Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Indian woman thinks of marriage as pious bonding, but sex before marriage is ok!

A recent Delhi High Court judgment has ruled that having sex with fiancée and then breaking off engagement will be taken as crime of rape.

Justice V K Jain refused to grant bail to the man, Nishant (name changed), who had filed a petition for anticipatory bail in a case where he is accused of raping a girl who was approved by his family and had even got engaged to him.

On one hand society is getting permissive in terms of sex, what with 3-4 sex surveys being done every year in weekly magazines, reality shows where women mouth obscenities as much as men do; so it would seem that at least in urban India, women are not the coy stuff they were supposed to be earlier and having sex before marriage is not a big deal.

The court thinks that the girl in this case did it so as not to disappoint her future husband. Why? was she ready to disappoint everyone else in case the marriage was called off?

"If a girl surrenders herself to a boy who comes in contact with her for the first time only in connection with a proposal for her marriage and then enters into a formal ceremony of engagement..she does it not because she loves him or wants to have pleasure with him, but because she doesn't want to disappoint her future husband,'' the HC held, rejecting the argument of the accused that it was consensual sex.

The other question is what would a court rule where a man was pushed or persuaded to have sex with fiancée but afterwards it was her who broke off the engagement. Can the man get her punished under any Indian law? The answer is obviously no. But the HC thinks that it is perfectly ok to prosecute and punish a man for crime of rape in such situation.

The HC said if a view was taken that persuading a girl to have physical relations on the false promise of marriage, despite having no such intention, does not constitute rape, "this will amount to putting premium on a conduct which is not only highly reprehensible and abhorable but also criminal in nature.''

Further the high court has gone ahead and made statement on the general nature of Indian women:

The courts cannot and should not give such a license to those who keep on looking for opportunities to exploit the sentiments and vulnerability of Indian girls who perceive marriage as a pious bonding and not a union of two bodies, the court said.

So here the HC thinks that Indian women would think of sex only within marriage, but we don’t know how the court came to conclusion that this particular woman was fine with having sex in order not to disappoint future husband. She is only into pious bonding, but will do it anyway in order not to disappoint future husband? Makes sense to anyone?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

No comments:

Post a Comment