Ask any small Child the answer will be "No". Make any opinion pool, a common sense person will say "No"!
But Supreme Court of India need more than 2years time to give the Final decision.
Already
LAW commission had advices to make the adultery LAW gender Neutral ,
still government is sleeping. As per law if a women is not divorced and
marry to other man the marriage to be termed as null and void , but in
DV act the loop whole they try to manipulate and file domestic violence
act to hide their own crime, where as such women should had been
punished for cheating and fraud.
But to decide the simple
question in a case SC already passed more than two years. Today in SC
I witness to observe the argument of Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, a Supreme court
Lawyer, make strong argument to dismiss such cases immediately to save
the Natural Justice system of India and person can't take advantage of
her own wrong doing along with came in court with UN-clean hands.
I
thought it is against any natural justice system where a person got
cheated and the women done the crime , the Court instead of Punishing
her for her wrong doing , accepting a cases in the name of Domestic
violence act and harass the man more than 2 years and Sc will do justice
to such Husbands who are victim of such cases, but the order not passed
and on request the opposite party now Indra Jai Singh will argue the
cases, where as she is not involved in this cases since now.
When opposite party unable to give any valid argument divert the issue to the famous anti-male Lawyer Ms. Indra Jai Singh is going to argue in SC in next date
with the logic such cases should not be dismissed as that will effect a
lot of women, as she drafted the LAW for any women , let she hide her
previous marriage 100 times and keep doing so, but she should not be
punished.
Let the natural Justice system get killed , let a women do crime, cheat
but she should not be punished. Till date Sc had not came under all
media trails or the anti-men radical groups pressure as earlier Sc had
already clarified :
35. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude
many women who have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the DV Act
2005, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law.
Parliament has used the expression `relationship in the nature of marriage’ and
not `live in relationship’. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot
change the language of the statute.
Let wait and see who win the
Natural Justice System of India or anti-male sentiments with the
ideology , a women can't be punished for her any wrong doing in this
country and they born in Raja Harish Chandra Family( never lie).
On 21
st October 2010, a Supreme Court
bench by Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S.Thakur ordered that Live-in
Partners cannot be equated with legally wedded spouses and a woman in a live-in
relationship cannot demand her male partner to maintain her by giving money
every month.
- The concept of women demanding money from men to maintain their life style
is completely unacceptable in this era.
- Men are not “Economic Slaves” that they have to keep giving money and gifts
every month to women, girl friends, Keeps, concubines, part time lovers, sexual
partners, mistresses for decades or whole life even after the end of the
relationship.
- Women are no way different than men except few minor physiological
differences and they can work to maintain themselves just the way any single man
maintains himself.
- Today, Sexual relationships between men and women are mutual. Only an idiot
can assume that in a sexual relationship female is the giver and male is the
taker. Law Makers must put an end to this practice of maintenance, alimony,
compensations to women just due to some mutual sexual or emotional relationships
for short or long periods of time.
- Society and media must stop encouraging greed and economic parasitism in
women. Women are equal to men and women have the freedom and choice to work,
earn and maintain their life style.
- If any child is born out of these sexual relationships, live-in
relationships or one night stands, then the child’s proper upbringing is the
shared responsibility of both the biological parents.
Today, when many societies in the world are
eliminating maintenance/alimony/Palimony to wives and are instead urging women
to just work and be financially independent, it is outrageous that our
Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaisingh goes on to argue in a
non-Government case and demands that a man pay Rs.500 every month to one of his
sexual partners for many decades in future just like a “Free ATM Machine”. It
appears that 70 year old Indira Jaisingh would like women to lead life as
economic parasites.
NCFM hails the Supreme Court judgment, which now
corrects many misinterpretations that Domestic Violence Act has created.
Incidentally, the domestic violence act was drafted by Indira Jaisingh herself
and she made this act to “Demand Money from Men Act”, even when there are
separate laws related to maintenance. Nowhere in the world, are Women allowed to
demand monthly money indefinitely from partner/spouse, while accusing the
partner of domestic violence.
Ravi Kumar (name changed), aged 32, a software
Engineer has a part-time lover for last 6 months. Just last week, they had a
break up. Will Ravi Kumar have to pay Rs.5000/- per month to his part time lover
for rest of his life?
Why Men have to pay money to women? What is the
difference between men and women apart from a few physiological differences
related to sexual organs? Should these few physiological differences make one a
“Free ATM Machine” for the other?
On one hand, we hear daily harangues of “Gender
Equality” and on the other hand radical feminists like Indira Jaisingh would
like to convert every man into “Economic Slaves” and every
woman into “economic parasites”.
The sexual relations between two humans are
mutual. How appropriate is it to make one sexual partner maintain and pay to the
other like a Slave for decades? It appears the radical feminists like Indira
Jaisingh would like to define every sexual relationship between a man and woman
as “Marriage” on one hand, while actively promoting live-in relationships in the
society on the other hand.
A Live-in relationship or a “one night stand” is
not a marriage. It’s absurd if someone mistakes them as marriage. Men must not
be forced to pay money indefinitely to women whether it is live-in-relationship
or it is a marriage. Its time society stops encouraging economic parasitism and
tells women to just work and be financially independent.
Indira Jaisingh was always a male hater. Given a
chance, she can also push courts to order men to pay maintenance to their female
colleagues at work citing some imaginary office romance. We are heading towards
a society where women are independent and men are no longer treated as
“Free ATM Machines”. Women in urban and also rural India can
just work to maintain themselves. They can become clerks, bus conductors,
traffic policewomen, vegetable vendors, soldiers, teachers and they can do
almost all jobs that men do and earn their livelihood.
It’s very important to note that in this landmark
judgment the Honorable judges have referred to appropriate judgments of courts
of United States of America and have told to “Google” for these
judgments and terms.
The
Judgment says:
In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of
marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that
although not being formally married:-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to
society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter
into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held
themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of
time.
In our opinion not all live in relationships will
amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the
Domestic Violence Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by
us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has
a `keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or
as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of
marriage’.
35. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude
many women who have had a live in relationship from the benefit of the DV Act
2005, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law.
Parliament has used the expression `relationship in the nature of marriage’ and
not `live in relationship’. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot
change the language of the statute.
Request all honest citizen of India ,
Join SIF Team
to Stop such legal terrorism against Indian men and demand to replace the word
"Husband/wife" to
"Spouse" and
"Men/Women" to
"Person" to all related LAW or policy like all
over world follow instead of making assumption that all Women born in
Raja Harish Chandra family ( never lie) and all Men born in
Criminal family.
PPT to stop the legal terrorism
(Crime Is Crime. Punishment should be irrespective of gender, religion and caste. Let us be honest and fight for truth)
