Neil's Monologue Is Ignorant

I watched a glimpse of the episode from 24th March and I have no idea what the CVs are trying to accomplish from Neil's monologue. How can they compare Mini's situation with her father abandoning them to Neils? The two situations are not equal.

Yes, there's a double standard in society when it comes to custody cases because men are more likely to lose the custody of their child. But wth does a "cosy feminist club" have to do with it? What does he mean by generalizing women like that, by that they don't understand? Why is he blaming Mini, blaming women? By generalizing females, he's doing the same thing that he says he has a problem with - generalization of men.

Also, who says that generally men come in between a woman and her child, that they are a third party of some sort? & Neil there is a term for fathers, it's called FATHERHOOD. Babul. Take some accountability for your own child - why would he give everything away to his wife Isha or whatever. Someone fill me in here, have they gone to court to fight this? Because she's can't just take the child away like that without some repercussions unless it's because of legal reasons.

By trying to show another side to society and portraying that men too indeed have issues, it's not fair to put women down. That's not okay or cute or adorable. No.

I dont think neil's monologue was about to put women down or generalising them

It was more about how father finds it difficult to express their love. And society which gives utmost importance to a mother in the upbringing of child but ignore father's importance.

And by showing mini's past cvs were trying to imply that whatever happened between babita and ashok was altogether a different matter in between all this ashok khurana did love her daughter and both father and daughter didn't get that closure which they needed

Originally posted by: Kabhi18

I watched a glimpse of the episode from 24th March and I have no idea what the CVs are trying to accomplish from Neil's monologue. How can they compare Mini's situation with her father abandoning them to Neils? The two situations are not equal.

Yes, there's a double standard in society when it comes to custody cases because men are more likely to lose the custody of their child. But wth does a "cosy feminist club" have to do with it? What does he mean by generalizing women like that, by that they don't understand? Why is he blaming Mini, blaming women? By generalizing females, he's doing the same thing that he says he has a problem with - generalization of men.

Also, who says that generally men come in between a woman and her child, that they are a third party of some sort? & Neil there is a term for fathers, it's called FATHERHOOD. Babul. Take some accountability for your own child - why would he give everything away to his wife Isha or whatever. Someone fill me in here, have they gone to court to fight this? Because she's can't just take the child away like that without some repercussions unless it's because of legal reasons.

By trying to show another side to society and portraying that men too indeed have issues, it's not fair to put women down. That's not okay or cute or adorable. No.

There is no double standards in custody cases. In general, mother spend more time with the child during the formative years and is primary caregiver for the child. Hence mothers are more likely to get kid's custody.

As far as Indian law is concerned, there's no strict rule about custody of children. Upto age of 5, mother is usually preferred for physical custody. Above age of 9, child's wish is taken into consideration. Father usually gets custody of older boys and vice versa for girls, but this is not a strict rule. If mother is abusive, then father gets the custody. If both parents are deemed incapable then third party custody.

In any case, court decision is taken based on what is in the best interest of the child, not mother or father.

And this is just about physical custody, the other parent still has rights to see the child, unless he/she is proven to be abusive/ a threat to well being of the child. And courts do not throw around such decision without putting any thoughts, if court has made such a harsh decision,then there has to be some merit in the case.

Bold part:

Absolutely right. As I said before, if Isha is barring him from meeting his daughter without court order, then it's illegal. And it doesn't take a genius to understand that. Besides, they showed that Neil has few lawyers for his case, he should have figured this out a long time ago.

If Isha has a court order which gives her sole custody of daughter kia and prohibits Neil from meeting kia, then there's a lot more to Neil's story then he says because courts are not stupid. Judges are smarter than most people think. It is an extreme verdict to give, judges don't throw around such verdicts every day.

Besides, Isha's conditions for divorce would have never been entertained by court. Isha would not have received alimony, maybe she would have to give alimony to Neil if this was a real life scenario. But let's not get into that department, it is a story for another day.

Also comparing motherhood and fatherhood in Neil's case is stupid. There's no fatherhood between Neil and kia, cause kia doesn't even know Neil!!! Let's face it, Neil is an absentee parent.

