Tag: Marriage

  • Marriage and Old Furniture.

     

    I had been to Rameswaram, a Pilgrim centre, which is considered holy for the Hindus.

    While travelling back to Chennai, I got to talking to a gentleman in the Train.

    He said he was looking for an alliance for his son.

    In Hindu custom, the parents look for girls or boys  to get their children married.

    They look for the family back ground,Gothra(genealogy, a unique concept which traces out your ancestors and excludes blood relatives who might be brothers/sisters however far removed-this is verified scientifically)

    The word “gotra” means “lineage” in the Sanskrit language. Among those of the Brahmin castegotras are reckoned patrilineally. Each gotra takes the name of a famous Rishi or sage who was the patrilineal forebearer of that clan. And each Gotra is addressed by the suffix ‘sa’ or ‘asa’ as relevant.

    The concept of Gotra was the sociodemographic-cultural coding by Brahma to classify His family, themselves among different groups. At the beginning, these gentes identified themselves by the names of various rishis (AngirasaDakshaHimavanAtriGautam, Vishrava, KashyapaBhriguVasishthaKutsa,and Bharadwaja; the first seven of these are often enumerated as Saptarishis). It is to be noted that Vishwamitra was initially a Kshatriya king, who later chose and rose to become an ascetic rishi. Hence the gotra was applied to the grouping stemming from one of these rishis as his descendants.

    Contents

    [hide]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin_gotra_system

    Humans have 23 pairs of Chromosomes and in each pair one Chromosome comes from the father and the other comes from the mother. So in all we have 46 Chromosomes in every cell, of which 23 come from the mother and 23 from the father.

    Of these 23 pairs, there is one pair called the Sex Chromosomes which decide the gender of the person. During conception, if the resultant cell has XX sex chromosomes then the child will be a girl and if it is XY then the child will be a boy. X chromosome decides the female attributes of a person and Y Chromosome decides the male attributes of a person.

    When the initial embryonic cell has XY chromosome, the female attributes get suppressed by the genes in the Y Chromosome and the embryo develops into a male child. Since only men have Y Chromosomes, son always gets his Y Chromosome from his father and the X Chromosome from his mother. On the other hand daughters always get their X Chromosomes, one each from both father and mother.

    So the Y Chromosome is always preserved throughout a male lineage (Father – Son  –  Grandson etc) because a Son always gets it from his father, while the X Chromosome is not preserved in the female lineage (Mother, Daughter, Grand Daughter etc) because it comes from both father and mother.

    A mother will pass either her mother’s X Chromosome to her Children or her father’s X Chromosome to her children or a combination of both because of both her X Chromosomes getting mixed (called as Crossover). On the other hand, a Son always gets his father’s Y Chromosome and that too almost intact without any changes because there is no corresponding another Y chromosome in his cells to do any mixing as his combination is XY, while that of females is XX which hence allows for mixing as both are X Chromosomes.”

    http://www.hitxp.com/articles/veda/science-genetics-vedic-hindu-gotra-y-chromosome-male-lineage-extinction/

    In addition to this, parents look into Horoscopes and decide how the marriage is to be conducted.

    Of course the Boy/girl  will have a say in this.

    However this old system is fast disappearing.

    Gone are the days when parents circulate their children’s horoscopes through their friends/Relatives and through their family astrologer.

    Now people advertise in Marriage portals.

    The gentleman was expressing his difficulties in getting a Girl for his son as the Girls seem to be making impossible terms in their expectations.

    I can vouch for this.

    I have spent nearly four years in getting my son married.

    He is B.Com, MBA,Soft ware Specialist in a Senior position and we have no commitments to be fulfilled at home as my only daughter is married and there are no other children for me.

    I found,in the marriage portal, under’ expectations’ Girls/Girls’ parents listed the following.

    Should be an Engineer, preferably in Communications/Electronics

    Should be an IT Professional

    Must draw a salary of not less than 7.2lakhs/a.

    Preferable that there are no brothers and sisters

    Placed in Metros

    Should be in a transferable job

    Willing to relocate to the Girl’s home town/where she works.

    ( The sting, I shall come later at the end of the blog.)

    I wonder how people who are not IT specialists and those who are not in the specified Income Group ever get married!-leave alone the other terms!

    Of course I got my son married to a suitable girl whose family did not have funny hang ups like these.

    I have noticed a curious fact while going through a marriage portal www.bharatmatrimony.com

    The details of Girls to be married , who were less than 26 years of age were uploaded by parents while for those above 26 years of age were uploaded by the Girl herself or brother \sister.

