Anandi should not divorce Jagya

-Purva- thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Engager Level 4 Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 14 years ago
#1
To me the highlight of today's episode was not "Tumhe ye zindagi Anandi ne bheek mein di hai" but "Jagya ne Anandi ko nahi chhoda hai, Anandi ne Jagya ko chhoda hai"

Jagya and Gauri derived their smugness from the fact that they stole the march on Anandi. Lekin unke paon ke neeche se ajj zameen hi nikal gayi:

1. Anandi Jagya se behtar doctor banegi kyunki woh zyada layak hai.
2. Gaon mein reh kar bhi Anandi ko kanoon ke baare mein Shehar ke ganwar logon se zyada pata hai,
3. Anandi jab chahe Jagya ko wapas paa sakti hai, magar woh aisa nahi chahti.

Now that it is proved that Anandi is better than the Shehar ke Padhe Likhe Ganwar, she should not give Jagya a divorce. By giving him a divorce she frees him to live with Gauri. But by not giving him a divorce she refuses to let Gauri have any social or legal sanction. If Gauri decides to live in with Jagya she can never visit her parents even, because the society will treat her only as a "kept woman" (Rakhail), which is one step short of a characterless woman. The two of them will always live in fear that at any stage their real status would be revealed to society.

Anandi in the meantime is free from the senseless drama to pursue her education and career. Whenever she wants to remarry she can take a divorce from Jagya on the grounds of desertion.

Created

Last reply

Replies

9

Views

2.7k

Users

9

Likes

68

Frequent Posters

whatthelife thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Visit Streak 180 Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 14 years ago
#2

Originally posted by: muktha_cute

wat if A marriage is legal
if J wants he can apply for divorce
and no court cant say no or force anyone to fulfill the marriage forcefully

BTW ... on which of the below reasons can J apply for Divorce ??? :O
Grounds for Divorce
In most Western nations, there are approximately 16 distinct reasons for which divorces are granted. In India, however, only five main reasons are generally accepted as sufficient grounds for divorce (Choudhary 90).

Adultery. While no formal definition of adultery exists, it does have "a fairly established meaning in matrimonial law" (Diwan 171), namely "the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married man or woman with a person other than the offender's wife or husband" (Choudhary 91). While the law considers it valid grounds for either sex, adulterous women are "judged more harshly" than men (Kapur and Cossman 102). The various religious regulations a e not unanimous on this issue. The law regarding Hindus allows divorce to be granted on the grounds of infidelity of either husband or wife. The Christian law, however, would traditionally not have granted a divorce to a woman solely on the grounds of adultery. She would have had to prove another violation, such as cruelty (Kapur and Cossman 102-4). A recent Bombay High Court decision "recognised cruelty and desertion as independent grounds for the dissolution of a Christian marriage," striking down a section of the law that allowed for an unconstitutional distinction between the sexes (Raiker-Mhatre 1).

Desertion. The three main components of desertion are the "disruption of cohabitation, absence of just or reasonable cause and their combination throughout three years" before the abandoned spouse may petition for a divorce (Virdi 71). There also must be an obvious intent on the part of the offending spouse to remain permanently apart from the other. This statute also applies to cases in which a spouse has been heard from for at least seven years (Choudhary 91).

Cruelty. As with Adultery, "the definition of the type of behavior that constitutes cruelty varies according to the gender of the petitioner" of the divorce. "Despite the fact that cruelty is often equally available to husbands and wives, the way in which the law is interpreted and applied suggests that women and men are evaluated by rather different standards" (Kapur and Cossman 105). This category includes both physical and mental abuse and neglect (Choudhary 91). A court decision made in early May 1997 made cruelty sufficient grounds for a Christian woman to obtain a; previously, the law required both adultery and cruelty to be proven. The national Indian Christian community seems to have embraced this judgment (Raikar-Mhatre 1-2.

