Comments on: HIV+ By Marriage

By: ethnu

ethnu — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:24:13 +0000

I think a test should be mandatory.

By: Ashwin Jadhav

Ashwin Jadhav — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:35:45 +0000

You’ve touched a very noteworthy subject. Kudos!

By: Ambuj Saxena

Ambuj Saxena — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:51:37 +0000

@moallif

To the best of my knowledge, it is the prosecution lawyer.

By: moallif

moallif — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 04:39:59 +0000

Nice one St. In fact, I was struck by the comment made by the judge – that a woman’s body can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as a piece of property – which, revolutionary as it may sound, is terribly at odds with both the social and legal codes we follow. Sample for instance the Hindu rite of ‘kanyadaan’ where the girl is a piece of property to be given (away; transferred is more like it) from father to husband.
Ambuj: thanks for answering the silent question in my head as to which sections should have been applied. Tell me something – who decides which sections to charge the accused under in such a case? the police? or the local magistrate they applied to directly?

By: St

St — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:53:10 +0000

well – since some of our archaic marriage and dowry laws treat the woman as property – we could argue that gaining property through misrepresentation does apply here ..

By: Ambuj Saxena

Ambuj Saxena — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:29:33 +0000

This is really unfortunate. I feel that the court was right in its limits as the case was fought on less relevant parts of the IPC. They would have had a higher chance of success had they charged the husband under Section 415 of IPC, which says:

“Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

The omission in this case can be considered to be using a protection (like condom) which makes it relevant to the given scenario.

They should also consider invoking the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under the Indian Constitution.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:27:22 +0000

In reality our entire system is corrupt, from top to bottom, inside to outside. Therefore most of the planning simply remain on paper and never get down in actuality. Depending on such systems is only foolish. Therefore its best to take matters in own hands – go for a premarital aids test.

By: Amit

Amit — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:56:24 +0000

Isnt the domestic violence act useful here? Slow death given to the victim through such diseases should be considered akin to gradual poisoning, mental harassment, etc. Every time I think our judiciary has hit the absolute pits, they manage to surprise me by digging deeper!