monster

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     09 May 2012

A wife should be like goddess sita, says the bombay hc

Mumbai:  

 

The Bombay High Court has observed that married women should take a cue from goddess Sita, who followed her husband Lord Ram even during his exile, while hearing a divorce petition on Tuesday, filed by a man on ground that his wife is unwilling to relocate to his new place of work.

"A wife should be like goddess Sita who left everything and followed her husband Lord Ram to a forest and stayed there for 14 years," a division bench of justices P B Majmudar and Anoop Mohta observed while hearing an appeal filed by an employee of the Shipping Corporation of India seeking divorce from his wife on the ground that she was not willing to shift with him to Port Blair where he was transferred. 

The couple had an arranged marriage in 2000. While the applicant's wife is a resident of Mumbai, he hails from Kolkata and continued to stay in Mumbai as he had been on ship duty for five years since they tied the knot.

 

In 2005 when he was given a land posting at Port Blair he called upon his wife to come and stay with him but she refused following which he filed for divorce. The couple has a nine-year-old daughter.

The court during the day tried to counsel the couple saying at least for the child's sake, the duo should reunite.

While the husband agreed to reconsider, the wife shot down  any kind of settlement. The court has posted the matter for further hearing on June 21

 

https://www.ndtv.com/article/india/a-wife-should-be-like-goddess-sita-says-the-bombay-high-court-208238



 22 Replies

cm jain sir (ccc)     09 May 2012

gud post Roshni mam! thanx, atleast someone will take lessons form this...

Ranee....... (NA)     09 May 2012

main to sange jao vanvas...swami....

seeta banne mein problem hain...in this world of concrete...dharti nehi pategi jab swami  will suspect wives..

Ranee....... (NA)     09 May 2012

Originally posted by :Sameer
"
Seeta nahi to Raakhi Sanwant hi sahi !!! Kuch to bano :-)
"

jhansi ki ranee ban gayee..but tum hanuman banoge to Seeta ban sakti hoon...


(Guest)

 

Originally posted by :Sameer
"

Seeta nahi to Raakhi Sanwant hi sahi !!! Kuch to bano :-)
"

jhansi ki ranee ban gayee..but tum hanuman banoge to Seeta ban sakti hoon...

 

Great News.;)

Vishwa (translator)     10 May 2012

It is sad that pronouncements of our learned judges have become jokes that we laugh over in forums like this.

1 Like

bhima balla (none)     10 May 2012

My thinking would be for hon'ble judges to refrain from personal or religious/ religion like comments.The common practice is for wife to stay with her husband. Unless she has valid reasons to stay away, one cannot or shouldn't deny that. It is like driving on one side of the road. Rules are there to make it safe, consistency etc If a wife wants to change those rules without sufficient cause-no one can make her stay. She is a person who has free will.The alternative is to grant divorce-consider that she has deserted her husband.No maintenance in such cases. Wife takes care of herself! It would be interesting to follow the outcome of the case.

Vishwa (translator)     10 May 2012

I think Sameer, we should rather take the example of Dasarath who built Kopagrahas (anger abodes) where his spouses could work out their PMS troubles. Still, he got burnt by Kaikeyi who thus became the first among 498-a/DV females in our country even before these laws came into being. It is also worth noting that Kaikeyi lost her husband, son and everything and one never knows what happened to her.

May be the  learned judge should give up his judging and start doing pravachans in temples. He couldd sing bhajans as well which would be appreciated far more than his utterings from the bench.

Vishwa

1 Like

Ranee....... (NA)     11 May 2012

well said Viswa.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     11 May 2012

It is surprising that the news posted on 9th may 2012 but in LCI web page it showing 6 years ago.

 

Judges should avoid such loose comments very particularly from the holy Ramayana and the holy Mahabharat. Today judges advised to be 'Sita', tomorrow some other judges may advise to be 'Droupadi'!

 

We left that eras, we should follow today's norms. If the lady unwilling to go, she cannot be comp ailed. Of course she will lose her maintenance package.

 

Comments on Ranee & Sameer enjoyable.

 

cm jain sir (ccc)     11 May 2012

Excellant observations by frnds vishwa and Arup.

Kaikayi and dropadi are the real heroines for todays women. We have not learnt lessons from the past.

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     11 May 2012

If wife refuses to cooperate husband on frivolous grounds, it should be treated as negligence with regard to her conjugal duties and divorce if granted should not make her eligible for any maintenance or any other monetary benefit under any other law.  Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act already prevents husband or wife from taking advantage from their own wrongs.

 

Judge has a right to say that to inspire people.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     11 May 2012

I am of the view that she is failing in her conjugal responsibilities.

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     11 May 2012

why so much ho hulla over this judge's words,i wonder!

 

what blunder has the judge committed by taking sita's example?he is not abusing any lady by saying this..

 

isnt a married girl supposed to go to the same place whr her husband lives,inclusive of transfers?

 

if ladies think too much abt moving to a new place coz of such transfers,tht it curtails their freedom,better they dont marry.

 

do they expect that once they marry  a man,he shd never gt transferred anywhere ???

 

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     11 May 2012

Q: why so much ho hulla over this judge's words,i wonder!

 

A: The reason for so called 'ho halla' is, - the matter cannot be compared of the both cases. Sita was not compelled to go with Rama by anyone, on the contrary she followed Ram by her own will ignoring several request to stay at Ayodhya. Here said lady forced to follow her husband against her will using the name of Sita, by the learned judge with a hidden threat to deprive her from maintenance. The personal liberty of the lady under art 21 of the COI be ignored.  

 

Q: what blunder has the judge committed by taking sita's example?he is not abusing any lady by saying this..

 

A: Yes, the judge did a blunder by using the name of Sita as an example. According to modern system, the said lady liable for braking the marriage tie but she should not be forced to follow her husband against her will. There lies the blunder. Modern spouses are neither 'Sita' nor 'Ram', if they referred to, they may feel humiliated.

 

Q: isnt a married girl supposed to go to the same place whr her husband lives,inclusive of transfers?

 

A: Not necessary. Even the spouses may live apart after the marriage. The core question is, whether they like to remain as spouses or not? Their willingness to accept one other as spouses is in question. Nothing else is there.

 

Q: if ladies think too much abt moving to a new place coz of such transfers,tht it curtails their freedom,better they dont marry. do they expect that once they marry  a man,he shd never gt transferred anywhere ???

 

A: Yes I agreed on this very particular point with you.



Related Threads


Loading

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query