Ila deciding to runaway in The Lunchbox was right?

At the end of "The Lunchbox" movie, Ila decides to leave her husband and run away with her daughter.

Do you think it was a right decision for her to make? I mean Ila's daughter is her husband's daughter as well. Then who is she to separate a father from her child?

I know that Ila's husband was having an extra-marital affair, but does that make him a bad father? Won't the child miss her father?

Wasn't Ila also having a kind of extra-marital affair with Saajan when she asked him to meet, knowing that the man is trying a move on you by asking you to go to Bhutan with him?

What is your opinion?

I don't know because I have not seen this film.

But whatever I could understand from your post, I feel like that it should be the decision of the daughter with whom she wants to go. Both the parents seem to be disgusting though since they are involved in extra marital affairs. So the daughter should choose none of them and either go to court for appointing a new guardian for her (like grandparents or social welfare people) or start living independently.

I don't there was any indication that Ila and Saajan have necessarily a romantic relationship. It could be just a simple companion relationship as well. As for her running away, I don't think it could be just classified as right or wrong.

I did not interpret running away to Bhutan as "literal." I took it as metaphorical, an escapist fantasy by people who are unhappy with their lives.

I don't count Ila's actions as an extra-marital affair either. She forms an emotional bond with Saajan but was trying hard to connect with her husband and make her marriage work. She wanted to prioritize her marriage. It is only after discovering her husband's infidelity that she realizes that she needs to move on instead of trying to make it work.

At this point, the going to Bhutan metaphor also serves as the means for Ila and Saajan to express that they would be interested in a life together.

The film ends on an indefinite note not telling you the actual ending. It leaves room for escapists to continue the metaphor that they escaped and lived happily ever after in Bhutan. For realists, that's the point the story gets real. What follows is probably a divorce proceeding and custody battle. You could say Lunchbox ends where Marriage Story begins.

one of the best movie 🍿

Women - in sexually liberated countries - usually say that the emotional affair is the worst, when men do it that is 😛

Lunchbox 2 is Ila running away with her daughter and son and then joined by a Mr. Shaikh (or escapists can fill any other name) in Nepal (or any other country escapists fancy)

Originally posted by: BettyA1

Women - in sexually liberated countries - usually say that the emotional affair is the worst, when men do it that is 😛

True or not men have the reputation for being able to have (even longing to have) meaningless sex with as many women as will let them - then going right home and being an otherwise good husband. Most men (I think) don’t do that of course. Given at least the idea that men are fully capable of having absolutely meaningless sex, it makes sense that an emotional affair would be seen as worse than mere sex. One may be an imminent threat to your relationship regardless of what you want, the other is a threat only if you want it to be. One is the act of a man definitely not committed to the marriage - possibly leaving even if you want him to stay. The other may be any number of other things that may or may not mean the end of the marriage.

Some food for thought about emotional intimacy vs sexual intimacy. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/10/people-who-prioritize-friendship-over-romance/616779/

Is emotional intimacy always cheating? Is sexless love outside marriage a threat to marriage? Is sex the only line between romance and friendship?