(Guest)

Why women can be included in PWDVA complaint ?

Title: Why women can be included in PWDVA complaint ? According to madurai bench of Madras HC.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28/04/2009

CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAHCrl.
O.P.(MD) No.11066 of 2008andM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009

1.K.Kamala
2.K.Pasungili
3.C.Vasantharaja ... Petitioners

Vs.

1.M.Parimala
2.The District Social Welfare Office cum The District Dowry Prohibition Officer, Dindigul. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedurepraying to call for the records relating to the impugned order in C.C.No.465 of2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, and toquash the same. !For Petitioners ... Mr.Veera Kathiravan^For Respondents ... Mr.R.R.Kannan for R1 Mr.L.Murugan for R2 Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side):

ORDER: This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the cognizance order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, inC.C.No.465 of 2008 as illegal and abuse of process of law and misuse of provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The first petitioner is the mother-in-law, the second petitioner is thesister-in-law and the third petitioner is the husband of the sister-in-law ofthe first respondent. The first respondent preferred a complaint against thepetitioners under the said Act. The allegation against the first petitioner/mother- in-law is that she wrote a letter to the Secretary, L.I.C.Employees Association, Dindigul, where the first respondent is working and asecond letter to the Public Relation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-IV,Commercial Tax Office, Dindigul, where the first respondent's husband is working, with some allegations against the petitioner, under the guise of seeking for certain informations. The only allegation as against the petitioners 2 and 3 is that the 2nd petitioner/sister- in-law had written complaint where the first petitioner/mother- in-law had put her signature.

Further, on 09.05.2008 the petitioners 2 and 3 were attacked the first respondent and based on which, a complaint has been given and based on thecomplaint a case has been registered in 128 of 2008 which is pending on the fileof the Police.

Further, the first respondent claimed compensation of Rs.10lakhs under the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate concerned has also taken cognizance of the same, as if the complainant is entitled for compensation. The offence said to have committed by the petitioners are under Sections 18, 20,21, 22 and 23 of the Act. Based on the complaint, the 2nd respondent has forwarded it to the trial court for prosecution and a criminal case was registered in C.C.No.465 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Dindigul and they were arrayed as respondents/ accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul has taken cognizance and issued summons in the said complaint. Challenging the same, the petitioners have come forward with the present Criminal Original Petition for the relief as stated supra.

3. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.R.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the secondrespondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argumentthat the petition given by the first respondent against the petitioners herein,who are the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of the sister-in-law of thefirst respondent, was without any verification to be submitted by the protectionOfficer before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and the same was taken cognizance and summons were issued in contravention of the provisions ofthe Act and therefore, the order of cognizance passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Dindigul, in C.C.No.465 of 2008 has to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit in hisargument that the first respondent's husband was not included as respondent andtherefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are liable to be proceeded under the provisions of the said Act. The said inclusion of female members, asthe relatives of the husband, as respondents, is not sustainable under Section2(q) of the Act. He would further submit that the allegations said to have been made against the petitioners in Form-I under the Act, are not adequate, to take cognizance and on the face of it, the offence against the petitioners pertaining to the 3 days' cause of action viz., 26.04.2008, 30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 are not sustainable and admittedly, on 09.05.2008, a complaint has been alreadylodged before the Police, North Police Station, Dindgul Town, Dindigul, and thePolice have also given the receipt in C.S.R.No.128 of 2008. Now, the very samecause of action, has been repeated here and it would amount to 'double jeopardy'against the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that the allegations as against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners in the said complaint would be that they helped the first petitioner to write the petition against the first respondent on 26.04.2008 and another petition against the husband of the first respondent on 30.04.2008 to their respective offices. He would state that no material has been produced for the purpose of incriminating the 2nd and 3rd petitioners andmerely because they are living with the first petitioner, it cannot be said thatthey have instigated the first petitioner to write so.

Moreover, he would alsosubmit that the dispute between the first petitioner and her son namely, thehusband of the first respondent and another younger son, in respect of theproperty, bequeathed by her husband in her favour for enjoying the property tillher lifetime and the vested remainder to the sons. The first petitioner is inpossession of the said property, situated in Salem, in pursuance of her lifeinterest, the first respondent wanted her to get out of the property and immediately she caused disturbances by harassing the first petitioner by givingthis complaint. He would further submit that the allegations in the letterdated 26.04.2008, written by the first petitioner to the Secretary, L.I.C.Employees Association might not have been disclosed to the first respondent forwarranting a cause of action. For this, an enquiry has to be conducted by theL.I.C. Employees Association, where the first respondent is working andtherefore, there could not be any mental stress or domestic violence as told bythe first respondent in the petition.

