Abandoned as a child bride, India’s first lady still hopes her husband will call

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:31 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/abandoned-as-a-child-bride-indias-first-lady-still-hopes-her-husband-will-call/2015/01/25/3509dac5-5ac1-49e3-8b44-7d92e027c9ec_story.html

-> The above statement makes perfect sense to an American, wonder what our NRI patriots think about it; remember our resident patriots put their western glasses on when championed for pay-devayani-khobragade's-domestic-help-minimum-NY-wage cause; would they switch to saffron glasses now or agree with the above.

by Hellsangel Sun Jan 25, 2015 12:34 pm

At what age did Monica Lewinsky start at the WH? Would it make perfect sense to call Slick Willie a child-molester?

by pravalika nanda Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:28 pm

Nice of Modi to invite and nice of Obama to come. This guy always manages to look sharp. Hopefully Modi will learn to exercise from him.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:05 pm

this is silly. they haven't been married couple. i believe the term for it is estranged. time to let this one go. it's sort of like the indian version of the birthers movement.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Jan 25, 2015 2:34 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is silly. they haven't been married couple. i believe the term for it is estranged. time to let this one go. it's sort of like the indian version of the birthers movement.

Hey..he will give up when Donald Trump stops saying that Obama is actually a foreigner.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:46 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is silly. they haven't been married couple. i believe the term for it is estranged. time to let this one go. it's sort of like the indian version of the birthers movement.

It would've been silly:

a. Had honorable PM not mentioned her as spouse on his nomination papers
b. Estranged wife of honorable PM expressed no interest to unite

As a person of Indian origin I know that this is common & accepted practice among Indians (not necessarily legal), so is the agreement between Devyani Khobragade & her maid. But from a western point of view, both will not pass litmus test, which is why I was curious to know the color of the glasses our friends will be wearing.

by Hellsangel Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:02 pm

Amazing, Comrade. You're still trying hard not to mention the name of HeWhoMustNotBeNamed. That self-conscious, huh?

by pravalika nanda Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:44 pm

how can wapo allow this kind of rubbish to be printed?

by bw Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:55 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is silly. they haven't been married couple. i believe the term for it is estranged. time to let this one go. it's sort of like the indian version of the birthers movement.
It would've been silly:

a. Had honorable PM not mentioned her as spouse on his nomination papers
b. Estranged wife of honorable PM expressed no interest to unite

As a person of Indian origin I know that this is common & accepted practice among Indians (not necessarily legal), so is the agreement between Devyani Khobragade & her maid. But from a western point of view, both will not pass litmus test, which is why I was curious to know the color of the glasses our friends will be wearing.

nobody will and should give a damn.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:03 pm

bw wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is silly. they haven't been married couple. i believe the term for it is estranged. time to let this one go. it's sort of like the indian version of the birthers movement.
It would've been silly:

a. Had honorable PM not mentioned her as spouse on his nomination papers
b. Estranged wife of honorable PM expressed no interest to unite

As a person of Indian origin I know that this is common & accepted practice among Indians (not necessarily legal), so is the agreement between Devyani Khobragade & her maid. But from a western point of view, both will not pass litmus test, which is why I was curious to know the color of the glasses our friends will be wearing.

nobody will and should give a damn.

Unfortunately, WaPo column elicited nearly 300 comments already.

by bw Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:11 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is silly. they haven't been married couple. i believe the term for it is estranged. time to let this one go. it's sort of like the indian version of the birthers movement.
It would've been silly:

a. Had honorable PM not mentioned her as spouse on his nomination papers
b. Estranged wife of honorable PM expressed no interest to unite

As a person of Indian origin I know that this is common & accepted practice among Indians (not necessarily legal), so is the agreement between Devyani Khobragade & her maid. But from a western point of view, both will not pass litmus test, which is why I was curious to know the color of the glasses our friends will be wearing.

nobody will and should give a damn.

Unfortunately, WaPo column elicited nearly 300 comments already.

oh, random readers will say something or the other. no one of consequence from the west will judge modi based on this. wonder why washington post is resorting to sensationalism. they are just being cruel to that poor lady and messing her up and not really helping her.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:21 pm

bw wrote:
oh, random readers will say something or the other. no one of consequence from the west will judge modi based on this. wonder why washington post is resorting to sensationalism. they are just being cruel to that poor lady and messing her up and not really helping her.

