Only a few days back, in an alleged rape case, a judge in Karnataka High Court had attacked the victim with certain sexist questions like – Why did she go to her office at 11 PM? and Why did she have drinks with the accused, etc.?
And now the Guwahati High Court has come up with another heartbreaking and ridiculous statement.
During a divorce case hearing, Guwahati High Court said that a married Hindu woman’s refusal to wear sakha (bangles made of conch-shell) and sindoor (vermillion) as per the marriage rituals and customs, shows her unwillingness to accept her marriage to the husband, reports Hindustan Times.
Few months into the marriage, the wife expressed her wish of a separate accommodation as she didn’t want to live in a joint family. The husband alleged that the couple would often fight which affected their conjugal relations. The wife also allegedly failed to conceive a child.
The wife had later left his home and filed a case against the husband and his family under Section 498A (husband or his relative subjecting a married woman to cruelty). The court declared that the husband and his family were not guilty.
After this, the husband filed for divorce citing cruelty by his wife in Assam’s Family Court. However, the court rejected the plea as the wife didn’t inflict any cruelty against the husband. But, when the case moved to HC, the husband alleged that the wife refused to wear Sakha and sindoor. The woman did not deny the claim.
In its order, the HC said that the woman’s unwillingness to wear sakha and sindoor signified that she doesn’t accept the marriage and granted the husband’s plea for divorce.
“Under such circumstances, compelling the husband to continue to be in matrimony with the wife may be construed to be harassment,” the HC stated.
Netizens shocked by the HC’s statement came forward to express their anger and disgust.
Sounds absurd . Who wear Sindur now adays but does it signifies they refuse marriage too . Why all onus of carrying out traditional values is on women .
— saket (@saketghy) June 29, 2020
Guwahati HC thoughts are regressive and patriarchal. Go back to college and learn basics ????
— Jayanti Dey (@jdey63) June 29, 2020
Symbolism should be done away with. Why women only has to carry forward such tradition? If they wish to do with it then it’s fine. If they wish to do without it., that should also be fine.
— mamoni (@MamoniDoley) June 29, 2020
What? Is that judiciary or panchayat!
— Satwant Singh Rissam (@ssrissam) June 29, 2020
So refusal to eat roti signifies refusal to accept Indian nationality?
— NJ (@Nihalinvincible) June 29, 2020
Symbolism should be done away with. Why women only has to carry forward such tradition? If they wish to do with it then it’s fine. If they wish to do without it., that should also be fine.
— mamoni (@MamoniDoley) June 29, 2020
What absolute crock. Acceptance or denial of a marriage can’t be reduced to symbolism. Marriage is a contract. What matters is whether or not the parties accept that they’re married.
I hope this judgment is challenged and set aside— Dushyant Krishnan (@DushyantKrishna) June 29, 2020
And Men without wearing wedding ring and Henna on pinky should be also considered as refusal to accept marriage.
— Bilal بلال (@thedarbilal) June 29, 2020
Birbal 1560 AD.
Is the husband going to wear sindoor or any other visible sign that he is married? Perhaps a tattoo across his forehead?
— sonia ???????????? (@sonia_sinha) June 29, 2020
At IFORHER, we are not only ashamed but also heartbroken with this order.
When our judiciary system, which is supposed to be fair and unbiased, shows such a regressive and patriarchal mindset, it is a moment to worry. In the country, where women are fighting for their basic rights, judgments like such only send us centuries back in our fight for equality.