7. He would further submit that the letter dated 30.04.2008 written by thefirst petitioner seeking for information about the particulars of the employmentof her son from his employer, and her son was not in any way prejudiced by thefirst petitioner and absolutely there was no cause of action for the aggrievedperson. If any stress is emanating out of the letter dated 30.04.2008, it wouldbe the first petitioner's son and the second cause of action is also notsustainable both in law and on facts. Without following of the legal formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, has taken the complaint on file, which has to be quashed.

8. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit in hisargument that after taking cognizance of the complaint, about 39 hearings havepassed and the petitioners have appeared for 5 hearings only and now, they havecome forward with this case at the belated stage only. He would further submitthat the petitioners are certainly attracted under the definition of 'domesticrelationship' as per Section 2(f) of the said Act and the first respondent isentitled to give such a complaint against the petitioners, who are defined as'respondents' , as per Section 2(q) of the said Act and this petition has beenfiled only for prolonging the case so as to defeat the provisions of Section12(5) of the Act, regarding the disposal of the case made under Sub-Section (1)within a period of 60 days from the date of taking cognizance. Therefore, herequests the Court to dismiss the petition as not sustainable.

9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would reiterate theargument of the first respondent and he would also submit that the ProtectionOfficer has promptly filed the application in time and it has been takencognizance and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Dindigul in taking cognizance of the case and therefore, thepetition may be dismissed.

10. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side.

11. The foremost contention of the petitioners would be that theimplication of the petitioners, as respondents in C.C.No.465 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, cannot be sustained as female relatives of the husband are not attracted under the definition of therespondents under Section 2(q) of the said Act. For the better understanding themeaning of the term 'respondent' , we have to extract the said provision itself.Section 2(q) runs as follows:"(q)"respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domesticrelationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person hassought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;"

12. According to the main part of the said Section, the respondent in anycase means any adult male person who must be in a domestic relationship with theaggrieved person. However, the proviso to Section 2(q) of the said Act, wouldgo to show that an aggrieved wife or a female partner may also file a complaint against a relative of husband or male partner. Whether the term 'a relative'will spread its ambit to attract the petitioners, who are the female relatives of the husband, is a question to be decided. No doubt, the first petitioner is the mother and the second petitioner is the sister and the 3rd petitioner is thebother-in-law of the husband of the first respondent. Therefore, a relative ina 'domestic relationship' , shall be the 'respondent' in a case. The definitionof domestic relationship under Section 2(f) runs as follows:"(f)"domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;"

13. According to the said Section, two persons should live at any point oftime together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity,marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or asmembers of the joint family. This domestic relationship qualification is given to a relative member of her husband, to be impleaded as 'respondent' . Accordingto the petitioners they are not attracted by the said provisions.The insistence of the learned counsel for the petitioners would be that when the term 'respondent' is defined with a qualification as to be an adult male person inthe Section, the reference "a relative" should also be a male relative of thehusband or male partner and therefore, the case against the 1st and 2ndpetitioners, who are the female members, cannot be sustained. For the purpose of determining as to whether a female relative of the husband cannot be arespondent in view of the mentioning of any adult male person in the Section,and therefore it would also apply to the proviso of 2(q), we have to necessarily to apply our mind to find the intention of the legislation, from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for enactment of this Act. In the sub Section(i) of the 4th paragraph of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it has beencategorically mentioned as follows:"4.The Bill, Inter alia, seeks to provide for the following:

(i) It covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage oradoption. In addition, relationships with family members living together as ajoint family are also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows,mothers, single women, or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables the wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or the make partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner."

14. The objects and reasons would categorically show that the aggrieved wife or female partner can file a complaint against any relative of the husband or male partner. Thus it helps us to understand the word 'a relative' mentioned in the proviso to section 2(q), could be construed as any relative. Will the words any relative include both female and male relatives? is an importantquestion to be decided at this juncture. According to 'Concise Oxford EnglishDictionary - Eleventh Edition', "any" means, to refer to one or some of a thingor number of things, and it does not matter how much or how many. As regards,the meaning of 'any', it does not restrict to a singular and a particular category, it applies to all categories or classes of persons. In thisbackground, when we approach the object and reasons, it has been categorically mentioned that the bill was prepared to enable the wife or the female partner living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under theproposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, eventhough, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or of the malepartner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner. Therefore,the Act has been enacted to protect the wife or the female partner, who is living with her husband or a male partner in a relationship in the nature of marriage from the harassment or violence emanated from any of the relative ofher husband or male partner living in a relationship in the nature of marriage, including the adult female persons of the family. The benefits and protection given under this Act is not available to other female members of the family.Therefore, the meaning given in the proviso of Section 2(q) would be against any relative of the husband or male partner which includes, the petitioners 1&2 being the adult female persons as per the allegations made by the firstrespondent.