Having said that, it's not truth that children are more attached to mother than father. Children are attached to a primary caregiver who gives them sense of security and responds to their needs and actively engages into interaction with them. It could be mother, father, a third person... anyone for that matter. Both parents have equal chance to get involved in raising the children.

Originally posted by: anjali0111

I dont think neil's monologue was about to put women down or generalising them

It was more about how father finds it difficult to express their love. And society which gives utmost importance to a mother in the upbringing of child but ignore father's importance.

And by showing mini's past cvs were trying to imply that whatever happened between babita and ashok was altogether a different matter in between all this ashok khurana did love her daughter and both father and daughter didn't get that closure which they needed

The flashbacks were just super unnecessary and inappropriate imo. & even if that wasn't his intention, Neil ended up doing that anyway.

Originally posted by: Kabhi18

The flashbacks were just super unnecessary and inappropriate imo. & even if that wasn't his intention, Neil ended up doing that anyway.

That depends on everybody's interpretation to it.

Anyways nice to know your pov.

I don't necessarily find Neil's monologue ignorant... there are many people, who believe that a mother knows best, and these perceptions do play a role in issues of custody, even if not in the written law. I think many people may have perceived it as such, especially if they watched season 1, because it was paired with the memories of Ashok Khurana. After all, Ashok was not only an absentee father, but also a violent drunk, and an emotionally and physically abusive husband. So watching Minni sit there and think sympathetically about her father was a tough pill to swallow.

However, Neil is a young man who loved openly and wholeheartedly, only to be cheated. He then forgave his wife, supported her through the birth of their child and what sounds like some combination of postpartum depression and regret, only to be cheated again. He was angry, and he had a right to be, but Isha was clearly brilliantly manipulative, and when she saw that he wouldn't forgive her she reported him to the police and took his daughter away. I know some people are saying he could have fought for visitation and custody, but as far as I know, people with criminal complaints against them, especially of violence, rarely get custody and even visitation is challenging if the child is very young.

CVs comparison between babita-hanuman-imarti and mini-neil situation also didn't make sense. Imarti died and neil/babita's situation is different. their marriage broke. so obviously hanuman will keep memories of his 1st wife. what's so wrong in that? And the comment from naeembi that babita was waiting for hanuman to give her imarti's bangles was plain stupid. CVs need to stop comparing babita and mini's life. most of the time it doesn't even make sense.

Originally posted by: paytonlee123

CVs comparison between babita-hanuman-imarti and mini-neil situation also didn't make sense. Imarti died and neil/babita's situation is different. their marriage broke. so obviously hanuman will keep memories of his 1st wife. what's so wrong in that? And the comment from naeembi that babita was waiting for hanuman to give her imarti's bangles was plain stupid. CVs need to stop comparing babita and mini's life. most of the time it doesn't even make sense.

Bangles are not of imarti's

Bangles was given by sartaj (chudi wala )

That's why babita knows about Bangles and she was waiting.

That's why mini also knows about Bangles.

Originally posted by: paytonlee123

CVs comparison between babita-hanuman-imarti and mini-neil situation also didn't make sense. Imarti died and neil/babita's situation is different. their marriage broke. so obviously hanuman will keep memories of his 1st wife. what's so wrong in that? And the comment from naeembi that babita was waiting for hanuman to give her imarti's bangles was plain stupid. CVs need to stop comparing babita and mini's life. most of the time it doesn't even make sense.

I also found it really uncomfortable. Firstly, no second wife would want let alone WAIT for their husband to give her his first wife’s bangles. It is an insult and would be as tho he’s trying to replace or turn his new wife into his first wife. It’s plain weird and no woman in her right mind wants to live in the shadow of a dead ex. It didn’t make any sense to me either. I found it bizarre, and struggled to see the message they were trying to portray- especially considering NB herself said to mini that babita and Hs experienced martial problems which solved itself once they learned about arya. So the whole “waiting for bangles” monologue implied that it was an unhappy marriage to me. As for the little pot that belonged to hs mother (sorry I’m unsure about it’s name)- babita did not even know about this pot. On their wedding night when she went and slept with her daughter and left him waiting alone, he put that little pot away, realising that babita wasn’t 100% in the marriage.