    In the process of selecting the girl.I have come across various instances where the parents were unwilling to get the girl married quoting irrelevant reasons( in one case a parent told me that he had deferred his daughter ‘s marriage temporarily, and I asked him if this decision permanent!)

    The reason is that the parents have accustomed themselves to the girl earning and the parents have become used to living off her and were unwilling to get her married.

    This may sound cynical ,but unfortunately this is a fact.

    The parents thus dispose of enquiries for marriage informing their daughter that the alliance is not good.

    One day the girl finds that she is over 26 and she is not getting married and uploads her details and enters into the fray.

    How sad!

    (In the selection process I have short listed 3300 horoscopes, no error here, to find a suitable match, normally I select one in 10 based on compatibility including Horoscope).

    The gentleman brought home a curious instance where the girl/parents of the girl asked him whether the Boy had Old Furniture at Home.

    The man was perplexed.

    He replied them that they have new furniture at Home.

    The reply he got was

    ‘We mean parents”

     

  • Man seeks No Objection from the world for Marrying.

    The Consular Section of  The British Deputy High Commission at Chennai,India has released a Classified in the Times of India dtd 22 March 2012, calling for  ‘Objection’ from any one in one Mr.David Furlong of South Port, Lancashire,U.K, marrying Ms.Chen Hai Hua of ZhongjiangPeoples Republic of China.

    The marriage is to be conducted in Chengdu City,P.R.C on 6, May 2012( CLassifieds in the Times of India  page 5 Chennai Edition)

    If some one from England wants to marry one  from China, what relevance is it to publish a notification in a South Indian edition of the News Paper?

    Probably he wants to have the World’s approval for the marriage.

    Or is it the usual Official procedural non- sense?

  • Live-in Couples live happily-Obviously!

    A study has found that Live-in Couples live happily as compared to married people.

    Family Together.
    Family.

    How far this study is true is open to question as the results will depend on the Ethnicity,Culture , Environment and the values imbibed by the individual

    It is to be noted that if you take a study in Scandinavian Countries, where Live-in Culture is vogue for quite some time(the Government is facing the music because of Live-in after effects of Orphans and anti-social behaviour of the adults that come out of these families), the results will obviously favour the findings.
    Obviously those who have a Live-in relationship will be happy,without knowing what happiness and commitment is to an individual’s Emotional Growth and stability, as each of the partners have separate bank Accounts and have every thing separately;only place they are together is the bed. This, they could achieve even without sharing the roof.

    One will know the consequences as they grow up.

    It is unfortunate some never grow up.

    The idea that that marriage has health and happiness advantages over cohabitation may be overrated, a new study has suggested.

    The study has asserted that while both marriage and cohabitation provide benefits over being single, these reduce over time following a honeymoon period.

    “Marriage has long been an important social institution, but in recent decades western societies have experienced increases in cohabitation, before or instead of marriage, and increases in children born outside of marriage,” said Dr Kelly Musick, Associate Professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University’s College of Human Ecology.

    “These changes have blurred the boundaries of marriage, leading to questions about what difference marriage makes in comparison to alternatives.”

    This study compared marriage to cohabitation while using a fixed-effects approach that focuses on what changes when single men and women move into marriage or cohabitation and the extent to which any effects of marriage and cohabitation persist over time.

    Dr Musick drew a study sample from the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) of 2,737 single men and women, 896 of whom married or moved in with a partner over the course of 6 years.

    The study focused on key areas of well-being, considering questions on happiness, levels ofdepression, health, and social ties.

    The results showed a spike in well-being immediately following both marriage and cohabitation as couples experienced a honeymoon period with higher levels of happiness and fewer depressive symptoms compared to singles. However, these advantages were short lived.

    Marriage and cohabitation both resulted in less contact with parents and friends compared to remaining single – and these effects appeared to persist over time.

    “We found that differences between marriage and cohabitation tend to be small and dissipate after a honeymoon period. Also while married couples experienced health gains – likely linked to the formal benefits of marriage such as shared healthcare plans – cohabiting couples experienced greater gains in happiness and self-esteem,” Dr Musick insisted.

    “For some, cohabitation may come with fewer unwanted obligations than marriage and allow for more flexibility, autonomy, and personal growth.

    “Compared to most industrial countries America continues to value marriage above other family forms. However our research shows that marriage is by no means unique in promoting well-being and that other forms of romantic relationships can provide many of the same benefits,” Dr Musick added.

    The study has been published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-24/man-woman/30647719_1_cohabitation-marriage-study

    Please read how animals like crocodiles and as recently proved ,take care of their offspring not to speak od Chimps.

    Are we lower than these animals?

    The argument over whether or not dinosaurs were doting parents has raged for decades. Until recently only birds and mammals were thought to exhibit true parental care.