15. As regards, the maintainability of the allegations, we have to see the ingredients of the complaint made by the first respondent against the petitioners as 'respondents' in the said case which is pending before the courtbelow. The allegations against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners would be that theyhelped the first petitioner to write and send a petition to the Secretary,L.I.C. Employees Association, where the first respondent is working and to thePublic Relation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-IV, Commercial TaxOffice, Dindigul, where the first respondent's husband is working. Except thesaid allegations, nothing was mentioned against the petitioners in respect ofcause of action dated 26.04.2008 and 30.04.2008.

16. On 26.04.2008, the first petitioner was stated to have written acomplaint to the Secretary, L.I.C.Employees Association, Dindigul Branch I, 45,New Agraharam, Palani Road, Dindigul. Similarly, on 30.04.2008, the firstpetitioner is said to have sent a letter seeking for information under the Rightto Information Act, to the Public Relation Officer, Deputy Commercial TaxOfficer-IV, Dindigul. These letters were signed by the first petitioner only.Either the letters were neither signed nor attested by the second and thirdpetitioners or nothing is available to show that both the letters were preparedby the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that there is aprima facie case against the petitioners 2 and 3 in respect of the cause ofaction dated 26.04.2008 and 30.04.2008.

18. So far as the second cause of action dated 30.04.2008 is concerned, itwas a letter alleged to have been written by the first petitioner to the PublicRelation Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-IV, Dindigul seeking for certaininformation from the said office regarding the employment of the firstpetitioner's son. The allegations in the said letter is in respect of the firstpetitioner's son's employment and he is a male member and the first respondentis in no way aggrieved as it was not addressed to her office. Moreover, the sonof the first petitioner, who is the husband of the first respondent, is theaggrieved person and not the first respondent. The said letter would in any wayaffect or harm the first respondent to give a complaint against the petitionersunder the provisions of the said Act.

19. Regarding the third cause of action dated 09.05.2008, it has beencategorically mentioned in the complaint that the petitioners 1 and 2 and twoother persons had come to the office of the first respondent and the secondpetitioner had abused the first respondent, slapped on her cheek and twisted herhand. It was also alleged that the first petitioner had criminally intimidatedthe first respondent and for that the first respondent had given a complaint toNorth Town Police Station, Dindigul and she was given with a receipt inC.S.R.No.128 of 2008. It has been also told that the Police is yet to takeaction against the petitioners. It has not been averred by the first respondentthat the Police, North Town Police Station, Dindigul had dropped the action.When the said case is pending for the same cause of action, the complaint givenby the first respondent in the third cause of action is not sustainable. It hasbeen taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, whichwould be certainly amounting to 'double jeopardy', as prohibited by theConstitutional Law. Whenever a complaint is given by the Protection Officerbefore the Court, the Court must apply its mind and go through the provisions ofthe special enactment and to take cognizance of the cases, if the allegations are attracting the provisions of the said Act. But, in this case, it is evident that it had abruptly taken the complaint without going through the provisions ofthe said Act.

20. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioners 2 and 3 even though they are the relatives of the husband of the aggrieved wife and nocase is made out in all the three causes of action namely, 26.04.2008,30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008. As regards, the first petitioner is concerned, thefirst respondent, who is said to be the aggrieved wife, had chosen to file complaint against the first petitioner being the closest relative of her husband for all the three cause of action. It is found that the cause of action dated 30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 can not be sustained against the first petitioner. The second cause of action dated 30.04.2008 had pointed out only at the husbandof the first respondent and not against the first respondent. Regarding the third cause of action dated 09.05.2008 already a Police complaint is pending before the Dindigul North Police and the present complaint based on the samecause of action dated 09.05.2008 would be certainly amounting to a 'doublejeopardy'. The cause of action dated 26.04.2008 could alone be taken cognizanceby the court and that too only against the first petitioner. It is alreadyconsidered that an adult female relative of the husband of the aggrieved personmay also be proceeded under the provisions of the Act. For the foregoing discussions, it has become necessary for this Court to quash the entire case against the 2nd and 3rd petitioner and the case in respect of causes of action dated 30.04.2008 and 09.05.2008 against the first petitioner. Accordingly the cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, inC.C.No.465 of 2008 has been partially quashed and the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Dindigul is competent to proceed against the first petitioneralone in respect of the cause of action dated 26.04.2008 only and nothing-else.

21. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner at thisjuncture regarding the claim for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs should have beenreferred to. According to the provisions of the said Act, only the penalty has been envisaged under Section 31 of the Act. Therefore, there is no provision for awarding compensation.

22. According to the provisions of the Act, there is no reference as tothe awarding of compensation. Therefore it is open for the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Dindigul, to apply his mind at the time of trial and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

23. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is ordered partially andthe cognizance taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul inC.C.No.465 of 2008 is quashed in respect of the case taken on file against thepetitioners 2 and 3 and in respect of the causes of action namely, 30.04.2008and 09.05.2008 against the first petitioner. The learned Judicial MagistrateNo.II, Dindigul is competent to proceed with the case against the firstpetitioner in respect of the cause of action dated 26.04.2008 alone. Petition isordered accordingly. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.nbj

To
1.The District Social Welfare Office cum The District Dowry Prohibition Officer, Dindigul.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.

A aam adami's take: The lower courts and high courts across the country differ on this issue. The Madhya Pradesh HC has held that complaint can be filed and proceedings can be initiated against adult male persons only under DV Act. In one case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken similar view that women cannot be made respondents, but in another case a division bench of the same high court took a different stand.

The division bench in AP High Court on June 2 this year concluded that the complainant under DV Act has to be a woman and if she is a wife, the female relatives of husband can be named as respondents. Thus, DV Act does not exclude women completely.

Conclusion: Women can also be included in PWDVA complaint.

So Sh. Arup what you say now !

Reply Follow

6 Replies

(Guest)

there is one judgement by rajasthan high court also wherein it's stated that female can also be booked under DV act

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate) 03 September 2010

DR. Arun

In myy opinion behind this 498A and DV acf cases women are the main reasons, not all . After the marriage mother feels some zeleous about the wife of her son and vice-versa. After gradually dispute arises, man will be in dilema whehter he has to take of his mother or wife, finallly due to communication gap or misunderstandings cause for 498A and DV act arises.

I know it will be resisted by lady members of this club and lady readers.

(Guest)

@ Adv rajeev

u r right.....it's rightly said "a woman is another woman's greatest enemy"

wen a DIL comes in a home after marriage,the MIL and sister inlaws feel jealous due to the reasons u stated...they feel bad if the husband takes his wife out,talks to her after returning from office,etc...if she talks to her parents on phone,they feel they are being disrespected even though she has spent more than 20 yrs wid them...but this bond shud now break immeditely..

secondly they are competing 4 power...so they look for opportunities to dominate her and get united as she is alone..they also want that her parents shud have no say in the house now...so they will try to show them down also by ridiculing their gifts,the marriage arrangement etc.......no girl(whetehr homely or modern) likes taunting 4 parents who gave her birth,nurtured her,tuk pains to get her married,etc....this is intolerable....so she starts replying back and complaining to husband.

this infuriates them and they go to her husband,her only friend in life to provoke him,so that he doesnt take her side...since the son is also deeply attached for many yrs while the wife is just few months old,he naturally takes their side or keeps advising her to "please these ladies"(god knows how these jealous women want to be pleased)

the gal tries her best to follow tthe MIL,and MIL may even feel elated that she's coming under her control....again if the MIL sees understanding n romance b/w her son and DIL,she divide n rule game.... she's just brot the bahu so that their vansh(lineage) continues,somebody serves them in old age and they can answer the society that their laadla is now finally married...but deep inside they feel jealous n powerless wen they see them coming close.this cycle of taunting starts again...and now the modern DILs cant take it any longer...so the hubby is provoked that as soon as his wife entered the house she is "disrespecting" his mother, sister etc....this leads to Domestic violence...the gal may/may not get parental support.they advise her to "adjust" with them....

meanwhile if the husband says anyth to his mum,he's branded as joru ka gulam....so he doesnt side with her while she wants his protection,which is assumed to be family breaking attempt by the bahu.so he takes out his frustartion on wife...wen she demands a separate home whr she can live minus these taunts,she again is accused of separating son from his family......if it gets too much, she may even be thrown out of home.......if her parents try to intervene,they are labelled as interfering.....becoz these inlaws want that no matter how much the daughter inlaw is taunted,she shud tolerate.and her parents shud always be like slaves to inlaws...if her modern parents speak up for her,they are also branded as non sanskaari and not following indian traditions of respecting girls' inlaws..

