LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Page no : 2

Arup Kumar Gupta, Korba, Chattishgarh ((m)9893058429)     05 March 2010

can two person come to an agreement that,  if any  oneof them kills the other , police will not have right to take any action?

One of the very basic of an agreement is this - that, the agreement will not go against the law. if goes, it will not be an agreement - so far.

therefore such type of agreement is not enforciable by law; hence it is void one.

i could not understand that how this childish talk   become an issue?

there are three acts. dowry act; 498a; dv act - might be say ' a group of anti-male acts'.- making the males slave to their female partner. if any one after knowing these acts, - go on a marriage - then -may god bless him.

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     05 March 2010

If knowingly somebody wants to become slave (husband) no body can help them.

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
-- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

These laws are result of efforts of such Hon'ble Feminists. They have drafted these laws for domestic animals only.

1 Like

Hardik Mehta (Family Counsellor)     05 March 2010


People do marry to show he society and community where they live that they are commited to each other. This will keep the balance in the society for having partners and that why the law has been made to keep only 1 partner at a time.

Adinath@Avinash Patil (advocate)     05 March 2010





1 Like

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     05 March 2010

Marriage for showing commitment?

Firstly there is no need of marriage just to show commitmment. A person can be committed even without getting married; and can be most uncommitted despite getting married.................... I dont buy the point.

Marriage is a conspiracy against men to enslave him, to make him a beast of burden.

1 Like

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     05 March 2010

As many political parties are supporting women reservation, we should understand what women reservation means. Just to understand what a feminist politician will speak in parliament, I am quoting a few notable quotes of feminism:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon
"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.
"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)
"I want to see a man beaten to a bl**dy pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)
Indian men should prepare themselves to hear such chanting in parliament too. The enslavement of men will be complete with reservation of women.

1 Like

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     05 March 2010

I was just looking at a video-

Moral of the story- when a woman slap a man, she is a hero; when a man slaps a women, he is................... just listen from the men in the video.

Men are born slaves, they will die as slaves. The enslavement of men will be complete with women reservation.

1 Like

Mahadeva Rao G (student)     05 March 2010

hi,  everyone here,My thoughts runs  on this  issue as follows.:

First of  all  Laws are not  same thro' out the World. ( may  be  simililar ).  i.e.,  Every country  has its own  Laws according to its   Customs,  Traditions  and Practices in that  region. 

Law  cannot be  made  to suit individual's  personal  Interests.  Law  can  be made  for  a  Class, or  for  a  section. or  for a region  or  for  a  sovereign COuntry.,  

As  Mr.  Rajesh  Kumar  has initially mentioned, such conditions were prevailant  in  the  begining  era of  Muslim, which is a  Fact.  So the  COuntries where women were treated  badlyl let them have it.

In  Indian History of   * REAL Living  * not any  stories,  women  were  only  respected.  ( Except a few  stray Case )  

kRISHNA  mARRYING  16,000  WOMEN  WERE ONLY  FICTION.  which should not be interpreted under any Mischief  Rule.

My Question is  Should  we  APE  WESTERN  culture and practices.   PLs  can some one  pull out the  Data  on  how many   Marriages  are succesful  or how many marriages  have been solemnised based on so called  pre- nuptial  contract .    MAY BE THEN WE  CAN  DISCUSS  THIS TOPIC.  AND   WHICH   R  THE COUNTRIES HAVING   SUCH CONTRACTS.

WELL  for me  the  Institution of  Marriage  is  very Divine.    We in India  are  fortunate  that  we  look  for soulmates and  not  Contractmates or should  I say  CoNtract - to -Mate,    who only share or  allow  the  physical  society of  other  On a Contractual basis and any violation of  such contract clause  will land u Under  Sec.375. 376 of  I.P.C.  

As  per  SUchitra 's  presentation, It is  really cool,   but pls  we  dont  need it on   paper, documented and then the same  registered.   Such  things  without documentation existed in   India  throu  thousands of  years  based on  MUTUAL TRUST and  We  the  Real Indians  are  Happy that  way marrying,  living happily  respecting each other .compromising for each other

IF at  all  such  Law is passed,  in India,    Believe me. 90% of the  Male Population   will  follow Mr. Rajesh Kumar.

Chilled  Regards to all   in this  Summer.


Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     06 March 2010

Recently a book has arrived after painful research of many years- Why Women Have Sex by Cindy Meston & David Buss. The research shows that women never want s*x- they have s*x for all reasons other than s*x, unlike men who have s*x for s*x.

How will we understand marriage after this research?

In view of this research I tend to agree with some feminists, quote,
"Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that's all they are". Marylin French in "The Women's Room": unquote.
As a matter of fact if a women does not want s*x, all s*x is rape. The question is why do women do s*x. One simplistic explanation is "they are forced into it". Although the explanation may be correct in many cases, in a very large number of cases even the women will refuse this explanation. We need another explanation......
In my view, women at no point of time wanted s*x. But men always wanted it. So women used s*x as a tool of exchange. Women exchanged s*x for marriage, as marriage provided women and her children a sense of security. Women also agreed to give up her s*xual independence in marriage for two reasons- for women it was very easy as she never wanted s*x in the very first place; and to men it provided a biological reason to help women in child rearing... for a man will not agree to assist rearing of a child who is not his biological offspring.
Thus a women is not forced into s*x- she exchanges it for marriage. Just that a man does not want to do any labour, but do perform various activities in exchange. Sex was always an article of exchange. It is traded openly in all societies in the form of prostitution, being used selectively by some women to get some benefit (i.e. s*xual favour to bosses for pay raise/promotion is well documented)..... s*x was always traded, was always an article of exchange. I dont think there is anything wrong in exchange of s*x. If a man/woman can sell his/her labour, his/her intelligence, his/her knowledge; what is wrong in exchange of s*x?