I thought it is the other way around, they're lending an helping hand to someone, who was used by honorable PM to win elections and then didn't care for her. He brought it upon himself by specifying her as his wife on his nomination papers. He could've avoided all this if he didn't to begin with.

by Hellsangel Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:40 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:
oh, random readers will say something or the other. no one of consequence from the west will judge modi based on this. wonder why washington post is resorting to sensationalism. they are just being cruel to that poor lady and messing her up and not really helping her.
I thought it is the other way around, they're lending an helping hand to someone, who was used by honorable PM to win elections and then didn't care for her. He brought it upon himself by specifying her as his wife on his nomination papers. He could've avoided all this if he didn't to begin with.

Oh, she campaigned for the BJP, Comrade?

by bw Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:44 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
bw wrote:
oh, random readers will say something or the other. no one of consequence from the west will judge modi based on this. wonder why washington post is resorting to sensationalism. they are just being cruel to that poor lady and messing her up and not really helping her.
I thought it is the other way around, they're lending an helping hand to someone, who was used by honorable PM to win elections and then didn't care for her. He brought it upon himself by specifying her as his wife on his nomination papers. He could've avoided all this if he didn't to begin with.

legally, she was but for all practical purposes, she isn't.

yeah, after 50 odd years, she will be "happily" reunited with her husband and he will buy her roses and chocolates. noble cause indeed! all they will do is raise her expectations and make her dream of things that ain't gonna happen and disappoint her even more.

by Kris Sun Jan 25, 2015 7:44 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this is silly. they haven't been married couple. i believe the term for it is estranged. time to let this one go. it's sort of like the indian version of the birthers movement.

a. Had honorable PM not mentioned her as spouse on his nomination papers

>>>He has not divorced her. Ergo, he disclosed her as a spouse.

b. Estranged wife of honorable PM expressed no interest to unite

>>>And he doesn't want to live with her.

As a person of Indian origin I know that this is common & accepted practice among Indians (not necessarily legal),

>>>Why is this not legal? A man and woman do not divorce, but live apart. What is the legal problem in this?

so is the agreement between Devyani Khobragade & her maid. But from a western point of view, both will not pass litmus test

>>>DK was in violation of the law. That she could have had diplomatic cover is a different matter. There is no litmus test to pass in Modi's case. Living apart from your wife is not illegal. WaPo is seriously losing it.

by nevada Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:41 pm

Who says regurgitation is only for cows?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Jan 25, 2015 9:42 pm

Looks like CD is still sticking to the old CONgame. Top CONmen have already discarded this kind of Modi-harassment after being screwed repeatedly in Gujrat elections and recently in the national election. MT, her nalayak son and not really that smart daughter, Doggy, Laloo, Mulayam, etc., are all eating their words and stopped spitting at a powerful fan.

Modi is quietly giving hints to CONmen to start doing some real work for the country.

Garibi Hatao?

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:54 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>He has not divorced her. Ergo, he disclosed her as a spouse.

But he did not mention her as wife in the previous elections he ran, what gives?

Kris wrote:
>>>And he doesn't want to live with her.

Fair enough, but he is still controlling her life e.g. asking her to go underground during elections, arranging security against her will.

Kris wrote:
>>>Why is this not legal? A man and woman do not divorce, but live apart. What is the legal problem in this?

Failure to provide financial support to wife he deserted

Kris wrote:
>>>DK was in violation of the law. That she could have had diplomatic cover is a different matter. There is no litmus test to pass in Modi's case. Living apart from your wife is not illegal. WaPo is seriously losing it.

My point is about the double standards applied by NRIs between the two cases. Isn't it sad that wife of PM/CM had to depend on her brother and others to make her living.

by confuzzled dude Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:58 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Looks like CD is still sticking to the old CONgame. Top CONmen have already discarded this kind of Modi-harassment after being screwed repeatedly in Gujrat elections and recently in the national election. MT, her nalayak son and not really that smart daughter, Doggy, Laloo, Mulayam, etc., are all eating their words and stopped spitting at a powerful fan.

