efforts to avoid it, would be rape".

I agree that above definition is incomplete with regard to penetration and technical aspects, however, I've winded-up the core of rape. Any woman when subjected to s*xual intercourse has clear mind, either to accept it willingly or to reject it wholly. The question is, did she allowed the s*xual intercourse willingly or was compelled to submit herself. The question is, whether, she had an option to say no. If she had an option to say no, but she herself willingly said yes and enjoyed, then she cannot be allowed to cry foul afterwards, as it's happening in cases of "promise of marriage" (where after enjoying s*x, female says she was raped).

//peace

/Saurabh.V

Similar is the cases if wives. They cannot be allowed to shed crocodiel tears on the name of being female. In a civilized society, where maximum population is magnetized to the towns and metropolitan cities, no female could be compelled for intercouse. However certainly the situation would be different in villages or remote places.

This is where my definition covers all aspects and situation. When the female had an option to say no but she herself enjoys it, then she cannot be allowed to blackmail the male by the way of legal consequences.

//peace

/Saurabh.V

@ My dear little darling sister gurudevi ji

here is screenshot of your visit to my profile in last 14 hours after joing LCI for the first time and yet honoring me as .I learnt that you are a popular lawyer here

@Tajobsindia

I am asking you about the clause in DV Act that says that staring at wife for more than 3 minutes is cruelty.But you are talking of other things like screenshots and interpretations of law.Even in these interpretaions I cannot find a single sentence that talks of 3 minutes of staring.If it is there,can you copy and paste it here?

If you don't have it,It is okay tajobsindia.I do not want you to get stressed over it.

Tajobsindia I cannot see my name in your screenshot recent visitors list.Where is it?

@Menka & @Tajobsindia

I request you both to act matured and maintain the degree of professionalim. Charging each other for any issue is not the purpose of this forum. We are here to advice and assit those in distress and those need help and not to fight amongst each other and try to prove our worth.

//peace

/Saurabh.V

Saurabh

Please don't misunderstand me.I was only curious to know which clause says staring for more than 3 minutes is a crime.I did not charge him at all.I talked very coolly.

But Tajobsindia did not show me the exact the clause.He started talking of other things.

I think Tajobsindia talked about that clause just like that to make LCI laugh.Therefore he is not showing it.In his real life also he must be making people laugh with his gimmicks.

Bye

Tajobsindia.

That is alright if you don't have the clause.Sabke paas sab kuch nahi hota jab pucha jaata hai.

So please don't get stressed.No one at LCI will make fun of you.Have a good day

The basic question ends in some arguements

My most humble pleading to all respected members is, to stay united as a community to fight against unequality, crime and injustice.

@Tajobsindia,

@Menka has reasonabaly brought the facts to surface and seems you are satiated by her comment and also convinced by mine.

Lets be united and be more strong than be divided and weak.

//peace

/Saurabh.V

CRUELTY