    However, in the 1970s naturalists discovered that crocodiles helped their young to hatch and carried them to water. Then in the 1980s scientists found that a dinosaur they had dubbed oviraptor – the egg-stealer – because its remains were found near a nest, had been trying to incubate the eggs, rather than steal them.

    Subsequent discoveries of fossilised eggs and nests in America and Mongolia suggest that many dinosaurs may have cared for their young after hatching. Some laid eggs in earth nests scooped in the soil and returned to feed the young after they emerged.

    Other studies suggest that some of the legs of some dinosaur young were too weak for them to roam very far from a nest, which suggests that parents brought food back for them at least in the first days after hatching.

    However, the latest find suggests that parental care may have extended beyond the stage of a nest full of newly hatched young. At least some dinosaurs may have behaved more like birds in terms of parental care than today’s lizards, which rarely take part in raising or caring for their young.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fossil-find-proves-dinosaurs-looked-after-their-babies-544280.html

  • Man Marries His Dead Girl Friend! Video.

    Sympathize with him or call him immature?

    Thailand– In Thailand’s Surin province a man did something that sounds pretty sweet and also a little bit creepy.  Chadil Deffy, also known as Deff Yingyuen, held a wedding ceremony with his dead girlfriend Sarinya “Anne” Kamsook at her funeral service.  The couple had been together for 10 years.

    Yingyuen and Anne had been discussing marriage for sometime before Anne died, but Yingyuen wanted to concentrate on getting his degree first while Anne wanted to concentrate on her career, the Thai-Asean News (TAN) Network reported.

    Unfortunately, Anne was involved in a major car accident which took her life earlier this week.

    According to the Pattaya Daily News, the couple met at Thailand’s Eastern Asia University more than 10 years ago and immediately fell in love.  They had been planning to marry for many years before the tragedy.  Wreaths were put up all over the school in remembrance of Anne.

     http://w.po.st/share/entry/redir?publisherKey=Inquisitr.com-607&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquisitr.com%2F185642%2Fthai-man-marries-his-dead-girlfriend-at-her-funeral%2F&title=Thai%20Man%20Marries%20His%20Dead%20Girlfriend%20At%20Her%20Funeral%20%5BVideo%5D&sharer=copypaste

  • Adultery and denial of Alimony-Supreme Court.Why discriminate men?

    Supreme Court of India - Central Wing
    Image via Wikipedia

    The Supreme Court of India has recently passed a judgement that Adultery is no ground for denial of Alimony.

    Common sense says that Adultery is  at the minimal level is breach of trust.

    If breach of trust is a cognizable offense(Raja and Kanimozhi of 2 G fame/notoriety have been booked under this as an after thought this involves tough prison sentence),it beats me as to how breach of trust in a marriage is not a cognizable offense.

    Indian law discriminates men against women in this aspect.

    In India the offence of adultery is punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. As it stands, this Section makes only men having sexual intercourse with the wives of other men without the consent of their husbands punishable and women cannot be punished even as abettors. The Report of the Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms and the 42nd Report of the Law Commission of India recommended redefining Section 497 to make women also punishable for adultery. The Central Government accordingly has sought the views of all the 30 states in the country regarding the implementation of the said recommendations. This paper attempts to establish the redundancy of Section 497 in the light of Personal and Matrimonial laws and changing social conditions subsequently making a case against amending and for completely deleting Section 497 from the IPC.

    An Analysis of Section 497
    Section 497 penalizes sexual intercourse of a man with a married woman without the consent of her husband when such sexual intercourse does not amount to rape. That is, it draws a distinction between consent given by a married woman without her husband’s consent and a consent given by an unmarried woman. It does not penalize the sexual intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman or a widow or even a married woman when her husband consents to it. In case the offence of adultery is committed, the husband cannot prosecute his unfaithful wife but can only prosecute her adulterer. However, since the offence of adultery can be committed by a man with a married woman only, the wife of the man having sexual intercourse with other unmarried women cannot prosecute either her husband or his adulteress. What is interesting here is that the section itself expressly states that the unfaithful wife cannot be punished even as an abettor to the crime. The offence of adultery therefore is an offence committed against the husband of the wife and not against the wife.

    The Constitutionality of Section 497 was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 14 on the grounds that it makes an arbitrary discrimination based on sex in the cases of Yusuf Aziz , Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi .

    In the case of Yusuf Aziz the Court ruled that the immunity granted to women from being prosecuted under section 497 was not discriminatory but valid under Article 15 (3) of the Constitution.