I agree that people don’t stop loving someone just because they die, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s also possible to move on and continue to live your life with someone else, without it having anything to do with the loved one who died. It wouldn’t even be wrong if the both of them didn’t love each other as they loved their first spouses and was just looking for companionship.

The episode has left me a bit annoyed. I hate when these writers change things (or forget things previously shown) to suit the current narrative/message they’re trying to get across.

I also don’t see a comparison between babita and minis lives? Neils past Was a mistake, hs past was a tragedy.Babita’s past was a bitter divorce and minis past is a messed up family life.

Originally posted by: ..Kavi..

I don't necessarily find Neil's monologue ignorant... there are many people, who believe that a mother knows best, and these perceptions do play a role in issues of custody, even if not in the written law. I think many people may have perceived it as such, especially if they watched season 1, because it was paired with the memories of Ashok Khurana. After all, Ashok was not only an absentee father, but also a violent drunk, and an emotionally and physically abusive husband. So watching Minni sit there and think sympathetically about her father was a tough pill to swallow.

However, Neil is a young man who loved openly and wholeheartedly, only to be cheated. He then forgave his wife, supported her through the birth of their child and what sounds like some combination of postpartum depression and regret, only to be cheated again. He was angry, and he had a right to be, but Isha was clearly brilliantly manipulative, and when she saw that he wouldn't forgive her she reported him to the police and took his daughter away. I know some people are saying he could have fought for visitation and custody, but as far as I know, people with criminal complaints against them, especially of violence, rarely get custody and even visitation is challenging if the child is very young.

Courts DO NOT work on perceptions and beliefs and stereotypes. There are objective methods, involvement of psychologist and children welfare people to evaluate the relationship between each parent and child. And always, no matter what, child is the one whose well being is under focus, never mother or father.

There are many verdicts given by high court and supreme court which mentions that interaction between child and parent matter more rather than parent as an individual. That is, Neil might have a heart of gold and a great personality, while Isha might be manipulative b*tch, but what matters more in this custody case is - who is a better caregiver? The fact that Neil hasn't been involved in kia life at all- kia doesn't recognise him, is a huge disadvantage. In real life, it will take a miracle for him to win physical custody of kia.

Last bold part: you are confusing allegations with verdict. Allegations do not as such affect visiting rights. I am here assuming that Isha filed a case of domestic violence ( because writers didn't specify that). In such cases, while Neil wouldn't get physical custody, he would still have visitation rights.

And if at all the allegations were proven and court found that Neil's behavior was actually violent enough to deny him even visitation rights,then it's actually pretty serious and shouldn't be downplayed just because accused is our hero.

And Isha's demands for divorce- alimony and property rights- total malarkey. Even a Google search will tell you that alimony and division of properties doesn't work that way. There were lawyers sitting there and they were silent- WTH. drama ke liye kuch bhi dikhayenge?

So far we have only heard what characters have said so from legal POV everything is vague. Did Isha actually filed a criminal case against Neil? What are the nature of charges? Did court actually deny visitation charges or Isha is illegally not allowing Neil to meet kia?

Also so far potrayal of Isha is very flat. She is a bad woman who is mean towards neil- that's it. No other aspects of her personality are shown,even her scenes with kia always have Neil's presence. We have never seen how Isha and kia interact when no one is around. I can't help but notice that this is very much black and white potrayal like we see in ekta serials.

It is lousy writing to be honest and reminds me of Hanuman accused of imarti's murder. That track was so hyped up, we were speculating that it was a mystery on par with story like Rebecca and then when they revealed the secret, that logic made no sense at all. It was all for drama.

Previously writers have been on point regarding divorce procedure and procedure for removing surname. But now we have this over the top drama with little link to realism so far. If they're indeed interested in showing a legal problem, then better do some basic research. A little realism doesn't hurt.