Better to split or better to stick?

This was a question in the back of my mind as I watched the 21st episode, last Wednesday and even afterwards, with regards to Mr. and Mrs. Mehra.

We see that Rohan has always thought that they should have gotten divorced, and that in his opinion, them not parting ways has only been worse for him as a child. On the other hand, the parents stuck together despite fighting day in and out for the sake of their kids. Their sacrifice was a boon for Rohan and Dhruv, and so one wonders, would it have been better for them to get divorced? Would this have changed the way Rohan grew up? Or was the sacrifice the parents made justified and better for their children, as opposed to making them go through the changes suffered because of a divorce? If they had split, would Rohan at least have retained some respect for committed relationships, or would he just be the same?

When two people do not get along in a marriage, should they stay committed to each other as they have said 'till death do us part' or go their own ways? Is it important for them to stick together and bring up their children as one, or better to split, because they will not only be making their own lives hell, but also the children's?

What do you think?

Nice post, Fatty :-)

I think watching their parents split up would be hard for any kids.....however when two ppl stay together out of some kind of obligation and are obviously unhappy....when it starts to show in constant fights, negativity in a home....then it's probably better to split......a home filled with constant negativity and fights is just as bad if not worse for a child as is the pain of watching their parents seperate.

In today's world, divorce seems to have become common-place...especially in the Western world....1 out of every 10 kids seems to come from a divorced home....this is not to say that makes it any easier or simpler....I'm sure these kids are affected in some way or the other still...but it seems a lot of them learn to take it in stride.... they get to see a happy set of parents even if not necessarily happy together.....

nice topic..

I was quite confused about this thing..

As nureat said, divorce would have been a better option for the parents if they were living in a western society because there ,every other child is living with a single divorced parent....so its not a big deal for them n its easy for them to cope up with it...although it must effect them in a negative way as well..but not much..
but here in indian culture, divorce is not considered cake n it comes with a huge amount of humiliation for a married couple esp a woman..i mean its considered as the last stage of tolerance ....if its impossible for a couple to live with each other, only then they consider of splitting up...

About the effect on a child..i personally think that its better for the parents to stick together for as long as they can without creating a negative atmosphere in the house...i mean if they have any differences, they should never bring them out in front of the kids as it effects a childs mind in a negative way..as it did to rohans..

But if the attitude of the parents is like rohans parents...then i guess instead of irritating the kids throughout their lives, its better to split n finish the story once and for all..Offcourse its very difficult for a child to live with a single parent but then again, its less bad than seeing his/her parents fight to the point of nearly killing each other every day..

This is a two sided discussion..both sides have their pros and cons..
as they say "everything has its seamy side" ..

but i think IF the parents want to live together just for the sake of their kids, then they should show some responsibilty n try their best not to show their bitterness for each other infront of the kids...otherwise theres no use of staying together..

Interesting topic!

Interesting post! :)

I believe it really depends on the childrens' psychology. If I was a parent and I knew my child wouldn't be able to take the divorce in a positive manner, I would stick with the person. After all I would prefer bickering with a guy than to see my own child suffer emotionally for most of his/her life.

First of all, I think they should have gone through marriage counseling. They have a huge communication gap where they misunderstand each other. They should have talked to someone and changed their ways at least in front of their kids. I don't think it is necessary for them to split. They also don't seem to want to split. They were really shocked when the kids had said that. Also, they are still staying together even after their kids moved out. Most of the time, it's just a communication and understanding problem. If one of them (the couple) completely disliked the other or had done something horrible, then a divorce would be likely.

Very nice topic.

In my opinion, if there's no love in a relationship, no mutual understanding, its way better to just split (after going through marriage counseling offcourse) ! I completely agreed with rohan...he would rather see his parents being happy individually than to see them fight & sad being together. Some couples stick together only for their children, they COMPROMISE. I dnt really see the advantage there as the child can still grow up seeing his/her parents fights for lifetime. I would say just split & make ur child understand the reason. I am sure a child wudnt like to be the reason why either of their parents is sacrificing their happiness just for the sake of their children.

Therefore...better to split if its not working out :)