grrr angad isnt fair! - Page 4

courts do not always favor mothers in custody battles. at least not out here in the western world.

i do agree hes not being that fair but neither is kripa coz angad not being fair in the way of not letting kripa meet sur and shes not being fair in a way of not letting angad meet prateek coz if they both were fair on each other and made things that way it would be well
better for both of them and if there not gunna sort things out well there both jsut being stupid!!!

Originally posted by: punjabihypnotic

he wasn't interested in "tania"s past life, but if she was really tania she would have a past. anyhow, he's been concerned about her past nowadays and wants to know.

Well that is the point. Being Kripa and not Tanya is Tanya's past. Newly he asked Bua if Tanya had hidden otherthings too but he never asked Tanya "Tanya now i want to know who is Prateek's father"

Originally posted by: punjabihypnotic

courts do not always favor mothers in custody battles. at least not out here in the western world.

I live in the western world too (not that it matters) and they do favour the mother.

Originally posted by: AngadKripa4eva

I live in the western world too (not that it matters) and they do favour the mother.

yeah, but i've been to many court cases for my internship and no they do not always favour the mother. and im saying this based on numerous court battles of child custody cases that i have come across in the past few months.

Originally posted by: WorldClassDiva

hahahah so name OR 5 alphabets means everything... 🤔

Nishaant wanted to know about the human being behind that name's past.. she could be known as "tania" "Sonia" "Kripa" OR "Sarah" 🤔

*shakes head*

anyway i have had enough reasoning with YOU.. i would rather spend my precious time on something more "productive"

spend your "precious time" on whatever, think i care?
anyhow, circumstances change and as can be seen, nishant is interested or has come across the thought of kripas past after sending parteek to boarding school.
so now go be "productive" 😆

Originally posted by: punjabihypnotic

yeah, but i've been to many court cases for my internship and no they do not always favour the mother.

Well those must be rare cases, and I don't know the background of those cases. But getting back to KYPH, in A-K's situation they would favour the mother.

Originally posted by: AngadKripa4eva

I live in the western world too (not that it matters) and they do favour the mother.

Me too, i Europe courts favour mothers in most cases unless mother beats or does not behave their kid well.

Originally posted by: AngadKripa4eva

Well those must be rare cases, and I don't know the background of those cases. But getting back to KYPH, in A-K's situation they would favour the mother.

so if the mother doesnt get custody, it becomes a rare case? i dont think so. but im not saying that mothers dont get custody. a lot of them do and a lot of them dont. goes both ways.

personally, working with lawyers and going through cases i can care less about whether or not you want to admit the facts or not - and its not always because kids get abused by mothers that the fathers get custody. a lot goes into it. i had stated my point for those people that ONLY want to believe that mothers get custody ALWAYS - so i was just bringing in another view point - but if you guys dont want to acknowledge the reality of fathers getting custody as well than thats up to you. but i hope most of you can acknowledge that it can go both ways.