I am unable to find the links, but in the first case, the wife works in the bank; the husband in a factory. The factory declared bankruptcy and for a year or so, the hubby is getting only Rs. 1000 per month, while the wife earns Rs. 15K. I dont know who applied for divorce but the husband asked for compensation citing his low salary and the court has ordered the wife to pay him Rs. 1000 or something per month.
In the second case, the guy was jobless but lied and married the girl. After few months, she came to know the truth and applied for divorce. Citing his 'jobless situation', he asked blah blah.. u know.. The interesting thing is, after all this, the wife wants to get back to him. In both cases, the judge(s) declared that marital laws are common for both genders, so whoever is earning handsome, should compensate the other.. What b*$&%#*it!!
Now, my fundas.. I am not an MCP or such, but I believe that it is a guy's responsibility to earn money and run his family, whether he is married or not. Unless handicapped, I dont see any reason why a man cant earn enough to be a breadwinner for his family. It has been only in this generation that we are seeing women being allowed to come up, in par with men; considering that they have already reached equal status would send wrong signals. The problem with the court cases is that, citing these judgements, many more cases would be decided in the future.
I donno who primarily applied for divorce in both cases, but still.. If I were the judge, I would have asked the guy to pull his socks up and work bloody hard and earn his own food and shelter.
Happy Thanksgiving holidays to all you friends from US !!
12 comments:
Man being the breadwinner, etc. being subjective, law is supposed to be common. What has happened there is somewhat similar to 20+ year old pretty girls who get married to stinking rich 70+ old grandpas.
"i married him for his heart" . yea right..
adhey maari dhaan angayum.. the first case seems genuine.. the second case lied thru his teeth and the lady was stupid enough to bel. him. Pay the price.
This rule has been around for ages - whoever earns more pays the support money if no nuptial was signed - and everything gets halfed - divorces are expensive u know ;)
Cmon Raju,
In the first case the guy is actually earning, but his salary is low.
However in the second case, the guy should be thrown in prison
goood ruling, ellathulum equality kekkrangal, why not here, good judge,
but in 2nd case the guy shud be thrown in jail for wilful decieving the girl
apporam i have done ur tag and also have outlined my taggin policy
given the laws, i agree with vatsan here...
but if both of them are ready to part voluntarily (and are without kids) then there shld be no money involved... but if they have kids and/or if only one is unhappy, things get more complex and i guess the money factor plays a crucial role...
raju, its a different post :-)
Deepak, LOL on "i married for his heart" (which is sooooooo weak now, can stop any moment and will make me rich).
On a serious note, IMHO, I felt that in the first case, the guy should have looked for some other job, rather than sticking aroudn with a 1000 rupee one.. Second case, I cant say she was stupid.. paavam her parents would have arranged their marriage.. why does she have to pay to a jobless healthy person? Unga American influence jaasthi pola.. enakku innum Indian influence-dhan irukku.. :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vis, I know such rules are there in developed countries, where man-woman inequalities are minimal in society and job scenario, but in a country like India, where the situation is improving only the past 15 years or so, these are the first cases, in my observation. Traditionally, it is always the guy who pays..
mm... from Hollywood movies, I know how expensive divorces can be..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Smyta, more expensive than marriages? hahaha.. yeah, courtesy lawyers..
My thoughts exactly on your 'I dont believe' para.. but, the justice is kind towards the woman, since she is emotionally and financially more affected by the break..
I cant accept a guy sitting vetti at home or doing an easy job and getting compensation from his ex-wife..
Sarathy, yeah right.. but instead of asking his wife to pay him, the first guy can get any other job, right? why stick around with a 'insolvency' company?
-------------------------
Vatsan, good ruling-a? mmm.... economics aalukitte vaadhaada koodathu.. Thaikkulam meley kaduppule irukkeenga pola..
Unga taggig policy ungalukku... ennoda tagging policy enakku... :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karthik, mm.. in these cases, the husbands have claimed for compensation (though I dont know for sure who appealed for divorce in first case, in the second case it is the wife). And, the person who seeks divorce somehow ends up paying for compensation.. in a marriage between two, if one is unhappy, that is enough for a failed marriage, right? Why only the divorce-seeker is punished, I donno..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanathi, mmmmm..
hi raju, first time here from Sundar sir's blog... I read your Blogger love stories... nice imagination and wonderful naration.. sama interstinga irukku.. keep them coming..
Anand, welcome here.. Thanks. :-) I will write, whenever some idea flashes in my mind..
Raju, even I have a similar opinion as you, unless the guy has some disability. I don't quite agree why he should not look for a higher income job.
Second case, avanlaam ozhunga kai kaal'oda porandhu enna prayojanam, boomikku baaram.
-narayanan
Narayanan, glad to see atleast one guy agreeing with me... :-)
Vetti pasanga, second case madhiriyana aalunga.. Anniyan-le Charlie-kku koduhta madhiri thandikkanum avangalai..
Post a Comment