Wake up to the woes of sexually harassed men!
All
those feminists, who had been screaming over the male atrocities, were
shocked into silence reading the recent reports wherein a 42-year-old
married woman Veera Kalra, a manager at a ready-made garments store, was
booked for sexually harassing her 25-year-old employee Rahul Khandare.
Rahul had recently committed suicide and left a five-page note, blaming
Veera for sexually harassing him and being the main cause behind his
frustration. And this is not a case in isolation. There are other cases,
which have similar undertones. TOI tracks the phenomenon...
Case 1:
Disha Chauhan (name changed), a 25-year-old girl working for a
multinational herbal products company in the city, lured her new male
colleague into a sexual relationship. After luring him into the relationship,
she started urging him on to help her with getting more business and
greater sales numbers, says our source from the police. He obliged and
soon the girl proposed marriage
to the lad. When he agreed to that as well, she told him to help in
increasing her sales incentive from 35% to 50%. The guy invested
heavily, bought the products in large numbers and even diverted many of
his own clients to her. The girl achieved her target, married her senior
and dumped the guy! Totally shocked, the guy initially went into acute
depression, adds the source. Later, he finally gathered the courage to
file a case at the Ajni Police Station for cheating and sexual
harassment.
Case 2: Rachna Bise (name
changed), a 21-year-old married woman, charged her maternal uncle with
attempt to rape, after she went absconding with a male friend of hers
and was found by the cops, whereas the uncle's family has lodged a case
of sexual harassment against her.
Male harassment is a reality
A senior cop (requesting anonymity) says: "Cases regarding women's
sexual harassment and molestation are reported in large numbers, but
sexual harassment of men is also a reality. We get many complaints these
days of this nature, but most of the times, the guys refrain from
filing the FIR. Hence, the number of cases reported remains very less."
Victims suffer psychologically
It's a myth that sexual exploitation hurts women
alone and men remain unscathed, says Investigating Officer R G
Rajulwar, who is handling Disha Chauhan case. He adds, "In this
particular case, the boy, who was exploited and later dumped by her,
became a complete recluse and even contemplated suicide. It was the
never ending support of his family and friends that made him come out of
his shell. So, it is no longer true that exploitation happens on one
particular sex alone."
Butt of myriad jokes
The sad part is that while the psychological trauma faced by the
sexually harassed people of both the sexes remains equal, the men who
report such cases, have to face public ridicule. "When a girl files a
case of sexual harassment, she gets people's sympathy, but when a guy
files such a complaint, he becomes the butt of myriad jokes. That is why
even when they are being exploited blatantly by certain women, they
prefer to bear it in silence, or may take an extreme step like Rahul
Khandare, who committed suicide," said another senior cop, on the
condition of anonymity. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Wake-up-to-the-woes-of-sexually-harassed-men/articleshow/20716412.cms
Monday 24 June 2013
Can marriage be the only licence for sex?
Can marriage be the only licence for sex?
NEW DELHI: The recent Madras High Court judgment refusing to allow a man to slink away from marital responsibilities after fathering two children during a prolonged live-in relationship with a woman is a welcome decision.
The HC order, authored by Justice C S Karnan, was in sync with the Supreme Court's consistent ruling that absence of proof of marriage, as it happens in live-in relationships, could never be a reason for a man to absolve himself of marital consequences which arise after living long with a woman under one roof.
In S P S Balasubramanyam vs Sruttayan [AIR 1992 SC 756], the apex court had said, "If a man and a woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate."
While doing justice to the woman, Justice Karnan followed the SC's footsteps to say, "It is not disputed that the petitioner has been a spinster before she gave birth and that the respondent was a bachelor before developing sexual relationship with the petitioner. Both of them led their marital life under the same shelter and begot two children. Therefore, the petitioner's rank has been elevated as the 'wife' of the respondent and likewise, the respondent's rank has been elevated as the 'husband' of the petitioner."
This is perfectly logical. But what Justice Karnan dished out as 'obiter dicta' (incidental remarks by a judge not necessarily connected to the decision in the case) was rather unnecessary.
While recognizing the freedom of choice available to adults, Justice Karnan said, "If any couple chooses to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional circumstances."
So if a boy of 21 years and a 18-year-old girl decide to "consummate their sexual cravings", then either of them could go to the nearest family court with proof of their sexual act and claim to be married to the other, the HC said.
