One has always thought that courts were the repositories of wisdom, fairness, justice and forward thinking, but recent judgements made by sessions courts on a myriad of social issues have severely dented this long held belief of mine......
Take this judgement given by a trial court in the national capital on a dispute pertaining to the sharing of money between the two warring parties for example: "If a woman defies the societal norms and family order by eloping with and subsequently marrying a person of her own choice, then her father enjoys the express right of taking back or retaining the monies deposited in her bank account/s while she was a minor"......
This particular trial court made these archaic and rather hackneyed observations while it was deciding the ultimate outcome of a rather unsavoury dispute between a father and his beloved (?) daughter on the perennial question of distribution of money between the two......
In this case, the father of the girl who had eloped and then married a boy of her choice had approached the court in question seeking a permanent injunction against the banks in which he had opened accounts in his darling(?) daughter's names......
He wanted the courts to ensure that the monies due to her on the date of maturity of the said accounts were not released to her as he was unduly peeved with the fact that she had eloped with and married a distant relative against his wishes and hence he did not want the banks to pay out the sums that became available to her on the date of maturity........
Stretching the limits of credibility and sanity, the additional district judge judge Vinod Yadav concurred with the views expressed by the irate father in this regard and pithily remarked that "till the time the defendant number 1 (daughter) behaved like a dutiful daughter and steadfastly obeyed laid down norms of societal and familial honour, the father had no problems whatsoever with his daughter having access to the monies deposited by him in her bank accounts".......
"But the situation took an irrevocable turn for the worst, the very minute she abjured all laid down societal and familial norms and eloped with someone in the family without the express consent and blessings of the parents, in the case of such an event it is but natural that a father might experience a sense of betrayal and outrage and his not wanting his "unfaithful and straying" child to lay hands on his hard earned monies (the amounts deposited in her bank accounts) is a natural consequence of both her undesirable and unwarranted actions as well as the sense of angst and betrayal experienced by the father of the girl.......
As is the age old practice in most families, the doting father had opened a bank account in the then apple of his eye (daughter's name) in a reputed bank when she was still a minor and kept depositing undisclosed sums of money in the same at regular and timely intervals and as the girl had now attained majority the unwilling and reluctant bank was also made a party to the case/dispute between father and daughter.......
During the course of the trial, the legal counsel of the bank made a submission to the effect that the bank had to pay out the monies that became due to the daughter on the date which she attained the age of majority as per the existing banking norms and rules applicable in the country and also remarked that the father had forfeited his claim on the said sum of money on the date on which his daughter legally became an adult; however for reasons best known to it, the bank committed a volte face and went back on it's earlier stand by agreeing to honour the trial court's judgement in this case.......
What was even more astounding was the fact that the judge summarily dismissed the argument put forth by the girl's counsel pertaining to the said sum being a "gift" that he was bequeathing to his daughter and instances of a person who gave a gift to somebody else out of his own free will turning around and reclaiming the gift as his very own were unheard off and an absurdity/anomaly......
He instead chose to wax eloquent on the societal aspects of this case by saying that "our ancient and revered society is characterised by a plethora of moral norms that have come to acquire the veneer/sanctity of laws with the due passage of time"......
"One such age old norm that has acquired this veneer pertains to the parents providing their offspring with the best possible education, material comforts, consortium and other such comforts to the best of their abilities and financial capabilities and it is also commonplace to expect that the children would reciprocate this gesture by being dutiful children and honouring the practices and norms that have been in existence within the familial fold for decades"......
"In this case, the daughter chose to violate the sanctity/limits laid down on her by her parents out of her own free will and hence failed to honour the social contract that was in existence between them and hence the father was well within his rights to withhold the sums that became payable to her on the date of her attaining majority as she was the one who had breached the deep rooted bonds of love, trust and bonhomie that existed between them before her wilful and unsavoury act of elopement and hence had no locus standii or legal grounds on which she could challenge her father's decision".......
Notch up one more victory to the conservatives, radicals and heretics who want to drag this fledgling society that is beginning to shrug off it's archaic and hypocritical face into the "dark and desultory ages" and list out one more defeat to the ranks of liberals and forward thinking Indians who want to free this society and nation from the self imposed yoke of "social slavery".........
