Anusheh,

What is the point of holding on to a marriage which does not bring any joy or happiness. And for the judicial system to take 10-12 years to realise this is in itself a mockery of marriage.

I agree that using terms such as frigidity, or using moralistic stance to give judgements is not going to help us change the mind-set of people. So deep rooted are these mind sets that even people in the high orders of the justice system are not being able to let go of them.

The point about Victorian language being used even today in our laws is quite strange. Don't we even have the time to change the language of our laws!

Dear Anusheh

A well written and clear piece. Chaitali I am a little confused by your statement. You say that "I agree that using terms such as frigidity, or using moralistic stance to give judgements is not going to help us change the mind-set of people." How would the term frigidity help us change the mindset of people? Was that just a typo?

Hope you don't mind.

Dear Shagufta,

Welcome to the blog!

Just re-read my comment. I didn't say "is going to help change peoples' mindset." I said 'is not going to change"

I think there has been a reado (if there is any search word :) ) error. lol

That's it Chaitali. I really don't understand that school of thought which proposes that you must remain married no matter what. In my opinion divorce needs to be made much easier for all concerned. If one enters freely into the contract then surely we must all have the freedom to opt out of it with the same ease.

Hi Shagufta.

Dear Anusheh

Thanks for this post. Venkat and I have a friend who went through a very looong, messy divorce and one of the things she was dealing with was a husband with a strange mental condition (diagnosed as all kinds of things including schizophrenia) and of course we were the only people who knew about the sexual problems of their marriage. It was made more painful because firstly she was awkward adding that as one of the key reasons for the breakdown (BTW her lawyer kept advising against adding that!!!) and secondly she was always so embarrassed by it. Anyhow finally it came through only because His family agreed to give evidence that he was not o.k.

But you know this is an educated professional (who is now thank God doing brilliantly well In Australia where she moved) and when I think of how difficult it was for her to come out and actually share how crazy her husband was and especially how 'dead' her sexual life was. I really wonder while you rightly say laws must reflect a larger liberal view of the times, how does an individual cope with all the currents of their society and upbringing? There are just so many contradictions in who we are and who we want to be.

Also I guess when I look at changing laws I always wonder since women's lives (even mens) in our country are not uniform, uneducated, poor people have such a different reality how will these laws translate for us all. I think creating more liberal laws for a society which lives in so many time zones must be very complex.

I also want to know, what you quoted is that now a new law?

Thank You for this post Anusheh once again.

Love

Hi Radhika

Thanks. It's not a law it's a ruling. But how it works is that it sets a precedent for future rulings, thereby expanding the definition of the law.

I agree, that at the end of the day it's society, upbringing and milieu that decides who we are, what we perceive as our rights and our options. And your story makes that point clearly.

The fact that we live in so many different time zones in this country is indeed a challenge for the legal system. However I do feel that the purpose of law is to push people's awareness to new and heightened levels of being. It must therefore challenge any 'backward' notions that exist and attempt to bring forth ever expansive notions of rights, justice and freedom.

love

Dear Anusheh,

An interesting post. I agree with you about the purpose of law to push people's awareness to new and heightened level of being.

Radhika though I'm not very knowledgable about how laws are formed etc. but what I have heard from sources is that a law is formulated on the basis of rulings. Lawyers can take earlier rulings as the base of their arguments. That is why it is very important for those on the judging chair to be sensitive, to be people who are in tune with the changing social and cultural scenario, of the changing gender roles. a judge who is himself/herself caught in web of 'morality' cannot pass unbiased judgements.

I remember reading somewhere how NGOs are working with lawyers, police and judges to gender sensitize them so that they can make rulings that do not discriminate on the grounds of 'traditional' 'moral' values.