Modi is quietly giving hints to CONmen to start doing some real work for the country.

Garibi Hatao?

Well, this is more about the hypocrisy of NRIs than our honorable PM.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:10 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Looks like CD is still sticking to the old CONgame. Top CONmen have already discarded this kind of Modi-harassment after being screwed repeatedly in Gujrat elections and recently in the national election. MT, her nalayak son and not really that smart daughter, Doggy, Laloo, Mulayam, etc., are all eating their words and stopped spitting at a powerful fan.

Modi is quietly giving hints to CONmen to start doing some real work for the country.

Garibi Hatao?
Well, this is more about the hypocrisy of NRIs than our honorable PM.

I am glad you acknowledge that you are a hypocrite.

by Kris Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:16 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>He has not divorced her. Ergo, he disclosed her as a spouse.
But he did not mention her as wife in the previous elections he ran, what gives?
Kris wrote:
>>>And he doesn't want to live with her.
Fair enough, but he is still controlling her life e.g. asking her to go underground during elections, arranging security against her will.
Kris wrote:
>>>Why is this not legal? A man and woman do not divorce, but live apart. What is the legal problem in this?
Failure to provide financial support to wife he deserted
Kris wrote:
>>>DK was in violation of the law. That she could have had diplomatic cover is a different matter. There is no litmus test to pass in Modi's case. Living apart from your wife is not illegal. WaPo is seriously losing it.
My point is about the double standards applied by NRIs between the two cases. Isn't it sad that wife of PM/CM had to depend on her brother and others to make her living.

>>>I am not sure what your concern is with regard to this. A man and a woman got married, but haven't lived together. If one wants to co-habit and the other doesn't, it is a personal matter. Nothing more than that. Is she pressing charges for alimony? Even if she is, it is a personal matter. Evidently, it wasn't a case of delinquent spousal support which she took him to court over. If you want to sue him over this or the non-disclosure of is marital status, you can. However, as this has not come up, he is not criminally liable for anything. DK clearly paid less than minimum wage and was taken to task legally for it. If there is concern for the wife not being taken care of financially, people are free to feel sympathy for her. That doesn't rise to the level of legal culpability.

by Hellsangel Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:19 am

nevada wrote:Who says regurgitation is only for cows?

Or clutching at straws only for drowning men.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:57 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Looks like CD is still sticking to the old CONgame. Top CONmen have already discarded this kind of Modi-harassment after being screwed repeatedly in Gujrat elections and recently in the national election. MT, her nalayak son and not really that smart daughter, Doggy, Laloo, Mulayam, etc., are all eating their words and stopped spitting at a powerful fan.

Modi is quietly giving hints to CONmen to start doing some real work for the country.

Garibi Hatao?
Well, this is more about the hypocrisy of NRIs than our honorable PM.

I am glad you acknowledge that you are a hypocrite.

he's a hypotrite

by ashdoc Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:40 pm

modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:34 pm

ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .

She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?

by Hellsangel Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:36 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?

Freudian slip perhaps, but Comrade, Hindu-drama can never be ditched when you are around.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:44 pm

Kris wrote:
>>>I am not sure what your concern is with regard to this. A man and a woman got married, but haven't lived together. If one wants to co-habit and the other doesn't, it is a personal matter. Nothing more than that. Is she pressing charges for alimony? Even if she is, it is a personal matter. Evidently, it wasn't a case of delinquent spousal support which she took him to court over. If you want to sue him over this or the non-disclosure of is marital status, you can. However, as this has not come up, he is not criminally liable for anything. DK clearly paid less than minimum wage and was taken to task legally for it. If there is concern for the wife not being taken care of financially, people are free to feel sympathy for her. That doesn't rise to the level of legal culpability.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/hmcp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Criminal_Procedure,_1973

Obligation of a husband to maintain his wife arises out of the status of the marriage. Right to maintenance forms a part of the personal law. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), right of maintenance extends not only to the wife and dependent children, but also to indigent parents and divorced wives.