Impotency. This refers to the physical inability of the couple to consummate the marriage (Choudhary 91) or the refusal by one spouse to do so (Diwan 136). Some cases have established that sterility can be construed to mean non-consummation if the other partner is not aware of the condition before the marriage (Diwan 139).

Chronic Disease. Both mental and physical illnesses are included in this category, as well as sexually transmitted diseases (Choudhary 92). Not all religions recognize identical diseases as grounds for divorce. Christians and Parsis do not allow divorce for a sexually transmitted disease or leprosy while the other communities do (Diwan 204-5).

Consequences of Divorce
Economic. There is great disparity between the economic ramifications of divorce between men and women. Men remain relatively unaffected while women, especially those with children, have difficulty "providing food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their children." The government in urban areas usually provides some form of public assistance to single mothers, but this service is not fully taken advantage of because most do not know of its existence (Amato 210). Often a woman is not able to rely on her family for support because many parents "feel they have discharged their obligations to a daughter by arranging her marriage and providing a dowry." Dowries are not returned after a divorce. Also, due to the social stigma of divorce, women find it difficult to remarry and usually attempt to establish an independent household (Amato 211).

Social. While India feels that one should have the right to divorce, it is still a highly stigmatizing action. Women are looked upon more harshly than men in this regard. There continue to be segments of Indian society that feel divorce is never an option, regardless of how abusive or adulterous the husband may be which adds to the greater disapproval for women. A divorced woman often will return to her family, but may not be wholeheartedly welcomed. She puts, especially if she has children, an economic burden on her family and is often given lowly household tasks to perform. There is also the risk that a divorced woman's presence would ward off possible marriages for other daughters within the household. Unavoidably, the overall status of the family and household are lowered by having a divorcee living with amongst them. A woman's class and caste are a major factor in her acceptance back into society. Women from higher classes tend to have an easier time than middle or lower class women in returning to the social order after a divorce. An exception to this model is the extreme bottom of the society who have experienced little rebuff from peers after a divorce. This results from their already atypical status in society (Amato 212-4).
Mehek25 thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 14 years ago
#3
@Divyababu

Absolutely correct. u have all ur facts right. If at all anyone can sue for divorce it is Anandi. Not only can she sue for divorce but she can even file a case against him. i think in the precap dadisa tells her to go ahead and sue J if she so desires. J & G have no leg to stand on in society or under law so far as their marriage is concerned. They are simply as we say in common language ..."living in sin"...
Suchi- thumbnail
15th Anniversary Thumbnail Sparkler Thumbnail + 3
Posted: 14 years ago
#4
Yup in India, the law of divorce is bit more stricter than whats here in US.

I too want A to NEVER give J divorce so , J and G's relationship never gets a 'name'

she can be his rakhail regardless if she was shameless enough to stay in a haveli where his first wife is already there , whats the big deal now.

And ofcourse jagya, has no shame. He is worse than the rotten insect on a corpse.

YUCK YUCK YUCK!!!


-Purva- thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Engager Level 4 Thumbnail + 5
Posted: 14 years ago
#5

Originally posted by: muktha_cute

wat if A marriage is legal
if J wants he can apply for divorce
and no court cant say no or force anyone to fulfill the marriage forcefully



Actually you are wrong about that, the court can order Jagya to return to Anandi, and there is nothing either Jagya or Gauri can do about it. Anandi can file for "Restitution of Conjugal Rights" and court can order Jagya to live with her.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The section of the Act says:

"When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for the restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly".

Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for the withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.

If a respondent has failed to obey such a decree, the court may, in the execution of the same, attach the property of the respondent, and if the respondent fails to comply to the decree within a year then the court may even sell the property and award such compensation to the petitioner as it thinks fit.


In cases where the petitioner is wife and the respondent is husband. In such cases if the decree is not obeyed by the respondent within the specified time, he shall make such periodical payments to the petitioner as the court thinks fit.

