Hindu son can divorce wife if she tries to separate him from aged parents

[beetle]

2 minutes ago, vayuu1 said:

I have seen many boys take care of Inlaws and have done a lot of things, on the other hand I have seen plenty of girl making their Inlaws life hell,and girls can go to anywhere they want, but one shouldn't forget his /her duty towards family.

I have seen involved son in laws too....but they are an exception.

There are good and bad daughter in laws just like bad and good in laws.......but culturally in laws are given far more sanction to trouble the daughter in law.Ask the mothers and marred sisters in the family  .

Not just the girls...all children should go anywhere they want,but one should not forget his /her duty towards family.

 

[beetle]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

How families should live should depend upon what is best for the respective families. Does the verdict talk about how families should live? It talks about giving divorce on grounds if the wife serves as an obstruction to help support husband's parents who are the heads of the husband's family where the girl is married in to 

I have already discussed this.The verdict is correct because of cruelty and also because not taking care of parents is against the law.Yes the gyan with the verdict did say...the girl should be a part of the guys family and should not ask for separate home.

12 minutes ago, zen said:

One cannot marry the husband and not be a part of his family. From the girl's family side, they accept the girl to leave the family once married (daughters are considered as amanet)

That is a very regressive thought that probably was acceptable in times when people had many children.

 

These days people have one or two children.A lot of times, they are both daughters.

 

This kind of thought is the reason why female infanticide is common in our country.

 

A parayi amanet does not make much sense if people will only have one or two children....in a country where children are often considered as a investment  and retirement plan.

 

A lot of people kill girls because to them it does not make sense to invest in someone who is not free to take care of them,who is not free to earn and help them .

 

A son not only is a better investment,he also gets them a daughter in law who is expected to serve them.That is the reason a son is considered worth raising while a daughter is often killed in the womb or at birth. 

 

If this is not a good enough reason to stop calling the daughter parayi amanat....then what is a good enough reason.

12 minutes ago, zen said:

All responsible families allow girl parents to be taken care of on humanitarian grounds. I don't know of many parents (girl's) who would want to do that on a permanent basis at the "girl's husband's house"  because of the reasons already discussed. It is more likely that honorable families are likely to ask their daughters to treat husband's parents above themselves 

Take care of man's family as a right .

 

Take care of girl's family on humanitarian ground. See the difference.

 

Do you think it is wrong for the wife's parents to live in her married home if required just like the guys parents do?

 

Why do you think girl's parents are not comfortable living in daughter's life? Who makes them uncomfortable? 

Who do you think started these traditions that make the girl's parents less worthy of shelter ,respect ,care .....and why?

 

Why is it honorable for the girl's family to tell their daughter to treat the husband's family above her parents?

Why is the same not expected from honorable guy's parents...i.e tell their son that he should treat his wife's parents above his own parents? Or are guy's parents not expected to be honorable?

 

[Muloghonto]

I agree with the title,in the sense that divorce should not require any grounds, except 'i don't want to be married to him/her anymore'. The reason could be parents, lack of sex, irreconcilable differences, i got bored, i want a new life, whatever. if two people cannot be stopped from getting married for whatever reason, they should not be stopped from divorcing for whatever reason.

 

 

[beetle]

Guys I may not be around the next few days....inlaws and parents visiting together.

Please feel free to ask questions and answer questions .

Edited October 8, 2016 by radhika

[zen]

33 minutes ago, radhika said:

I have already discussed this.The verdict is correct because of cruelty and also because not taking care of parents is against the law.Yes the gyan with the verdict did say...the girl should be a part of the guys family and should not ask for separate home.

That is a very regressive thought that probably was acceptable in times when people had many children.

 

These days people have one or two children.A lot of times, they are both daughters.

 

This kind of thought is the reason why female infanticide is common in our country.

 

A parayi amanet does not make much sense if people will only have one or two children....in a country where children are often considered as a investment  and retirement plan.

 

A lot of people kill girls because to them it does not make sense to invest in someone who is not free to take care of them,who is not free to earn and help them .

 

A son not only is a better investment,he also gets them a daughter in law who is expected to serve them.That is the reason a son is considered worth raising while a daughter is often killed in the womb or at birth. 

 

If this is not a good enough reason to stop calling the daughter parayi amanat....then what is a good enough reason.

Take care of man's family as a right .

 

Take care of girl's family on humanitarian ground. See the difference.