Take this judgement given by a trial court in the national capital on a dispute pertaining to the sharing of money between the two warring parties for example: "If a woman defies the societal norms and family order by eloping with and subsequently marrying a person of her own choice, then her father enjoys the express right of taking back or retaining the monies deposited in her bank account/s while she was a minor"......
This particular trial court made these archaic and rather hackneyed observations while it was deciding the ultimate outcome of a rather unsavoury dispute between a father and his beloved (?) daughter on the perennial question of distribution of money between the two......
In this case, the father of the girl who had eloped and then married a boy of her choice had approached the court in question seeking a permanent injunction against the banks in which he had opened accounts in his darling(?) daughter's names......
He wanted the courts to ensure that the monies due to her on the date of maturity of the said accounts were not released to her as he was unduly peeved with the fact that she had eloped with and married a distant relative against his wishes and hence he did not want the banks to pay out the sums that became available to her on the date of maturity........
Stretching the limits of credibility and sanity, the additional district judge judge Vinod Yadav concurred with the views expressed by the irate father in this regard and pithily remarked that "till the time the defendant number 1 (daughter) behaved like a dutiful daughter and steadfastly obeyed laid down norms of societal and familial honour, the father had no problems whatsoever with his daughter having access to the monies deposited by him in her bank accounts".......
"But the situation took an irrevocable turn for the worst, the very minute she abjured all laid down societal and familial norms and eloped with someone in the family without the express consent and blessings of the parents, in the case of such an event it is but natural that a father might experience a sense of betrayal and outrage and his not wanting his "unfaithful and straying" child to lay hands on his hard earned monies (the amounts deposited in her bank accounts) is a natural consequence of both her undesirable and unwarranted actions as well as the sense of angst and betrayal experienced by the father of the girl.......
As is the age old practice in most families, the doting father had opened a bank account in the then apple of his eye (daughter's name) in a reputed bank when she was still a minor and kept depositing undisclosed sums of money in the same at regular and timely intervals and as the girl had now attained majority the unwilling and reluctant bank was also made a party to the case/dispute between father and daughter.......
During the course of the trial, the legal counsel of the bank made a submission to the effect that the bank had to pay out the monies that became due to the daughter on the date which she attained the age of majority as per the existing banking norms and rules applicable in the country and also remarked that the father had forfeited his claim on the said sum of money on the date on which his daughter legally became an adult; however for reasons best known to it, the bank committed a volte face and went back on it's earlier stand by agreeing to honour the trial court's judgement in this case.......
What was even more astounding was the fact that the judge summarily dismissed the argument put forth by the girl's counsel pertaining to the said sum being a "gift" that he was bequeathing to his daughter and instances of a person who gave a gift to somebody else out of his own free will turning around and reclaiming the gift as his very own were unheard off and an absurdity/anomaly......
He instead chose to wax eloquent on the societal aspects of this case by saying that "our ancient and revered society is characterised by a plethora of moral norms that have come to acquire the veneer/sanctity of laws with the due passage of time"......
"One such age old norm that has acquired this veneer pertains to the parents providing their offspring with the best possible education, material comforts, consortium and other such comforts to the best of their abilities and financial capabilities and it is also commonplace to expect that the children would reciprocate this gesture by being dutiful children and honouring the practices and norms that have been in existence within the familial fold for decades"......
"In this case, the daughter chose to violate the sanctity/limits laid down on her by her parents out of her own free will and hence failed to honour the social contract that was in existence between them and hence the father was well within his rights to withhold the sums that became payable to her on the date of her attaining majority as she was the one who had breached the deep rooted bonds of love, trust and bonhomie that existed between them before her wilful and unsavoury act of elopement and hence had no locus standii or legal grounds on which she could challenge her father's decision".......
Notch up one more victory to the conservatives, radicals and heretics who want to drag this fledgling society that is beginning to shrug off it's archaic and hypocritical face into the "dark and desultory ages" and list out one more defeat to the ranks of liberals and forward thinking Indians who want to free this society and nation from the self imposed yoke of "social slavery".........
No comments:
Post a Comment