by ashdoc Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:44 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?

admittedly , her self sacrifice inspires a certain amount of respect . but if i had a sister whose husband abandoned her , would i want my sister to do the same as jashodaben ?? certainly not . i would rather prefer that my sister divorce her former husband and marry someone else .

by Hellsangel Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:57 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>I am not sure what your concern is with regard to this. A man and a woman got married, but haven't lived together. If one wants to co-habit and the other doesn't, it is a personal matter. Nothing more than that. Is she pressing charges for alimony? Even if she is, it is a personal matter. Evidently, it wasn't a case of delinquent spousal support which she took him to court over. If you want to sue him over this or the non-disclosure of is marital status, you can. However, as this has not come up, he is not criminally liable for anything. DK clearly paid less than minimum wage and was taken to task legally for it. If there is concern for the wife not being taken care of financially, people are free to feel sympathy for her. That doesn't rise to the level of legal culpability.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/hmcp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Criminal_Procedure,_1973

Obligation of a husband to maintain his wife arises out of the status of the marriage. Right to maintenance forms a part of the personal law. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), right of maintenance extends not only to the wife and dependent children, but also to indigent parents and divorced wives.

Comrade, you remind me of this gentleman:

Abandoned as a child bride, India’s first lady still hopes her husband will call Zpage080

by nevada Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:46 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?

Since when did loyalty to a husband become chaddi behavior? Are non chaddis promiscuous by nature?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:54 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?

At least she did not end up dying like Feroz Gandhy or Madhavrao Scindia.

by Guest Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:09 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?

Though a non-hindu, as someone who was born and brought up in India, you should've known better about what makes a good hindu-patni err...chaddini, as you so respectfully call them.

Rama abandoned Sita when she was preggo. Did she hate Rama and get all spiteful? Nopes. Rama did what he did coz he felt it was the right thing to do and she understood that. She raised her twins as a single mom. And after many yrs, when the boys were teens, Rama comes back and invites her to come back into his life. Did she run after him shamelessly? No sir, she was like, 'take it easy, dude. I ain't comin' with ya.' Now that's the self respect of an Indian woman.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:15 pm

Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?
Though a non-hindu, as someone who was born and brought up in India, you should've known better about what makes a good hindu-patni err...chaddini, as you so respectfully call them.

Rama abandoned Sita when she was preggo. Did she hate Rama and get all spiteful? Nopes. Rama did what he did coz he felt it was the right thing to do and she understood that. She raised her twins as a single mom. And after many yrs, when the boys were teens, Rama comes back and invites her to come back into his life. Did she run after him shamelessly? No sir, she was like, 'take it easy, dude. I ain't comin' with ya.' Now that's the self respect of an Indian woman.

Exactly! All you pure-aryan-clan-hindus should tell that to the guy who said "she is clinging to stupid customs", not me.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:19 pm

Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?
Though a non-hindu, as someone who was born and brought up in India, you should've known better about what makes a good hindu-patni err...chaddini, as you so respectfully call them.

Rama abandoned Sita when she was preggo. Did she hate Rama and get all spiteful? Nopes. Rama did what he did coz he felt it was the right thing to do and she understood that. She raised her twins as a single mom. And after many yrs, when the boys were teens, Rama comes back and invites her to come back into his life. Did she run after him shamelessly? No sir, she was like, 'take it easy, dude. I ain't comin' with ya.' Now that's the self respect of an Indian woman.

And all hindu women - mothers, sisters, and spouses want their men to be like Rama....(no different from the abused muslim women praying to Dr. PBUH)

go figure...

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:25 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?

At least she did not end up dying like Feroz Gandhy or Madhavrao Scindia.

Our Pradhan Sevak likes the blood of people belong to certain community only.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:27 pm

nevada wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?
Since when did loyalty to a husband become chaddi behavior? Are non chaddis promiscuous by nature?

"following stupid customs" is the operative word, that's chaddi trademark whether you like it or not.

by Guest Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:29 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?
Though a non-hindu, as someone who was born and brought up in India, you should've known better about what makes a good hindu-patni err...chaddini, as you so respectfully call them.

