Will divorce be granted without proof of cruelty?

In my some other posts against some other queries I said law cannot be biased because law was enacted and made by the lawyers who cannot be biased to anybody , whereas, the person or persons who are implementing law  they can be biased. It is also a fact that most of us are not aware of the consequences that or those may arise in future i.e., to say we do not think of far reaching consequences in any matter so we cannot blame law.

Law cannot be biased? my foot!! Lets suppose today my wife has rough handled me and slapped me, what can I do? How is that law equip me as a man to charge such a wife?  How? As a retaliation If the same is done by a man, then what do you say, will the man be charged? Doesn't it count to you as bias?

Enlighten me!! How Law is not baised? a generalized statement coming from a person who served in supreme court, high court!!! A bunch of idiots sitting in the parliament make a law, they are only concerned about votes, dont ever speak excuses on behalf of them.

How can someone make a gender biased law? gender bias truly means racism, that's a simple fact. One who says law is not biased is making mockery of his own profession. If you really think that law is not biased then lets suppose today I want to charge my wife because she manhandled me. Now tell me which section of crpc I can use on her.

No! wait a second! you will say, today in most of the cases, man beats a woman and its very rare that a woman beats man in our society but you dont care the sequence of events and what was the trigger or the conflict? That's the stand you will take right? so called law is based on that. Stupid argument na, your sweet law is made on assumptions and prejudice but not on facts? Is that what you call law? How many men should suffer before you realize that a law should be made as gender neutral? So you need a test sample to even implement a section without racist remarks? All those men who suffer during this phase does not matter to you? Isn't it shame on the part of the country to treat someone so cruel?

Sorry' we are concerned with the query of the Author only but not to share our own knowledge and conception relating to any interpretation.  Even then as you raised controversy over a particular word 'BIAS' I take it a privilege to throw some more light over that word. BIAS.  According to dictionary meaning BIAS is 'a one sided inclination of the mind '' and according to legal parlance the word means 'prejudice' or predilection. Bias can be  of many kinds namely,-1. ACTUAL BIAS which means Genuine prejudice that a Judge, Juror, Witness or other person has against some person or relevant subject; 2. IMPLIED BIAS means Prejudice that is inferred from the experiences and  relationships of a Judge or Juror, witness or other person, 3. JUDICIAL BIAS means a judges bias towards one or more of the parties towards a case over which the Judge presides. 

Judicial bias can always be challenged  by the aggrieved party of a proceeding  before the higher forum for re-adjudication.  Then why a person unnecessary worried for Bias. I REITERATE ONCE AGAIN law cannot be bias BUT THE PERSON WHO IMPLEMENTS LAW CAN BE BIAS.

Ok Sir peace. No more comments.