A married Indian woman doesn’t ‘belong’ to her husband and in-laws only (Part 2)

KK has written earlier on this matter. Now, due to the Indian Supreme Court ruling of a case and the response we got for it begets another clarification and perspective on this issue contained in tradition and culture. The SC ruling is as follows:

“In normal circumstances, a wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage. She becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and normally without any justifiable strong reason; she would never insist that her husband should get separated from the family and live only with her…. If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent wife. In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income.”

While we totally support the divorce granted to the man on grounds of constant mental torture, this particular ruling rings hollow. Especially the statement of ‘normal practices and normal customs of the society’ simply because this case is individualistic and should be dealt with only that factor in consideration instead of justifying it with societal norms contained in tradition - be clear of separation of human rights and culture especially in an apex and secular institution like the SC.

Enough of the childish accusations that if women are against this ruling, they shouldn’t marry and stay with their parents. I mean, how long it would take women to say the same to men? But, it ain’t gonna solve the problem and answer the questions raised. Also, don’t tell us not to question tradition and religion - no idea is above reproach.

Actually, the idea of a married woman having to only do service to the family she is married into isn’t fair has already cropped up in the hearts of many women - the SC ruling broke the dam and brought the deluge. What if a set of parents don't have sons, only daughters? What happens to them when the daughters are married off? Where do they end up? Now can you see how one sided the whole thing is? All we're saying is, let married women take care of their parents too. As in-laws, relax the DIL is owned by in-laws thingy. I don't dispute the fact that there are vile DILs but there are also vile in-laws - it's individualistic. When a married woman is let to take care of her parents, like taking them to hospital, pitching in financially, educate her younger siblings, a certain respect and love for her in-laws and husband will engender because they understood her indebtedness to her parents and this will bring harmony to life don't you think?  I mean, just like how a son would like to give back to his parents that raised and educated him, a daughter would want to do the same. Why let males take all the burden? Let us women share the burden! At the same time, this will reduce the occupation of old age homes. You kill 2 birds with a stone.

Blaming women only as family breaker doesn't help at all. Understanding and mutual trust and auxiliary are more effective in keeping families intact than cultures and traditions. Again,I totally support the divorce granted to that man on grounds of mental torture meted out by his wife but not basis of one judgement that it's cruelty to ask a married man to leave his parents. I mean, how are the parents of married women sustaining themselves? They found a pot of gold at the end of the proverbial rainbow?

A married woman should be given the leeway to take care of her parents. As in-laws & husband, don’t complain or disapprove of a woman wanting to ease the lives of those raised her so that you can have her as a functional and provident unit of your family. Chuck tradition into the bin. Doesn't a daughter want to fulfill her responsibilities for the people who raised her? What's so wrong and hard to accept that as a woman in this age where resources are also earned want to take care of her parents as well?Can't redundant tradition be changed to suit present needs? Widow shunning and sati are also traditions so shall we fight for that tradition exhumation and preservation? It is not running away from responsibilities - it's women wanting to take responsibility and help the people they love. Women don't want a tradition which says that once they are married off, their family becomes of lesser importance. Women want to give equal importance to both sides of their family and if that defiles tradition, so be it!

~Assault Ambujam~ #OnlyAtKK