Rama abandoned Sita when she was preggo. Did she hate Rama and get all spiteful? Nopes. Rama did what he did coz he felt it was the right thing to do and she understood that. She raised her twins as a single mom. And after many yrs, when the boys were teens, Rama comes back and invites her to come back into his life. Did she run after him shamelessly? No sir, she was like, 'take it easy, dude. I ain't comin' with ya.' Now that's the self respect of an Indian woman.
Exactly! All you pure-aryan-clan-hindus should tell that to the guy who said "she is clinging to stupid customs", not me.

Forget abt hindu customs. Talk it according to the hindu marriage act. Legally, their marriage is not valid coz they were below the legal marriage age and the girl was also a minor.
Even if it were legal, if the couple lived separately for 7 yrs, their marriage can get nullified. Now the modi couple didn't see each other's face in like what...45-50 yrs?

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:43 pm

Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
ashdoc wrote:modi's family reportedly offered jashodaben the choice to get divorced so that she could get married again , but jashodaben refused .

so is it modi's mistake ?? now suppose he fell in love with another woman , jashodaben could be real trouble for him . she would not let him marry that woman by refusing to divorce him .

luckily modi has no interest in second marriage . but jashodaben should have divorced him and got on with her life . it is she who is clinging to these stupid customs of remaining loyal to one man all life long inspite of him not caring for her .
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?
Though a non-hindu, as someone who was born and brought up in India, you should've known better about what makes a good hindu-patni err...chaddini, as you so respectfully call them.

Rama abandoned Sita when she was preggo. Did she hate Rama and get all spiteful? Nopes. Rama did what he did coz he felt it was the right thing to do and she understood that. She raised her twins as a single mom. And after many yrs, when the boys were teens, Rama comes back and invites her to come back into his life. Did she run after him shamelessly? No sir, she was like, 'take it easy, dude. I ain't comin' with ya.' Now that's the self respect of an Indian woman.
Exactly! All you pure-aryan-clan-hindus should tell that to the guy who said "she is clinging to stupid customs", not me.
Forget abt hindu customs. Talk it according to the hindu marriage act. Legally, their marriage is not valid coz they were below the legal marriage age and the girl was also a minor.
Even if it were legal, if the couple lived separately for 7 yrs, their marriage can get nullified. Now the modi couple didn't see each other's face in like what...45-50 yrs?

but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html

by Guest Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:54 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
She was only trying to be a good hindu-patni err.. chaddini. You guys ditch Hindu-dhrama when it doesn't suit you?
Though a non-hindu, as someone who was born and brought up in India, you should've known better about what makes a good hindu-patni err...chaddini, as you so respectfully call them.

Rama abandoned Sita when she was preggo. Did she hate Rama and get all spiteful? Nopes. Rama did what he did coz he felt it was the right thing to do and she understood that. She raised her twins as a single mom. And after many yrs, when the boys were teens, Rama comes back and invites her to come back into his life. Did she run after him shamelessly? No sir, she was like, 'take it easy, dude. I ain't comin' with ya.' Now that's the self respect of an Indian woman.
Exactly! All you pure-aryan-clan-hindus should tell that to the guy who said "she is clinging to stupid customs", not me.
Forget abt hindu customs. Talk it according to the hindu marriage act. Legally, their marriage is not valid coz they were below the legal marriage age and the girl was also a minor.
Even if it were legal, if the couple lived separately for 7 yrs, their marriage can get nullified. Now the modi couple didn't see each other's face in like what...45-50 yrs?
but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html

I wonder why all these non-hindus and hindu and modi haters want modi to take her back against his wish. If she doesn't want to seek divorce, that's her choice. If Modi wants to be left alone, that's his choice. Why are you getting all worked up over it again and again and .....again?

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:03 pm

Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Though a non-hindu, as someone who was born and brought up in India, you should've known better about what makes a good hindu-patni err...chaddini, as you so respectfully call them.