 

Do you think it is wrong for the wife's parents to live in her married home if required just like the guys parents do?

 

Why do you think girl's parents are not comfortable living in daughter's life? Who makes them uncomfortable? 

Who do you think started these traditions that make the girl's parents less worthy of shelter ,respect ,care .....and why?

 

Why is it honorable for the girl's family to tell their daughter to treat the husband's family above her parents?

Why is the same not expected from honorable guy's parents...i.e tell their son that he should treat his wife's parents above his own parents? Or are guy's parents not expected to be honorable?

 

I don't see it as a regressive thought. Tomorrow, ppl will say marriage itself is a regressive concept. The line has to be drawn somewhere 

 

As I said how families should live should be decided by the respective families. Whether it means living jointly or independently. I don't see any honorable family living permanently at their daughter's place. Husband's family should get 1st preference if there is a choice b/w the two 

 

This does not imply not helping girl's parents or not providing them with economic assistance when required 

 

If you want to ask why this or why that. We can discuss many things such as guys should adapt girl's surname too or whatever. Having these questions does not mean that the incumbent system is wrong 

 

If we have to ask "why" questions, let's start with why get married in the first place. What is the need to get "acceptance" of a relationship b/w two individuals by the society? 

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by zen

[beetle]

28 minutes ago, zen said:

I don't see any honorable family living permanently at their daughter's place. Husband's family should get 1st preference if there is a choice b/w the two 

 

Why? Because the rules were made by people to suit them?

Why are the wife's parents second class parents?

If it is dishonorable for girl's parents to live with her ...why is it honorable for husband's parents to live with him?

Do you think giving birth to a male child makes people superior and they are entitled to more favors. Your views mean giving birth to a girl child entitles you to some kind of penalty(thy are less worthy?)

28 minutes ago, zen said:

Having these questions does not mean that the incumbent system is wrong 

 

If the incumbent system entitles one side to major advantage and the other side disadvantage...then the system is wrong.

If the incumbent system is resulting in genocide of one gender...then the incumbent system is wrong.

Would you feel the same way if it was the guys's family at the wrong end of the stick?

28 minutes ago, zen said:

If we have to ask "why" questions, let's start with why get married in the first place. What is the need to get "acceptance" of a relationship b/w two individuals by the society? 

 

One should get  married for companionship and love ,not for getting a service provider  or ATM machine.One should get married to be a part of each others life.....not the whole village' s life.

One should not marry to upgrade ones family or downgrade the wife's family .(all this talk of honorable and dishonorable conduct is downgrading)

Marriage is a commitment to each other.

The social sanction is probably required to announce the commitment and to announce ones non availability for further  alliance.

For all it's worth...a marriage in the court or a temple is as legal as a big fat wedding in front of half the town.

A marriage conducted against the family's wishes is as legal   as one done with everyone's aashirwad.

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by radhika

[Muloghonto]

45 minutes ago, zen said:

I don't see it as a regressive thought. Tomorrow, ppl will say marriage itself is a regressive concept. The line has to be drawn somewhere 

 

As I said how families should live should be decided by the respective families. Whether it means living jointly or independently. I don't see any honorable family living permanently at their daughter's place. Husband's family should get 1st preference if there is a choice b/w the two 

 

This does not imply not helping girl's parents or not providing them with economic assistance when required 

 

If you want to ask why this or why that. We can discuss many things such as guys should adapt girl's surname too or whatever. Having these questions does not mean that the incumbent system is wrong 

 

If we have to ask "why" questions, let's start with why get married in the first place. What is the need to get "acceptance" of a relationship b/w two individuals by the society? 

 

1. Why should husbands family get first preference ?

2. When you are living in a house bought by someone else, why should it be honourable to live in the house if the husband's father paid for it,rather than the wife's father?

3. I do know people here who adopt female's last name, as well as people who adopt both the last names (hyphenated) when married. 

4. The only real reason to get married is it eases paperwork when travelling. Lot easier to get visa for wife/husband than girlfriend/boyfriend. 

 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, radhika said:

Why? Because the rules were made by people to suit them?

Why are the wife's parents second class parents?

If it is dishonorable for girl's parents to live with her ...why is it honorable for husband's parents to live with him?

Do you think giving birth to a male child makes people superior and they are entitled to more favors. Your views mean giving birth to a girl child entitles you to some kind of penalty(thy are less worthy?)

If the incumbent system entitles one side to major advantage and the other side disadvantage...then the system is wrong.