Hence, a wife who doesn't want a judicial separation or disruption of marriage can attain maintenance from her husband without filing a suit for the same.

The clause for the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is also found in the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the Parsi Marriage Act of 1936, and the Indian Divorce Act of 1869.

Most often this act is used by men whose wives have left them on grounds cruelty to force the hapless woman to return to the marital home; however, the act is specifically created in order to protect women who have been deserted by their husbands on exactly such flimsy excuses
as Jagya has used against Anandi.

hooked thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Dazzler Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#6
Well said Gangubai n Divya !

Why shud Anandi make J n G's life any easier ? What have they given her except a lot of heartache and unsolicited advice, that she shud gift them a free pass ?

Anandi has all the grounds to grant J a divorce or to haul his sorry ass to court for adultery...Jagya doesn't have a single reason to demand a divorce from her.

Two people can mutually apply for divorce citing irrevocable differences but here - only J feels so - Anandi still cares for him too much to let him go legally.

Gauri can rant all she wants - except giving J a headache - she won't get anything else.


sreevask thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Engager Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#7
Gouri's case is even worse than NATHA PRATHA
purvim thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail Commentator Level 1 Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#8
mujhe lagta hai ki jagya aanandi se alag nahi hoga kyunki ghar ka kharch, jagya ki study ka kharch to anandi uthane wali hai agar jagya anandi se alag hona chahta hai to use apne ghar se koi bhi madad milegi is baat ko bhool jana hai aur jagya ka jo nature hai usko dekh ke lagta hai ki woh kabhi nahi chahega ki anandi se milne wali madad band ho jaay.🥱🥱🥱
woman11 thumbnail
14th Anniversary Thumbnail Voyager Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 14 years ago
#9

Originally posted by: gangubai1



Actually you are wrong about that, the court can order Jagya to return to Anandi, and there is nothing either Jagya or Gauri can do about it. Anandi can file for "Restitution of Conjugal Rights" and court can order Jagya to live with her.

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for the restitution of the conjugal rights. The section of the Act says:

"When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the District Court, for the restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly".

Where a question arises whether there has been reasonable excuse for the withdrawal from the society, the burden of proving reasonable excuse shall be on the person who has withdrawn from the society.

If a respondent has failed to obey such a decree, the court may, in the execution of the same, attach the property of the respondent, and if the respondent fails to comply to the decree within a year then the court may even sell the property and award such compensation to the petitioner as it thinks fit.


In cases where the petitioner is wife and the respondent is husband. In such cases if the decree is not obeyed by the respondent within the specified time, he shall make such periodical payments to the petitioner as the court thinks fit.

Hence, a wife who doesn't want a judicial separation or disruption of marriage can attain maintenance from her husband without filing a suit for the same.

The clause for the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is also found in the Special Marriage Act of 1954, the Parsi Marriage Act of 1936, and the Indian Divorce Act of 1869.

Most often this act is used by men whose wives have left them on grounds cruelty to force the hapless woman to return to the marital home; however, the act is specifically created in order to protect women who have been deserted by their husbands on exactly such flimsy excuses
as Jagya has used against Anandi.



Very very well said Gangubai !!!! Appreciate your knowledge of laws!
deep153134 thumbnail
Explorer Thumbnail
Posted: 14 years ago
#10
Jagya being a coward personality , I dont think he can take up a stand in front of the court.
He has still now not even faced his parents or his so called "ehsaan mand" biwi / childhood friend.

All his life his only solutions to problems in life is to run away from it or manipulate and lie to temporarily get things go his way.. When it goes out of control, he will turn away his face and walk out.

Being such a person, i have no hopes that he will bravely go to the court let alone l stand by and fight to defend his cases...


Related Topics

Top

Stay Connected with IndiaForums!

Be the first to know about the latest news, updates, and exclusive content.

Add to Home Screen!

Install this web app on your iPhone for the best experience. It's easy, just tap and then "Add to Home Screen".