Is marriage a magnetic tape that gets activated by sex to tie the partners in matrimony the moment they consummate their cravings? Should sex inevitably lead to marriage? Or, is marriage the only licence for sex?
The HC also said if any of a man or a woman after a one-night stand wants to end this forced marriage, then the only option is to move court with a divorce petition, which would take at least a decade to get decided unless there is mutual consent.
This is what the judge intended in his obiter dicta when he said "legal rights applicable to normal wedded couples will also be available to couples who have had sexual relationships which are established".
To deny a man to walk a way from a long-standing live-in relationship is one thing, but to say that even one-night stands would tie a young boy or girl in marriage is something unheard of. Importantly, the Supreme Court disapproved it.
In its October 21, 2010 judgment in D Velusamy vs D Patchaiammal, the SC had discussed in some length the growing phenomenon of live-in relationships in the urban areas of India.
It had come to the conclusion that it would be unfortunate to declare two youngsters to be man and wife just for a one-night stand. It said live-in relationships or 'relationships in the nature of marriage" must have following ingredients:
* The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
* They must be of legal age to marry
* They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried
* They must have voluntarily co-habited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for significant period of time
The SC bench of Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur had said, "Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'."
It added, "In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. To get such benefit, the conditions mentioned above by us must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence."
Authoring the judgment for the bench, Justice Katju had said, "If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the 'nature of marriage'."
With this authoritative order from the Supreme Court, the Madras HC's ruling, which could have sent a chill down the spine of many youth, will mercifully remain obiter dicta and cannot be enforced as law. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Can-marriage-be-the-only-licence-for-sex/articleshow/20735205.cms
NEW DELHI: The recent Madras High Court judgment refusing to allow a man to slink away from marital responsibilities after fathering two children during a prolonged live-in relationship with a woman is a welcome decision.
The HC order, authored by Justice C S Karnan, was in sync with the Supreme Court's consistent ruling that absence of proof of marriage, as it happens in live-in relationships, could never be a reason for a man to absolve himself of marital consequences which arise after living long with a woman under one roof.
In S P S Balasubramanyam vs Sruttayan [AIR 1992 SC 756], the apex court had said, "If a man and a woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate."
While doing justice to the woman, Justice Karnan followed the SC's footsteps to say, "It is not disputed that the petitioner has been a spinster before she gave birth and that the respondent was a bachelor before developing sexual relationship with the petitioner. Both of them led their marital life under the same shelter and begot two children. Therefore, the petitioner's rank has been elevated as the 'wife' of the respondent and likewise, the respondent's rank has been elevated as the 'husband' of the petitioner."
This is perfectly logical. But what Justice Karnan dished out as 'obiter dicta' (incidental remarks by a judge not necessarily connected to the decision in the case) was rather unnecessary.
While recognizing the freedom of choice available to adults, Justice Karnan said, "If any couple chooses to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional circumstances."
So if a boy of 21 years and a 18-year-old girl decide to "consummate their sexual cravings", then either of them could go to the nearest family court with proof of their sexual act and claim to be married to the other, the HC said.
Is marriage a magnetic tape that gets activated by sex to tie the partners in matrimony the moment they consummate their cravings? Should sex inevitably lead to marriage? Or, is marriage the only licence for sex?
The HC also said if any of a man or a woman after a one-night stand wants to end this forced marriage, then the only option is to move court with a divorce petition, which would take at least a decade to get decided unless there is mutual consent.
This is what the judge intended in his obiter dicta when he said "legal rights applicable to normal wedded couples will also be available to couples who have had sexual relationships which are established".
To deny a man to walk a way from a long-standing live-in relationship is one thing, but to say that even one-night stands would tie a young boy or girl in marriage is something unheard of. Importantly, the Supreme Court disapproved it.
In its October 21, 2010 judgment in D Velusamy vs D Patchaiammal, the SC had discussed in some length the growing phenomenon of live-in relationships in the urban areas of India.
It had come to the conclusion that it would be unfortunate to declare two youngsters to be man and wife just for a one-night stand. It said live-in relationships or 'relationships in the nature of marriage" must have following ingredients:
* The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses
* They must be of legal age to marry
* They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried
* They must have voluntarily co-habited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for significant period of time
The SC bench of Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur had said, "Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'."
It added, "In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. To get such benefit, the conditions mentioned above by us must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence."
Authoring the judgment for the bench, Justice Katju had said, "If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the 'nature of marriage'."
