Oh! this is not fair Roshni..don't discuss such topics..

Who said that woman has soft heart, dear author B ROSHAN donot be in dark, today husband less and woman more cheats, can u tell me what should a husband do if he catches his wife with another man naked.

so many men even keep silent but she thinks his silent is a symbol of her wish to fly away again. all men are not responsible as u said.

Because legislatures treat intelligence as ‘wife’ and love empowering her with rights, their unsatisfied imaginations as ‘mistress’ to nurture her as victim in the act and public memory as ‘husband’ servant subjecting only HIM to Rule of Law.

According to mosaic Laws of the land whose interpretation is the basis for your impromptu moral writing’s here vis-à-vis our (Asian) cultures family laws, ‘wife’ is an adulteress person given to her the very expansive freedom, which she hardly gets in Indian cultural context which you mean to imply as (treat her to be) abala victim!

That means she was married and having s*x with someone other than her husband = wife; similar to cost per impression as we say in economics of arrangements theory in practice.

If she would have been unmarried having s*x with a married man it would have been fornication = mistress; similar to cost per click as we say in economics of arrangements theory in practice

It doesn’t say that the man was married or unmarried but interestingly (ours true culturally) he was not condemned. Krishna is living illustration to this legislative sub-conscious fact. I believe this was a point that wasn’t lost on Legislatures as we have to assume that if she was “caught in the act” there was a man there who was helping her!. This is legally true that is why an adulterous wife is never condemned before Rule of Law. She is forgiven as thought to be / being in always ‘vulnerable’ position.  Forgiveness never means you excuse their sins. It means it is not held against them.

Similarly, you can have s*x with a married man and not be a slut. That is how much imagination for having a ‘mistress’ travels in realms of power (lower / upper House). You can be a slut and never have s*x with a married man (even your husband) !! It’s about the heart which we cannot know as Victorian era revisits is a long drawn process.

Hence, the bitter truth is both are pitted as being vulnerable thus right to sue cannot be given in equivocal natural justice principles especially to a ‘wife’ within current Indian legal framework.

Your rude threads reminds me of someone asking in internet “recommend me a shampoo which can straighten the hair”. I mean, only @ cookie can provoke and vet legal persons mind into such time pass arguments.

However apart from the quality of moralistic questionings here, you seem very angry with women who have had s*x with married men, yet, I don’t hear your righteous anger toward the ‘man’ who was in the act too !!


[You = generic expressed, except as is where is in the last para]

thats why i changed my name to mani-need-nuetral-laws. so disappointing when reading section 497 IPC which says men are abettor. so whether unmarried men pulls or pulled with another married women, it is always man is abettor.

When married man is in with unmarried woman, again it is man who is abettor. So in India only men likes s*x and women yields to it. This thought is why no law is framed  in holy india or holy bharat.

This one way indircetly undervaluing woman need, and inconsiderate that they also need biological requirement.  

US has given this option to a wife to sue husband's lover.why cant we have similar thing?after all we ape every law from the west.

Cynthia Shackelford (lt) successfully sued Anne Lundquist using an obscure 19th century adultery law

Mrs Shackelford took Miss Lundquist to court in Greensboro in North Carolina, one of seven states in America where the so-called "alienation of affection" law is still in force.

It evolved from common law under which women were classed as property of their husbands. As property, they were something that could be stolen. Both men and women are now able to sue under the law in North Carolina, Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah.

The size of the award to Mrs Shackelford, after a two-day hearing last week, was unprecedented.

The former teacher is now separated from her husband and works in a shop in Raleigh, North Carolina. She has two adult children from the marriage.

The jury awarded her $5 million (£3.3 million) compensation and also awarded $4 million (£2.7 million) in punitive damages to be paid by Miss Lundquist.

Mrs Shackelford said: "I was surprised. It was totally up to the jury to come up with that number."

Miss Lundquist had been dean of campus at Guilford College, a private school in North Carolina. According to Mrs Shackelford, her husband provided legal services for the school.

Miss Lundquist, who is now dean of students at Wells College, in Aurora, New York, did not attend the court hearing and said she had not even been told it was happening. She is appealing.

She said: "I'm so caught off guard by everything. I don't have a lot of money, so where this $9 million comes from is kind of hysterical."

In a message on the website of the Greensboro News and Record newspaper, Mr Shackelford said Miss Lundquist was not the cause of his marriage breakdown.

He said there had been "significant problems" in the marriage for years, and three attempts at counselling had failed.

Lee Rosen, of the Rosen Law Firm in North Carolina, said the state has around 200 "alienation of affection" claims a year.

He said: "If your spouse is going to cheat, you really would like them to cheat with somebody who has a lot of money."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7506789/Wifes-9m-victory-in-adultery-case-warns-mistresses-to-lay-off.html

Hence, the bitter truth is both are pitted as being vulnerable thus right to sue cannot be given in equivocal natural justice principles especially to a ‘wife’ within current Indian legal framework.

wah tajobs! wah !!

many members who always talks about gender biased laws in India always supports sec 497 IPC..why?????????

Originally posted by : Ranee.......
	Hence, the bitter truth is both are pitted as being vulnerable thus right to sue cannot be given in equivocal natural justice principles especially to a ‘wife’ within current Indian legal framework.

chachaji says this COZ unhe aisi females hee pasand aati hai.

@ Utpala aka Ranee

I suggest whenever you log on to LCI and have inane urge to say anything keep a English dictionary OPEN if your Petrol Pump Manager cannot afford to buy you Black’s Law Dictionary which is what we use in Courts.
Reasoning:
To above person let me help her by giving laymen’s definition / meaning of GENDER BIAS; Gender bias is basically the belief or attitude that one s*x is of higher power than the other s*x. Here in reference to subject matter by your female friend she is talking about one woman pitted against another woman and has no legal recourse availability, so your quote to me does not fit here and let me reproduce your quote for your own eye opener;

“ how come many members who always talks about gender biased laws in India always supports sec 497 IPC”.

Now do you want me to tell you what it meaning of “one s*x” and “other s*x” from above definition too? If so ask it I will let you know meaning of these two too in reference to context.

Originally posted by : Tajobsindia
	BTW I like here you two time pass ladies too. aur time pass karvau yaha tum dono ka kya .......

Please anything sensible,if you can...........

Rejoinder: On your above notes shared with readers let me remind a Igyan to you;

A week has 7 days – Right
Here in LCI Family Law forum there are 7 time pass ladies – Right

Now Newton's Third Law of Motion says what more time pass readers need for a whole week !

You 2 out of 7 time passing once here in your own created thread post are enough time pass for readers this weekend.

Cheer up lady now….and readers await for Monday….Tuesday……so on so forth…..

BTW I read about your fondness for ‘toys’ link beju kya!

[Last reply]

What is a time pass lady tajob?Can you elaborate please..

@ nina, u can see in india, there are many women passing time like u, instead of something good, she goes to club and disco with s*x  with boyfriend not husband, because of it is well known of law makers so they made  woman is not punishable in497. 

As the great indian guru 'CHANKYA' said-  'A woman eats double, and her courage is four times and s*x power is eight times more than a man''.

@ nina, u can see in india, there are many women passing time like u, instead of something good, she goes to club and disco with s*x  with boyfriend not husband, because of it is well known of law makers so they made  woman is not punishable in497. 

As the great indian guru 'CHANKYA' said-  'A woman eats double, and her courage is four times and s*x power is eight times more than a man''.