While dismissing a divorce case, the Bombay High Court recently ruled that the "Sari may be a bothersome garment, especially compared to 'Punjabi dress', but a marriage cannot be ended over it." Apparently, this woman's in-laws were forcing her to wear a sari and she found that it amounted to cruelty, while the law did not. I wonder what the ruling would have been if the in-laws had insisted on a bikini as the dress-code for the family bahus.
And it seems even more weird to me that if the woman is unable to stay with her spouse because she does not wish to conform to the clothing norms of his parents, she is still denied divorce.
While the charges in this case may or may not be spurious, why should a woman who does not want to stay married to her husband be forced to remain in the marriage? I wonder whether the appellant would have got a divorce because she couldn't abide her husband without him being legally obnoxious.
If someone claims, "This man has filthy personal habits, is terrible in bed and totally not my type," would they get a divorce? I have no idea, but I'm guessing No. While the Bombay High Court may only have found it hard to fit wardrobe makeover by in-laws into the current definition of cruelty, it should have qualified its judgment recommending that the in-laws stay out of the woman's wardrobe instead of thrusting theirs down her throat.
While my source came from TOI's website and I have not yet found anything more detailed than this article on the judgment, I have no idea if the court made any recommendation to the fashion police in-laws. I can only wish they had. Someone somewhere raised a voice against oppression. It would have been nice to know that the Courts were on the side of personal liberty.
5 comments:
I blogged about this case too. I wish there was some more information - like what did the court say about her allegation that her husband was having an illicit relationship with another woman?
And what did the court feel - was it okay for the in laws to continue to compel her to wear sari after they go back to living together? Why didn't the woman's lawyer bring up the point of personal liberty here?
Since a sari can't make or break a marriage, I hope she stops wearing it. It would be interesting to find out what the same court would say - can a pair of jeans end a marriage?
I think the crux of the case depends on what is meant by "forced."
Was she physically made to put it on? What stopped her from just doing whatever she wished? Was she threated with violence?
If not, I think the court is correct here. People must stand up for themselves. There is always emotional pressure and one assumes she can withstand it.
Physical violence can't be overcome. Emotional blackmail can.
this is ridiculous. how the hell can you force someone to stay married?
i know so many women who've been asked to cut off or keep minimum ties with their parents. and a few of them actually toed the line.
are these institutions of marriages or chambers of torture?
@IndianHomemaker: I read your post just now. I love the issues you raise. They are very relevant to today's society and I hope that young educated women read such blogs in order to get a more wholistic view on relationships.
@Bhagwad: Thank you for saying this. I can't deal with the issue you raised here, so I'm going to do a post on it.:)
@ Ummon: Could you please read my take on the system of assimilation that you raised here and tell me what you think about it?
It's not about forcing to make her wear saree. It's about snatching her person freedom.
I'm sad to see such a judgment.
Post a Comment