Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Not Sure If This Is Funny Or Pathetic


The couple married in April 1999 and had a daughter in May 2000. Ajay was posted to Port Blair on April 17, 2006. But Anjali refused to join him and in May filed a petition for maintenance and told the family court that Ajay was ill-treating her. Ajay subsequently filed for divorce.

Hearing an appeal by the husband against the family court's dismissal of his divorce plea, a division bench of Justices P B Majmudar and Anoop Mohta asked the wife why she could not join her husband. "You should go to him. When Sita could join Ram in vanvas, then why can't you go?" asked Justice Majmudar.


Anjali doesn't want to live with Ajay and claims she is being ill-treated. Ajay claims the wife has abandoned him and wants a divorce. I don't see why the Justices are insisting that the two should be kept together when clearly the parties involved don't want to stay together!? Where is the logic?

Giving references from the Ramayan for a divorce case? Seriously!?

So the next time someone is charged with (for example) burning his wife - the defence attorney can quote the Ramayan and demand dismissal of the case claiming that the accused was merely following the Ramayan and insisted his wife go through the Agni-Pariksha (trial by fire)!?!?

Justice Majmudar should get his head examined before he is allowed to preside over any hearing. I suggest, he should be kept in isolation until he can demonstrate his ability to think logically.

Jahaalat ki bhi hadh hoti hai!

2 Opinions:

Surya Murali said...


Marriage is too over-rated here in India. It is quite unfortunate.

Don't get me wrong... not that I do not believe in marriages... I do (I am a hopeless romantic that way)
But, I hate the insistence that two people should stay together when they clearly cannot stand each other.

People would insist that you try and work it out... it is all fine to stay... but a marriage that has the couple bickering day and night and tearing their head apart in frustration and probably even looking elsewhere for love and satisfaction... how is that a union? It is more like social farce.

Divorce is considered a bad word... a stigma even, in our country. It should be considered the sensible choice of two people who have decided they are better off separate... rather than together and making each other's and their own lives miserable.

L o r d R a j said...

Stigma or bad word or whatever - The fact that this couple has made their intention clear, I don't see why the judicial system wants them to try and patch up.

It is not that there is a problem in SUGGESTING that they work things out - my problem is with Majumdar citing an incident from the Ramayan. "Sita went to vanvas with Ram, you can't go to Port Blair?"

Abbey saale duffer! The problem is NOT the place. The problem is that she doesn't want to be with the guy!!

The woman says she is not being treated right.
The man says the wife has deserted him.
They say they can't live together, and here is this idiot saying - Be like Sita!

Daft cunt. Dharti pe bojh. Jaahil, gawaar, chutiya.