If the incumbent system is resulting in genocide of one gender...then the incumbent system is wrong.

Would you feel the same way if it was the guys's family at the wrong end of the stick?

One should get  married for companionship and love ,not for getting a service provider  or ATM machine.One should get married to be a part of each others life.....not the whole village' s life.

One should not marry to upgrade ones family or downgrade the wife's family .(all this talk of honorable and dishonorable conduct is downgrading)

Marriage is a commitment to each other.

The social sanction is probably required to announce the commitment and to announce ones non availability for further  alliance.

For all it's worth...a marriage in the court or a temple is as legal as a big fat wedding in front of half the town.

A marriage conducted against the family's wishes is as legal   as one done with everyone's aashirwad.

 

There is no first or second class differentiation here. Nor one bring superior to the other. In fact, raising a daughter and having to give her away is a sacrifice. One who sacrifices is often rated higher 

 

We do not need to marry someone to show commitment. If marriages represented commitment, there would be no divorces or cheating spouses. There are legal ways to be involved in a relationship too

 

If we want to talk about changing the system. We can start with scrapping the very idea of marriage. Once the idea is scrapped, there could  be space for new rules 

 

Why do we have to use our father's name as middle name, why not mother's? Does using father's name as middle name make the mother inferior / 2nd class? 

 

Another change we can talk about is, If after getting married people think they become independent, they should not lay claims on their parents properties / money. In fact, parents should donate all the property/ money in their will 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zen]

40 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. Why should husbands family get first preference ?

2. When you are living in a house bought by someone else, why should it be honourable to live in the house if the husband's father paid for it,rather than the wife's father?

3. I do know people here who adopt female's last name, as well as people who adopt both the last names (hyphenated) when married. 

4. The only real reason to get married is it eases paperwork when travelling. Lot easier to get visa for wife/husband than girlfriend/boyfriend. 

 

I think Radhika has asked similar questions to which I hv replied. Anyways, some quick points 

 

1. Because female is married in to male's based on the incumbent system

2. ?

3. Exceptions don't make the rules

4. ? 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

I think Radhika has asked similar questions to which I hv replied. Anyways, some quick points 

 

1. Because female is married in to male's based on the incumbent system

2. ?

3. Exceptions don't make the rules

4. ? 

1. The incumbent system does not specifically state that the female is married in to the male's family. Its seen as two people marrying each other and two families joining. 

2. was in response of 'i don't see any honourable family living permanently at their daughter's place'

3. Exceptions do make the rules when the frequency is high enough to make it so. This practice started less than 20 years ago. Give it a 100 years and it too will be the norm.

4. In response to 'why are we getting married'. 

[zen]

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1. The incumbent system does not specifically state that the female is married in to the male's family. Its seen as two people marrying each other and two families joining. 

2. was in response of 'i don't see any honourable family living permanently at their daughter's place'

3. Exceptions do make the rules when the frequency is high enough to make it so. This practice started less than 20 years ago. Give it a 100 years and it too will be the norm.

4. In response to 'why are we getting married'. 

1. It implies with female adapting male's surname and Ind's joint family and arranged marriage concepts 

2. I don't get the Q

3. I have not seen a male adapting female's family name post marriage. In 100 yrs time, who knows 

4. OK so you believe that ppl get married for ease of traveling abroad

 

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

1. It implies with female adapting male's surname and Ind's joint family and arranged marriage concepts 

 

3. I have not seen a male adapting female's family name. In 100 yrs time, who knows 

Indian joint families are not part of the marriage system. They are part of the socio-economic system. 300 years ago, everyone lived in joint families. Indians, Arabs, Europeans, etc. Industrial revolution made cities densify like never before and families were not able to afford houses that they could simply keep adding rooms/floors to accommodate newer generations. Thus, joint family system came to an end. Same thing is happening in India today : in major cities, joint family system is dying very fast due to precisely this reason. 

This is also the reason why husband and wife share the same bed- because of industrial revolution, rooms were at a premium and you couldn't exactly afford an extra room unless you needed to. In Shakespeare's time, be it in Europe or in India, husband had one room,wife had another. 

 

As per males adopting female's family name - it happens plenty often in the western world these days. As i said, i personally know at least 3 couples where the male has adopted the female name and atleast 5 other couples where they took both their names, separated by a hyphen.