Rama abandoned Sita when she was preggo. Did she hate Rama and get all spiteful? Nopes. Rama did what he did coz he felt it was the right thing to do and she understood that. She raised her twins as a single mom. And after many yrs, when the boys were teens, Rama comes back and invites her to come back into his life. Did she run after him shamelessly? No sir, she was like, 'take it easy, dude. I ain't comin' with ya.' Now that's the self respect of an Indian woman.
Exactly! All you pure-aryan-clan-hindus should tell that to the guy who said "she is clinging to stupid customs", not me.
Forget abt hindu customs. Talk it according to the hindu marriage act. Legally, their marriage is not valid coz they were below the legal marriage age and the girl was also a minor.
Even if it were legal, if the couple lived separately for 7 yrs, their marriage can get nullified. Now the modi couple didn't see each other's face in like what...45-50 yrs?
but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html
I wonder why all these non-hindus and hindu and modi haters want modi to take her back against his wish. If she doesn't want to seek divorce, that's her choice. If Modi wants to be left alone, that's his choice. Why are you getting all worked up over it again and again and .....again?

Non-hindus want to put chaddi hat for a bit just as non-christians (i.e. chaddies) put western liberal hat on DK issue.

by Guest Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Exactly! All you pure-aryan-clan-hindus should tell that to the guy who said "she is clinging to stupid customs", not me.
Forget abt hindu customs. Talk it according to the hindu marriage act. Legally, their marriage is not valid coz they were below the legal marriage age and the girl was also a minor.
Even if it were legal, if the couple lived separately for 7 yrs, their marriage can get nullified. Now the modi couple didn't see each other's face in like what...45-50 yrs?
but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html
I wonder why all these non-hindus and hindu and modi haters want modi to take her back against his wish. If she doesn't want to seek divorce, that's her choice. If Modi wants to be left alone, that's his choice. Why are you getting all worked up over it again and again and .....again?
Non-hindus want to put chaddi hat for a bit just as non-christians (i.e. chaddies) put western liberal hat on DK issue.

I can't even comprehend how you can connect the two. Can you explain again, pls?

by Seva Lamberdar Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:47 pm

Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Forget abt hindu customs. Talk it according to the hindu marriage act. Legally, their marriage is not valid coz they were below the legal marriage age and the girl was also a minor.
Even if it were legal, if the couple lived separately for 7 yrs, their marriage can get nullified. Now the modi couple didn't see each other's face in like what...45-50 yrs?
but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html
I wonder why all these non-hindus and hindu and modi haters want modi to take her back against his wish. If she doesn't want to seek divorce, that's her choice. If Modi wants to be left alone, that's his choice. Why are you getting all worked up over it again and again and .....again?

It ties with his other agenda, showing people that the rate of population increase among Muslims and Christians in India is not different from Hindus, and whatever slight difference might be there (in terms of the higher growth rate among Muslims and Christians than Hindus), he thinks, will disappear once Modi and his wife get together and start having kids.

by Guest Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:54 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html
I wonder why all these non-hindus and hindu and modi haters want modi to take her back against his wish. If she doesn't want to seek divorce, that's her choice. If Modi wants to be left alone, that's his choice. Why are you getting all worked up over it again and again and .....again?
It ties with his other agenda, showing people that the rate of population increase among Muslims and Christians in India is not different from Hindus, and whatever slight difference might be there (in terms of the higher growth rate among Muslims and Christians than Hindus), he thinks, will disappear once Modi and his wife get together and start having kids.

you on a roll lately.

by Kris Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:04 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>I am not sure what your concern is with regard to this. A man and a woman got married, but haven't lived together. If one wants to co-habit and the other doesn't, it is a personal matter. Nothing more than that. Is she pressing charges for alimony? Even if she is, it is a personal matter. Evidently, it wasn't a case of delinquent spousal support which she took him to court over. If you want to sue him over this or the non-disclosure of is marital status, you can. However, as this has not come up, he is not criminally liable for anything. DK clearly paid less than minimum wage and was taken to task legally for it. If there is concern for the wife not being taken care of financially, people are free to feel sympathy for her. That doesn't rise to the level of legal culpability.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/hmcp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Criminal_Procedure,_1973

Obligation of a husband to maintain his wife arises out of the status of the marriage. Right to maintenance forms a part of the personal law. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), right of maintenance extends not only to the wife and dependent children, but also to indigent parents and divorced wives.