    In the cases of Sowmithri and V.Revathi it was held that it is the policy of the law to not to punish women for adultery and policies could not be questioned. Secondly, that it was not contemplated for a husband and a wife to strike each other with weapon of criminal law. And that adultery therefore was an offence against the matrimonial home and not either against the wife or the husband.

    It must be mentioned here that all of the above decisions of the Supreme Court had restricted their scope to the determination of Constitutional validity of Section 497 as it stands. They should not be taken as an authority over the question whether Section 497 is required at all.

    Adultery cannot be committed without a woman’s consent. Yet, the section burdens man alone for the offence. Though the reasons for this may be justifiable, the woman here is always treated as a victim of the offence. Hence, this section does not contemplate a situation where the same married woman has sexual intercourse with more than one person other than her husband without her husband’s consent. It is highly implausible that even in such a situation the woman would always be the victim and not the person who provokes the offender for the crime. No doubt that the law, as it stands, is inadequate.

    Why Women Are Not Punished for Adultery
    The offence of Adultery did not punish women but still existed in the code because at the time the enforced law was enacted polygamy was deep rooted in the society and women shared the attention of their husbands with several other wives and extramarital relations. Women were treated as victims of the offence of adultery as they were often starved of love and affection from their husbands and could easily give in to any person who offered it or even offered to offer it. The provision was therefore made to restrict men from having sexual relations with the wives of other men and at the same time to restrict their extra marital relations to unmarried women alone.

    Why the Supreme Court Has Erred
    Considering the limited question of Constitutional validity before it the object of Section 497, as stated above, was never brought before the Supreme Court. The decisions of the Court therefore have erred to the limited extent of holding adultery as an offence against the matrimonial home.

    If adultery had been a matrimonial offence neither the husband would have had the freedom to indulge in extra-marital sexual relations with unmarried women nor the consent of the husband of the wife when she had sexual intercourse with other men would make any difference in its constitution. Adultery therefore is not an offence against the matrimonial home but against the husband himself. The way a person is not expected to enter on the property of the other without his consent, another man is not expected to have sexual intercourse with someone’s wife without his consent. It uses the same analogy that is used for the offence of trespass. There is no doubt then that this section treats a woman like a man’s chattel.

    Changing Social Conditions 
    Polygamy in all religions except Muslims, who are legally allowed to have four wives, has ceased to exist and become illegal. Men now have only one wife who has no rivals for her husband’s love and affection. Today, not only a person having two wives can be prosecuted for bigamy but his second marriage is void ab-initio. Unlike the past when it was required to prove that the husband “lived in adultery” to obtain a divorce, even a single instance of sexual intercourse with anyone other than the spouse entitles the other spouse for divorce.”

    http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l291-Adultery.html

    There you have it.

    Hope organisations like http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ , http://aimwa.in/,which fights for the cause of harassed husbands who suffer at the hands of wife and in laws take this issue and fight the issue out.

    Social awareness is to be created for injustices meted out to men.

    Another interesting part of the judgement confirmed  the alimony.

    It is sheer  inhuman-the wife was divorced  for adultery and she is being rewarded!

    Any one who wants  to make a quick buck may marry a person who earns Rs.One lakh/m ,commit adultery,get a divorce get a regular income for life.

    If adventurous,repeat the process by getting married again.

    Do people leave common sense at home?

    NEW DELHI, 20 NOV: A husband cannot deny maintenance to his divorced wife on the ground that she was involved in an adulterous relationship, a Delhi court has said.
    The verdict was passed by additional sessions judge Mr TR Naval, who said: “The findings that the divorcee wife has been living in adultery will not provide any benefit to him (husband)”.
    The court rejected the plea of a Delhi-based policeman, who had challenged a magistrate’s order directing him to pay Rs 4,000 as monthly alimony to his wife on the ground that she was having an adulterous relationship.
    The divorcee wife had moved the sessions court seeking enhancement of the alimony to Rs 15,000 per month saying her ex-husband was earning over Rs 50,000 per month and had no other liability.
    The ASJ, however, disposed of the petitions saying the order passed by the magistrate was “fair” and “proper”.
    “I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality or inaccuracy in the impugned order and there is no merit in the revisions (petition),” the court said.
    The ASJ also observed that the magistrate, while deciding the alimony, had also kept in mind that the man had re-married and had the responsibility of his second wife and children.
    The woman had filed a petition before a magistrate seeking alimony alleging that she had got married in February 2004 and although her parents had given dowry at that time, her husband and in-laws used to taunt her for not bringing a car.
    She had alleged that as her husband was serving in police, he used to threaten her and her family members. She had also claimed that she was brutally beaten up by him and her mother-in-law.

    http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=390634&catid=36