.after all the mother inlaw also tolerated her own mother inlaw's behaviors as a bahu...so this custom shud continue...they dont like a bahu who has self respect...while their sons liked such GFs b4 marriage who were smart and knew how to stand up 4 themselves...but now they want a cow in wife

the inlaws dont get peace here...they now even tarnish her image amongst their neighbours,relatives etc that we have a v.bad n selfish bahu wid no sanskaars…and they are trusted blindly....becoz they are senior people..so wotever they say is is the golden truth

then there are other scenarios as well.for example..if the bahu gets a medical problem in b/w due to which she cant conceive her hubby may be willing to adopt a child...but here the inlaws ego is hurt as to why she cant bear the child of their blood...she is taunted as baanjh,banjari etc...and the hubby is incited further that he got an unhealthy wife(even if he has loads of illnesses himself) soshe is useless.... rather he shud divorce her so that he can hv a 2nd marriage with a healthy younger girl..the hubby also may develop a dislike for a woman who according to his dear mother is unhealthy and therefore unattractive.he is so frustrated by now that he has no liking for a woman against whom the whole family has developed a dislike.then she is forced to leave the house/or she leaves herself

So with no support from hubby she is forced to file cases. ...

she may have been be married off while she's just a graduate or may even be older 30 wen she got married...so its not so easy to get a suitable job immeditely,when these conditions prevail.if she is over 35,forget that she will find any job,as there are age limits for each job....so she files maintenace cases to get adequate maintenace.now she knows she has to pay the lawyer also for her case fee and no one is willing to work for free/subsidised fee.so again she is demands a huge sum as alimony(for her harassment,no right to live with husbnad,streedhan taken away,no maintenance,high marriage expenses of her parents,,her struggle for job ,paying the lawyer,etc)so by now she is so frustrated that she wants a huge alimony to cover up these expenses...then society calls her revengeful...

now even if she gets job,it'll not be a permanent job....and govt job is so tuf to get..so she may work on contract basis initially witth low pay in private firms which she can lose any time...since she is unsure if she'll be able to continue here,the high alimony is another reason she demands. she also sees her parents frustration who may have shelled out so much money for dowry n marriage arrangement...and now her financially supporting her again.still she is branded as money extorter..

if she is thrown out of matrimonial home,many times the streedhan including her gold jewels are usually with inlaws who are unwilling to return,as they wana show society that this aggressive bahu left the home on her own as she dint want to serve her inlaws in old age,so carried all her things away(they adopt this atrategy so that their cruelty is not exposed)

MOST OF THE TIME , inlaws play these manipulative games with her,taunt,remark at her,etc in husband's absence when he is at work and wen he returns,they act extra nice with her in front of him....so he can never imagine that his trustworthy parents can actually be so manipulative..so he ends up blaming his wife for being cause of divorce for the rest of his life...and never learns a lesson...and carries this baggage in 2nd marriage also..where same problems get repeated....in the end he becomes a woman hater...while these manipulators act too innocent in front of him,as they dont want that their son shud turn against them...and keep showing "sympathy" over his ruined life

but only women get a bad name and are advised not to file any case even if the husband's dear old mother, laadli sister or pyaari bhabhi have been v.mean,conniving and manipulative with her to the extent that they made the husband beat her and leave her.....................the shock of getting separted from the hubby with whom wanted to spend an entire life has already broken her by now.on top of it delayed and faulty procedures of courts.................but she gets no understanding from society....even if she lives with her parents,mostly they and her relatives remark why she cant "adjust" with them somehow....

this is a typical situation that happens in an indian family...............

I FEEL THAT WHENB4 A MAN GETS MARRIED HE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR TO HIS FAMILY THAT HE WON'T TOLERATE DISRESPECT OF HIS WIFE.

SIMILARLY B4 MARRIAGE HE SHUD ALSO TELL HIS WIFE HE WONT LIKE DISRESPECT OF HIS FAMILY

If he doubts that this marriage will bring unhappness or if his family is still insecure of a new member entering the house,he shud rather not marry at all........or wait 4 the right time

(Guest)

@ Aishwarya

Good (it is besides the point I may not agree 1 - 2 lines here and there but overall good) general analysis of the root of the issue in hand ............

So aaj ki saas bhi kabhi bahu thi aur aaj ki bahu kaal saas banegi..............

(Guest)

@ d.arun kumar

thanks for the appreciation....i say thanks since it's coming from u for the first time

its okay if u disagree on 1-2 lines in b/w

gud day 2 u!

(Guest)

are bhai....

Ladies god brother (Ashotosh babua) tells readers here that my one taang in kabar and another on a banana peel and Im besharam buddha so at this pathetic stage I see both sides of coin on "borrowed life" na...