>>>Did she sue for support?

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:15 pm

Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>I am not sure what your concern is with regard to this. A man and a woman got married, but haven't lived together. If one wants to co-habit and the other doesn't, it is a personal matter. Nothing more than that. Is she pressing charges for alimony? Even if she is, it is a personal matter. Evidently, it wasn't a case of delinquent spousal support which she took him to court over. If you want to sue him over this or the non-disclosure of is marital status, you can. However, as this has not come up, he is not criminally liable for anything. DK clearly paid less than minimum wage and was taken to task legally for it. If there is concern for the wife not being taken care of financially, people are free to feel sympathy for her. That doesn't rise to the level of legal culpability.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/hmcp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Criminal_Procedure,_1973

Obligation of a husband to maintain his wife arises out of the status of the marriage. Right to maintenance forms a part of the personal law. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), right of maintenance extends not only to the wife and dependent children, but also to indigent parents and divorced wives.
>>>Did she sue for support?

Does it matter? point is whether or not it is illegal.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:17 pm

Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Forget abt hindu customs. Talk it according to the hindu marriage act. Legally, their marriage is not valid coz they were below the legal marriage age and the girl was also a minor.
Even if it were legal, if the couple lived separately for 7 yrs, their marriage can get nullified. Now the modi couple didn't see each other's face in like what...45-50 yrs?
but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html
I wonder why all these non-hindus and hindu and modi haters want modi to take her back against his wish. If she doesn't want to seek divorce, that's her choice. If Modi wants to be left alone, that's his choice. Why are you getting all worked up over it again and again and .....again?
Non-hindus want to put chaddi hat for a bit just as non-christians (i.e. chaddies) put western liberal hat on DK issue.
I can't even comprehend how you can connect the two. Can you explain again, pls?

Both are related to Indian culture/practices.

by confuzzled dude Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:19 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
but she doesn't want to, wonder why all these torchbearers of women's rights want her marriage to be nullified against her wish.
http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/all-that-you-need-to-know-about-jashodaben-wife-of-prime-minister-narendra-modi-114112600361_1.html
I wonder why all these non-hindus and hindu and modi haters want modi to take her back against his wish. If she doesn't want to seek divorce, that's her choice. If Modi wants to be left alone, that's his choice. Why are you getting all worked up over it again and again and .....again?
It ties with his other agenda, showing people that the rate of population increase among Muslims and Christians in India is not different from Hindus, and whatever slight difference might be there (in terms of the higher growth rate among Muslims and Christians than Hindus), he thinks, will disappear once Modi and his wife get together and start having kids.

by Kris Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:38 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kris wrote:
>>>I am not sure what your concern is with regard to this. A man and a woman got married, but haven't lived together. If one wants to co-habit and the other doesn't, it is a personal matter. Nothing more than that. Is she pressing charges for alimony? Even if she is, it is a personal matter. Evidently, it wasn't a case of delinquent spousal support which she took him to court over. If you want to sue him over this or the non-disclosure of is marital status, you can. However, as this has not come up, he is not criminally liable for anything. DK clearly paid less than minimum wage and was taken to task legally for it. If there is concern for the wife not being taken care of financially, people are free to feel sympathy for her. That doesn't rise to the level of legal culpability.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/hmcp.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Criminal_Procedure,_1973

Obligation of a husband to maintain his wife arises out of the status of the marriage. Right to maintenance forms a part of the personal law. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), right of maintenance extends not only to the wife and dependent children, but also to indigent parents and divorced wives.
>>>Did she sue for support?
Does it matter? point is whether or not it is illegal.

>>>Actually it does matter in this case. If this has not been vetted out in a court of law, the illegality is just a presumption. The facts are as follows; (1) the couple has not lived together for several decades; (2) the purportedly "injured" spouse has not sued for any compensation in those decades; (3) a legal divorce has not taken place of the individuals' own volition. I doubt any court will see this as a marriage other than in name only and the lack of legal action over decades seriously undermines the basis for the case. At best what you have someone who didn't get around to a legal divorce. There is nothing illegal about that.

by Sponsored content