The ruling is quite correct in our opinion, even if we do happen to love sarees- a thumbs down for the patriarchy, howsoever insignificant is always welcome. A kurta-jeans combination probably works best for both working men and women.
Speaking of sarees it would be nice if the elite class - the one which moves from air-conditioned house to a/c car to a/c shop to a/c workplace - patronizes the dress a bit more. The working class really cant afford that simple looking but elegant cotton saree @ 5,000 rupees. Such patronage will help keep the small-scale saree weavers solvent. Certainly the ladies can afford to do a bit for the artisan class, no?
..................................
.......
Link: http://www.outlookindia.com/news/printitem.aspx?847068
.......
regards
Speaking of sarees it would be nice if the elite class - the one which moves from air-conditioned house to a/c car to a/c shop to a/c workplace - patronizes the dress a bit more. The working class really cant afford that simple looking but elegant cotton saree @ 5,000 rupees. Such patronage will help keep the small-scale saree weavers solvent. Certainly the ladies can afford to do a bit for the artisan class, no?
..................................
Objecting to wife wearing Kurta and
Jeans and forcing her to wear saree amounts to cruelty inflicted by
husband and can be a ground to seek divorce, a family court here has
ruled.
The wife pleaded that after marriage in December 2010, her husband did not buy her any clothes and therefore she had purchased Kurta and Jeans from her salary earnings. However, the husband did not allow her to wear them, saying she should wear only sarees.
In her order was passed on June 24, Principal Judge of Family Court, Dr Laxmi Rao, granted divorce to the wife on the ground of cruelty as defined under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
"In view of the averments made in the petition which have gone unchallenged, it can be said that the petitioner has proved her case, hence, she can be granted divorce as prayed by her. Her plea that she was restrained from wearing jeans and Kurta amounts to cruelty as defined under the Act," the judge held.
The wife further alleged that her husband and in-laws had asked her to bring Rs one lakh from her house or face dire consequences. They also asked her to quit her job but she had refused to toe their line.
The wife alleged that she was tortured and humiliated as a result of which she suffered mental depression and her life became miserable. She also alleged that her in-laws harassed her on one pretext or the other and warned that if she failed to bring dowry she would face dire consequences.
The wife told the court that on March 15, 2011, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house as she failed to bring the money. Since then till date she is compelled to stay at her parents house at their mercy as she is now jobless.
The petitioner said that her husband had never made attempts to bring her back home in Ambarnath town of Thane district where the couple lived. On the contrary, he sent vulgar SMS messages to her and her parents on their mobile phones in a bid to harass them and damage their reputation.
The wife said she had lodged a police complaint against her husband who worked in a BPO in suburban Malad and earned Rs 28,000 per month.
"I find that she has made out a case for divorce as contemplated under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, which contemplates that a divorce can be granted if respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty," the Judge observed.
However, the court, while granting divorce, rejected the wife's plea for permanent alimony of Rs 10,000 because her application for maintenance is pending in the court. The Judge also asked the husband to pay Rs 5,000 to wife towards cost of litigation.
The wife pleaded that after marriage in December 2010, her husband did not buy her any clothes and therefore she had purchased Kurta and Jeans from her salary earnings. However, the husband did not allow her to wear them, saying she should wear only sarees.
In her order was passed on June 24, Principal Judge of Family Court, Dr Laxmi Rao, granted divorce to the wife on the ground of cruelty as defined under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
"In view of the averments made in the petition which have gone unchallenged, it can be said that the petitioner has proved her case, hence, she can be granted divorce as prayed by her. Her plea that she was restrained from wearing jeans and Kurta amounts to cruelty as defined under the Act," the judge held.
The wife further alleged that her husband and in-laws had asked her to bring Rs one lakh from her house or face dire consequences. They also asked her to quit her job but she had refused to toe their line.
The wife alleged that she was tortured and humiliated as a result of which she suffered mental depression and her life became miserable. She also alleged that her in-laws harassed her on one pretext or the other and warned that if she failed to bring dowry she would face dire consequences.
The wife told the court that on March 15, 2011, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house as she failed to bring the money. Since then till date she is compelled to stay at her parents house at their mercy as she is now jobless.
The petitioner said that her husband had never made attempts to bring her back home in Ambarnath town of Thane district where the couple lived. On the contrary, he sent vulgar SMS messages to her and her parents on their mobile phones in a bid to harass them and damage their reputation.
The wife said she had lodged a police complaint against her husband who worked in a BPO in suburban Malad and earned Rs 28,000 per month.
"I find that she has made out a case for divorce as contemplated under section 27(1)(d) of Special Marriage Act, which contemplates that a divorce can be granted if respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty," the Judge observed.
However, the court, while granting divorce, rejected the wife's plea for permanent alimony of Rs 10,000 because her application for maintenance is pending in the court. The Judge also asked the husband to pay Rs 5,000 to wife towards cost of litigation.
.......
Link: http://www.outlookindia.com/news/printitem.aspx?847068
.......
regards
No comments:
Post a Comment