Dadisa in jagat house promo - Page 16

i do not know bv mein itni badi bevkoofi kaisa dikha diya, illegal marriage law mein saaf saaf bataya gaya hai agar wife file case nahi kar sakti to wife ke parents ya relative file case kur hi sakte hain.

Originally posted by: SRKLuvr

See I believe that the 7 year bigamy sentence is for those who knowingly and spitefully commit it. I reckon those who unknowingly commit it would be down the lower end of the spectrum of sanctions.

Hey this is the last time I am repeating myself. Any law does not take into consideration ignorance. Even though a person did not know if he was committing an illegal act, he still receives the same kind of punishment be it bigamy or breaking traffic rules. "Ignorance" is not a defence. Only if you are underage or have a mental disability, then there are some chances. There was one case when someone committed an illegal act under the influence of someone. That person was still charged. And bigamy is not some small crime in any country. It is equal to a serious criminal offence. It comes under criminal law not small claims court.

SRKLuvr - I completely support you and with you on this...and its baseless arguing here with our views 😆 so I am just reading and having fun 😆 but I had to step in and say Kudos to you for putting up all this in the forum ...But yes I commend your views coz I feel exactly the same...So yes +1 to that 😊

@Srklover In any crime weather its bigamy,murder,rape,theft or a simple traffic violation a judge will not buy the argument tht he/she was unaware of the crime.

Originally posted by: surabhi01

i do not know bv mein itni badi bevkoofi kaisa dikha diya, illegal marriage law mein saaf saaf bataya gaya hai agar wife file case nahi kar sakti to wife ke parents ya relative file case kur hi sakte hain.

Father of the bride can file a case against the dactaari couple but by then anandi wouldn't let him do so. So they must have left it on her.

Gauri mocks @ Anandi as gawar..before marriage with Jagat,neither Gauri nor her sheheri cultured parents approach the officer @ marriage registration office with the fact file of Jagat's childmarriage & its validity and legality...he wd Hv adviced them & cd save them from Jagat's legal issues...
Without official documentation, even their certificate is also useless...
Now Jagat has to be sentenced for bigamy(Anandi shd file the case) & for deception (Gauri shd file the case).
Then only Jagats in the society might think twice before playing with women @ their whims & fancies.
While appreciating justice shown in Phooli's case,it is hoped that Jagat put in jail,instead of his alcoholic scenes...
He should be shown @ Bar at Law...NOT @ Bar of wine...

Originally posted by: runes

Hey this is the last time I am repeating myself. Any law does not take into consideration ignorance. Even though a person did not know if he was committing an illegal act, he still receives the same kind of punishment be it bigamy or breaking traffic rules. "Ignorance" is not a defence. Only if you are underage or have a mental disability, then there are some chances. There was one case when someone committed an illegal act under the influence of someone. That person was still charged. And bigamy is not some small crime in any country. It is equal to a serious criminal offence. It comes under criminal law not small claims court.

I thought you hated Jagat as he ruined the life of 2 women. Both Gauri and Anandi should make sure that he gets maximum penalty.

Originally posted by: gagarulez

SRKLuvr - I completely support you and with you on this...and its baseless arguing here with our views 😆 so I am just reading and having fun 😆 but I had to step in and say Kudos to you for putting up all this in the forum ...But yes I commend your views coz I feel exactly the same...So yes +1 to that 😊

What is going on here is a legal argument, not a thread on respective views.
A legal argument is done with counter legal arguments, not with beliefs or views. A law does not become valid or invalid depending on what individual citizens believe or carry as point of view. Law is a fact, what people are arguing here are facts.

If you have any fact that counters this argument--that is a section in IPC where it mentions the differential punishment or any real life case which shows a legal precedence of what SRKluvr is putting forward--then please do share. I really want to know if there has been any incident where the judge has diminished punishment for a guilty just because he claimed ignorance--that too outside the clauses tinoo has put forward, since none of those clauses are applicable for Jagya.