As per this explanation, marriage is always a trade of, always a compromise, always an agreement.

Arup Kumar Gupta, Korba, Chattishgarh ((m)9893058429)     07 March 2010

hi mahadevan,


ACCORDING TO MYTHOLOGY, lord krishna established s*x relationship with them not married them.

thanks to god ' raj thakrey' was not born at that era. but i am not sure that mama kansa's soul may be returned as raj.

Carlisle Collins (Samaritan)     09 March 2010

Unless I’m way the fudge off the mark, I don’t see any conflict of opinion per se between Suchitra S. and Rajesh Kumar – or any call for Daksh’s patronizing butt-kissing (OK! Let’s just call it “Hero-worshipping”)! Suchitra is merely offering an objective response to avnish kaur’s question while hypothesizing on its merits (demerits?) that may determine its probability for recognition in our courts. Rajesh, obviously gifted with worldly foresight and in tune with the fact that almost all formal agreements are open to potentially crippling litigation, is suggesting doing away altogether with the need to form such “legally binding” agreements by doing away with what has now become, more or less, an imbalanced, lopsided, quasi-parasitic affiliation with tremendous potential for opportunism, viz. Marriage. (Note: They don’t call it “Matri-MONEY” for nothing, y’know!!) Realistically, whether you choose to be married or not, any form of cohabitation has potential for intra-relationship friction – sometimes unresolved amongst the involved parties: This is when us lawyers, courts, police, paid witnesses, and other "sympathizers" step in! Also precautionary pre-cohabitation agreements can be laid out in such ridiculous detail that living up to them could be impractical; a nightmare!  Rajesh’s opinion might sound s*xist/chauvinistic, but just take a long hard look at what our gender-biased (in)Justice System is sodomizing us with … THE FEMINAZIS! Mercy!!






(See “FEMINAZIS” - almost to the middle of the page …)

Carlisle Collins (Samaritan)     09 March 2010

RAJESH-JI: There’s certainly the element of truth behind your words, “Thus a women is not forced into s*x- she exchanges it for marriage. …. Sex was always an article of exchange. It is traded openly in all societies in the form of prostitution, being used selectively by some women to get some benefit …. As per this explanation, marriage is always a trade of, always a compromise, always an agreement.

For indisputable proof, look no further than Islamic marriages! Jurists are in unanimous agreement on the fact that “NIKAH” means s*xual intercourse, but it is used to denote the marriage contract euphemistically as a polite figure of speech despite the realty that the marriage contract is the legal means for having intercourse, i.e. the physical act: lawful s*xual intercourse in the sight of God and society, but s*xual intercourse nevertheless for a pre-agreed price and conditions. A Nikah allows both parties to add conditions. Since Islam does allow divorce (Talaq) this contract is revocable. Other religions may not be this blunt, but, let’s face it, good ol’ coitus is what it’s all about (well, essentially): No marriage is legally valid if it has not been consummated! And we all know just how marriages are consummated don’t we?

Unfortunately, it is no longer “politically correct” to wave this banner around for fear of the Feminazis and emasculated politicians on a sinister agenda of castigation (castration?). I suppose it might be fashionably polite (and prudent) to be low key about the REAL purpose behind “Matri-MONEY”!

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     09 March 2010

A statement may or may not be politically correct- it can be made politically correct by repeatation and persuasion.

It may not sound good that s*x is always and article of exchange- and therefore the "men" consciously used the metaphor like "scared s*x", "power of women's love", "regenerative capacity of women like earth" etc. Men gave "devi" image to women.

What the women is returning to me- charge of exploitation for centuries, saying that these metaphors was to enslave women, abuse of various laws against men, demand of reservation for they have been exploited for ages............ Enough is enough. No more male bashing will be accepted. We will put everything in black and white. Every favour will be recorded, valued and paid. Man-woman relationship will not be based on mutual trust and respect, it will be run on efficient market theory.

Men are a distinct interest group. They are organising themselves to protect their rights.

AJ Agarwal (Self)     05 December 2010

in the discussions between Suchitra S. ji and Shri Rajesh Kumar - I just have to add one dimension

when getting married the two meet & see each other, (sometime live together also) and decide to get  married. Nowhere a judge or a lawyer or a police inspector is involved.

Why is it that if one wants to separate, the LEGAL system steps in with all its pluses and minuses, and make them enemies for the rest of their lives ?

The divorce itself is very western concept, introduced to INDIAN judicial system by the britishers.

Is this intervention legally needed ?

If yes, then why there is no legal intervention for a father / mother in parenting or even punishing a child rightly or wrongly ?

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     24 December 2010

People should be free to separate and divorce, without legal intervention, if they dont want to live together-- just the way they get married without legal intervention when they want to marry.

State intervention has killed the institution..... to kill marriage completely, registration of marriage must be made compulsory. An unregistered marriage must not be treated as marriage in the eyes of law.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register