With this authoritative order from the Supreme Court, the Madras HC's ruling, which could have sent a chill down the spine of many youth, will mercifully remain obiter dicta and cannot be enforced as law. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Can-marriage-be-the-only-licence-for-sex/articleshow/20735205.cms
Mamata accuses TV channels of indulging in false propaganda
Mamata accuses TV channels of indulging in false propaganda
Faced with criticism from different quarters over the
rise in atrocities against women Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee came up
with a bizarre defence of the State government on Sunday by asking at a
public rally: “Are all women in the State being raped?”
Addressing
an election rally at Minakha in the Basirhat area of the State’s North
24 Parganas district she vented her ire on a section of the electronic
media saying that by highlighting atrocities committed on women they
were “disrespecting” the people of the State.
Referring
to the rape and murder of a college girl at Kamduni village in the
Barasat area of the district Ms. Banerjee said that the incident was
“unfortunate” and all the accused were arrested within 24 hours.
The State government would seek the death penalty for the accused, she reiterated.
In three recent incidents of rape the State government was able to
ensure conviction in a very short period, Ms. Banerjee said, pointing
out that in the latest incident at Bamangola in Malda district
conviction was ensured within 27 days.
“This is
called good governance,” Ms. Banerjee said. “If there is any incident
of atrocity against women the State government will act,” she said.
Ms. Banerjee accused certain television channels of furthering the
interests of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and said that they
were regularly indulging in false propaganda against her government.
“Has there been any conviction in cases of atrocities against women registered during the regime of the CPI(M) ?” she asked.
Stating that the Trinamool Congress government made provisions for
reservation of 50 per cent seats in the rural bodies for women, Ms.
Banerjee said that such an initiative had not been taken elsewhere in
the country.
Are all women in Bengal getting raped, asks Mamata
Are all women in Bengal getting raped, asks Mamata
Faced with all-round criticism over the rising instances of crime against women, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee on Sunday sought to defend her government by counter-posing: "Are all women in the state being raped?"
Addressing a Trinamool Congress rally in North 24-Parganas district's Minakhan, Banerjee vented her ire on a section of media which has been highlighting the crimes against women in the state.
"These channels have colluded with the opposition and are running a smear campaign against the government. By doing so, they are disrespecting the soil of Bengal," said Banerjee who earlier had claimed that a "media house was conniving with the opposition to murder her".
The Trinamool chief has been receiving flak from intellectuals and civil society members after she rebuked villagers who were protesting the brutal gang-rape and murder of a college student in Kamduni village in the district.
In her bid to deride her detractors, Banerjee earlier had said: "They blame me for everything. Now, they are even blaming me for rape. As if it was I who went to rape... only if I were a man."
With the city on Friday bringing out a huge rally in protest atrocities on women, veteran filmmaker Mrinal Sen said the people of West Bengal have given a "fatwa" to Banerjee and her government to mend their ways.
The state recently has been witnessing a spate of alleged rapes and murders. The National Crime Records Bureau has put Bengal at top the country's charts concerning crime against women with as many as 30,942 such incidents reported in the state in 2012.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Kolkata/Are-all-women-in-Bengal-getting-raped-asks-Mamata/Article1-1081231.aspx
Faced with all-round criticism over the rising instances of crime against women, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee on Sunday sought to defend her government by counter-posing: "Are all women in the state being raped?"
Addressing a Trinamool Congress rally in North 24-Parganas district's Minakhan, Banerjee vented her ire on a section of media which has been highlighting the crimes against women in the state.
"These channels have colluded with the opposition and are running a smear campaign against the government. By doing so, they are disrespecting the soil of Bengal," said Banerjee who earlier had claimed that a "media house was conniving with the opposition to murder her".
The Trinamool chief has been receiving flak from intellectuals and civil society members after she rebuked villagers who were protesting the brutal gang-rape and murder of a college student in Kamduni village in the district.
In her bid to deride her detractors, Banerjee earlier had said: "They blame me for everything. Now, they are even blaming me for rape. As if it was I who went to rape... only if I were a man."
With the city on Friday bringing out a huge rally in protest atrocities on women, veteran filmmaker Mrinal Sen said the people of West Bengal have given a "fatwa" to Banerjee and her government to mend their ways.
The state recently has been witnessing a spate of alleged rapes and murders. The National Crime Records Bureau has put Bengal at top the country's charts concerning crime against women with as many as 30,942 such incidents reported in the state in 2012.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Kolkata/Are-all-women-in-Bengal-getting-raped-asks-Mamata/Article1-1081231.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)