Just wondering why Madame Karat is creating such a raucus. She definitely dosen't think she would qualify for a daughter-in-law's post now !! Rather she has everything going for her with this judgement as her profile is more suited for the post of mom-in-law
I don't believe this, there is hell sort of condition for women who get married and are tortured at their homes, but atleast they can complian against their in-laws on showing the injuries. But thanks to these people the only opportunity is taken away.. This is the worst kind of decision given and i am sure it is going to make worst condition for a women to sustain.
Re: these people have lost there MIND
by kk on Aug 07, 2009 11:09 PM
I think women should take law in their on hands and kick back the in-laws by themselves.... it is no point expecting anything from such a male dominated and biased society...
Re: Re: these people have lost there MIND
by Tall Male on Aug 08, 2009 11:21 PM
Male domination My foot! who said that it is male dominated??? It is infact female dominated. There is not a single law to protect men. There are a million laws to protect women. The men have to slog and pay higher taxes then women. I can go on like this. The media is feminist and not showing the true picture. Infact, men need to take the laws into their own hands. IPC 498A is miused to the extent of 98%. Still you say it is male domination?
Re: these people have lost there MIND
by Tall Male on Aug 08, 2009 11:23 PM
The media has twisted the news. Beware of the feminist media. IPC 498A is misused to the extent of 98%. In this case, the judges have not said that kicking is legal. They have said that it cannot come under the definition of cruelty under 498A because 498A is purely against dowry demands. It does not mean that kicking is legal. DV act applies in this case. The feminist media has twisted the news to create a sympathy wave in favour of women and spread hatred of men. Infact, there are no laws to protect men. Men should unite and fight.
The supreme court has fully invited all the criticism and parody that is coming it's way, by it's poor choice of words. What the judges probably meant was that while kicking a daughter-in-law may constitute assault, it does not come under the ambit of 'cruelty' as defined in 498a. This is a technical distinction, but their poor choice of words to explain the same has made the supreme court a laughing stock.
Re: Bad choice of words?
by Tall Male on Aug 08, 2009 10:53 PM
Its not about poor choice of words. Its about media misinterpretation. The media is feminist and feminazi and wants to misinterpret news the way it suits the promotion of feminism and female victimhood. When similar news comes out for men, when men pay a price for being men, the media does not report it at all or downplays it very cunningly.
Re: Bad choice of words?
by raghvendra singh on Aug 07, 2009 11:06 AM
Well brought out. The article is written with plenty of wit. Kudos to its author.
