Pari should be sent to jail - Page 2

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

Problem is she stole the jewellery (not took it, stole it from her mother-in-law's cupboard), allowed for a false complaint being lodged with the police. She may be a co-conspirator depending on what the money has been used for.

Would it be called theft if one of her sisters-in-law were to take some ancestral/family money or jewellery or papers from Pari's cupboard without her knowledge?

About the emotional aspect of it, she feigned innocence, not caring the respect of her husband, his family, orchestrated a drama not caring the impact it would have on their relation. She is betraying both families, her husband.

Originally posted by: The_Best

The jewelry was her own. So there’s no stealing her own jewelry. She took it from her mother-in-law who was keeping it from her. If her mother-in-law never took her jewelry she wouldn’t need to take it secretly from her.

Are we trying to define theft or justify Pari's act?

Aise toh if she borrowed some jewellery, saree, make-up, better still, some important files, something that belonged to another family member, hadn't returned it or was with her for safe-guarding and someone took it from her cupboard, secretly, that wouldn't be stealing, right? AfterALL, the said thing belongs to someone else, right?

Furthermore, if she so felt wrong about it being in her mother-in-law's possession, she isn't naive or meek, she should have told her mother-in-law, that she would prefer to keep the jewellery safe herself, isn't it?

If what she did was so right (she took what was hers), why did she deny taking it when asked and created such a huge drama?

Finally, when her Sister-in-law entered her room while she was talking on phone, she asked her to wait for permission before entering her room (which in itself is right) but it was ok with not just entering her in-laws' room (in their absence without their permission) but opening the locker and taking "her jewellery"?

One more question, suppose the jewellery was a family heirloom passed on, by her mother-in-law. Supposed the jewellery was indeed with her and she sold it off, unilaterally, without family consent, would that be right because it belonged to her for now? If yes, in that case, the concept of heritage jewellery itself is farce, isn't it?

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

Are we trying to define theft or justify Pari's act?

Aise toh if she borrowed some jewellery, saree, make-up, better still, some important files, something that belonged to another family member, hadn't returned it or was with her for safe-guarding and someone took it from her cupboard, secretly, that wouldn't be stealing, right? AfterALL, the said thing belongs to someone else, right?

Furthermore, if she so felt wrong about it being in her mother-in-law's possession, she isn't naive or meek, she should have told her mother-in-law, that she would prefer to keep the jewellery safe herself, isn't it?

If what she did was so right (she took what was hers), why did she deny taking it when asked and created such a huge drama?

Finally, when her Sister-in-law entered her room while she was talking on phone, she asked her to wait for permission before entering her room (which in itself is right) but it was ok with not just entering her in-laws' room (in their absence without their permission) but opening the locker and taking "her jewellery"?

One more question, suppose the jewellery was a family heirloom passed on, by her mother-in-law. Supposed the jewellery was indeed with her and she sold it off, unilaterally, without family consent, would that be right because it belonged to her for now? If yes, in that case, the concept of heritage jewellery itself is farce, isn't it?

Originally posted by: The_Best

Not sure why are you are bringing heritage or other people stuffs here when the talk is about Pari’s jewelry that she took from her mother-in-laws’s room. That jewelry is Paris. So a person can not steal their own stuffs.

Not sure why you chose to ignore everything else and only focus on heritage part.

Entering her in-laws' room without permission, in her absence and without her knowledge, opening a locker that incidentally, belongs to her mother-in-law. What is this action called?

She went a step further, blatantly denying it when asked and created a whole drama as though she was wronged. Wasted Police time and resources when a complaint was lodged.

Originally posted by: Bodhianveshika

Not sure why you chose to ignore everything else and only focus on heritage part.

Entering her in-laws' room without permission, in her absence and without her knowledge, opening a locker that incidentally, belongs to her mother-in-law. What is this action called?

She went a step further, blatantly denying it when asked and created a whole drama as though she was wronged. Wasted Police time and resources when a complaint was lodged.

Originally posted by: The_Best

She wouldn’t need to enter her mother-in-laws room if her jewelry was never taken away from her. Way to blame the person whose jewelry is taken from her. You brought heritage and other things which has nothing to do with what’s being discussed. The police and other things wouldn’t have happened if she had jewelry with herself

So, you are saying that Pari had a problem with her mother-in-law keeping her jewellery, isnt it? What stopped her from telling her mother-in-law that she wants to keep her jewellery with herself and that she is responsible to take it upon her? That way, the jewellery would not have been kept in her mother-in-law's room isn't it.

Next, she took what was rightfully herself, isn't it? Great, why did she not say just that. That she took what was hers when she was asked. They approached the police when none in the house seemed to know of it. They wouldn't have called the police at ALL and the drama would not have happened.

Her mother-in-law taking her jewellery is no justification to her stealing it and yes, it is stealing. Because regardless of who it belongs to, she chose the wrong way to retrieve it.

Heritage and everything else was mentioned to understand what was the rationale behind not calling Pari's act as stealing which it clearly was.