Ie, Miss Jessica Jones and Mr Jack Johnson became Mrs Jessica Johnson-Jones and Mr Jack Jones-Johnson. That style of name-adoption is actually the fastest rising style of post-marriage name alteration.

[mishra]

^ first Hindu paarents should start giving equal opportunity to girl child during upbringing and inheritence. Since they dont, why girls Parents expect equal treatment like boys parents.

 

Also grounds of divorce can be just unwillingness to live together

Edited October 8, 2016 by mishra

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Indian joint families are not part of the marriage system. They are part of the socio-economic system. 300 years ago, everyone lived in joint families. Indians, Arabs, Europeans, etc. Industrial revolution made cities densify like never before and families were not able to afford houses that they could simply keep adding rooms/floors to accommodate newer generations. Thus, joint family system came to an end. Same thing is happening in India today : in major cities, joint family system is dying very fast due to precisely this reason. 

This is also the reason why husband and wife share the same bed- because of industrial revolution, rooms were at a premium and you couldn't exactly afford an extra room unless you needed to. In Shakespeare's time, be it in Europe or in India, husband had one room,wife had another. 

 

As per males adopting female's family name - it happens plenty often in the western world these days. As i said, i personally know at least 3 couples where the male has adopted the female name and atleast 5 other couples where they took both their names, separated by a hyphen.

Ie, Miss Jessica Jones and Mr Jack Johnson became Mrs Jessica Johnson-Jones and Mr Jack Jones-Johnson. That style of name-adoption is actually the fastest rising style of post-marriage name alteration.

The concepts of arrange marriage, female using male surnames, to me, implies that female is being a part of husband's family 

 

3 to 5 names is still relatively miniscule. I m aware of female using hyped style but not both or may have missed it / not realized it

Edited October 8, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

The concepts of arrange marriage, female using male surnames, to me, implies that female is being a part of husband's family 

 

3 to 5 names is still relatively miniscule. I m aware of female using hyped style but not both or may have missed it / not realized it

Living arrangements are either caused by socio-economic realities or by moralities. There is nothing in Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Sikh morality that dictates females must go live with the husband and his family. That is a socio-economic reality, not a cultural or morality based idea.

[zen]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Living arrangements are either caused by socio-economic realities or by moralities. There is nothing in Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Sikh morality that dictates females must go live with the husband and his family. That is a socio-economic reality, not a cultural or morality based idea.

What is important is that it (where females go, use husband's family names, arrange marriage, etc) is part of the incumbent system (there would be exceptions but they don't make rules)

 

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

What is important is that it (where females go, use husband's family names, arrange marriage, etc) is part of the incumbent system (there would be exceptions but they don't make rules)

 

 

 

 

 

Since where the couples live, is a socio-economic system, it is changing with the modern reality of India and as such, incumbent system is also changing.

Things dictated by socio-economic conditions, such as whether you live in an apartment with your wife and kids or villa with 3 generations of all,  change seamlessly. Its moralistic concepts- such as not having multiple sexual partners after marriage/spouse getting inheritance rights for fellow spouse's property & income, etc. that are far more inflexible and subject to resistance through the times.

[zen]

21 minutes ago, mishra said:

^ first Hindu paarents should start giving equal opportunity to girl child during upbringing and inheritence. Since they dont, why girls Parents expect equal treatment like boys parents.

 

Also grounds of divorce can be just unwillingness to live together

That is one of the key points. Many females are simply housewives, who spent most the time watching saas-bahu dramas. Not saying being house wife is not important but there is an opportunity cost related to it 

 

By getting married, the female's family is passing responsibility of their daughter to the husband and his family, the support network 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, zen said:

That is one of the key points. Many females are simply housewives, who spent most the time watching saas-bahu dramas. Not saying being house wife is not important but there is an opportunity cost related to it 

 

By getting married, the female's family is passing responsibility of their daughter to the husband and his family, the support network 

Why is there any responsibility being passed, period ? That speaks towards problem with the parents and lack of parenting skills. 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Why is there any responsibility being passed, period ? That speaks towards problem with the parents and lack of parenting skills. 

I don't think you are understanding what is being implied esp when you say things such as marriage purpose is for ease of travel abroad 

 

Being "married" to someone is a responsibility. Many times, the girl is less than 25 years old with no job. The husband is the key bread earner. Many times, the girl is married in a different city / state / country. Do you think a daughter gets married off, esp in an arrange marriage scenario, without considering what support she could get from the husband's family?