Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will follow

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

Great post, Flowerlady. You are likely to get many likes for this post and I can assure you that all the likes will be from people who are neither looking after their parents nor their Ils. That's the irony of it. It's easier to say 'nice things' when you have others to look after your parents/Ils, or when your Ils are long dead. For once put yourself in the shoes of the DIL who cannot have a single moment of peace in her life, who cannot have any plans of her own and can not have any dreams of her own all because her ILs live with her and she has to put her ILs before her own needs every single day of her life. Who has to be careful all the time about what people are thinking of her because people are watching like hawks ready to pounce on how she is treating her Ils.
I have more to say on this, but may be tomorrow. Ciao for now!

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

A lot of us, move back or want to move back for our parents. One of my friends, is moving back to be with her parents end of this month. She is moving back for good. Another went end of last year. Infact she even had student loans for her grad school. But her take on it was, "Grad school gave me the much needed higher education I wanted. I'm sure I'll be able to make a good living, wherever I am". So she moved back, because she did not want to stay away from her parents. A married couple, moved back beginning of last year, because both of them missed their parents so much, so they moved back, with the best job offers they got to be with parents. (The girl was 23, and the guy was 27 - they married young). So yes, a lot of people do move back to be with their parents. And like that, a lot of my younger friends like it here, and want to be here too. So both categories do exist. If you think, people dont give up their high paying jobs to move back and be with parents, apparently a lot of people do! My own parents want me to move back soon, and I want to, too. Not to take care of them, but it breaks their heart to see me thousands of miles away, in a small screen on their computer. I visit my parents, my parents visited me. However frequent the visits are, my parents want to see me more in flesh and blood. My parents are very hale and healthy, by gods grace, so their only intention in asking me to move back is to be closer to them. And as for me, thats where I want to be too. So to ask a generic question of how many can practically do that, and how many who dont, there are good numbers in both categories.

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

This is such a divided topic. For each case presenting one argument, there is equally another case presenting the other side. Tough to say whos right and whos wrong. WE cannot judge either one.

We all agree to disagree.

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

Psych, the question is not about right and wrong. It is for all of us to know that the other side does exist. Its easy to question that can anyone give up high paying jobs to take care of parents (probably because some of us have not seen such people). So I want to say, yes, they do exist. My whole intention of posting in this thread is to say, there are good parents as well as bad, and good kids as well as bad. Such a law in my opinion, is for people, who otherwise exploit the 'so-called norms', that are not laws yet. Kids who exploit parents, and parents who exploit kids - and in-turn another woman/man(DIL/SNIL) who comes into a family hoping to be showered with love.
PIL bashing goes on enough in the relationship forums. For once, I want to bring to light, of how there are kids who make life a living hell for their parents. I just want to bring it to light, that there are happy joint families, happy couple who give up high paying jobs for the mere joy of seeing the happiness on their parent's face and move back to India, and husbands who takes care of wife's parents as his own and vice-versa, in-laws who treat DIL as the princess of the house (yes, yes, they do exist)! Well, thats pretty much all I have to say. So adios to this thread!

PS : Monita, yes FL wrote beautifully, and won my 'like'! And I'm sure she is going to get a lot of likes for talking about the plight of many parents, who are not happy to 'play nanny' to the kids. Well said, FL!

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

Correct SSC. But I am really surprised that they have a law for such. Thats very unusual. me telling bye as well.

ttyl

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

May be there are people who do exist.But the percentage would be less.Probably this is the reason for many family problems.There are parents who expect their son to be with them and do not want to treat the son as a package instead of "wanting" only the son.Noone talks about the ideal family here.The ideal cases are very less in percentage as we all know.There is no point in trying to say that there are equal number in each category for the sake of argument.

Really?How many husbands are out there?In this very same website we see men who argue that their parents come first and not even the wife and kid.

??????????We are clearly talking about minority here.

All I can say is blessed are the ones who have hubby treating PILs as his own parents and whose In-laws treat them like princess of the house.We do not need any women protection law if this is the norm.

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

Looking at the observation, however, it is too early given the prevailing socio-economic conditions;18 years is too young. I would have settled for atleast 21 years, especially on our culture and current economic scenario. Court should also have considered for special adult children and genuinely unemployed or dependent divorced or widowed women so that they are not abandoned.

However even if the young adult children wish to move away from their parents, what opportunity exists in our society for them to survive on their own? How will they finance their education, considering the high cost of education? In India, especially lesser educated families, "unwell"-off families, this can be used as a tool for parents to get rid of their kids (consider parents that do not want to take the responsibility female children) What is the safety of an young adult girl to live away from her home where so many perverts are around in our country. Our society is not yet ready for such sweeping change. However, it has positive aspects too. I hope that this Judgement and its publicity in newspaper will help will help young generation realize to become more and more independent at the earliest stage possible. It is only in the Asian culture that the children stick to their parents, even after they become Majors. Our social mores and indian style parenting makes the individual dependent on the parent(s) with the tacit understanding that he/she will take care of them during their old age. About time young Indians will realise that their parents' house is not automatically theirs, they need to get out of the comfort zones and pave their own paths; get out of their parents' house on becoming adults and travell around other parts and work and live on their own, that is what teaches how to handle independence responsibly and makes one disciplined and accountable for one's own actions. Other way round that obnoxious adult children cannot force their way in to parents' property and such chidren cannot take parents for for granted.

Agree to a large extent yet upto a point.-- BUT --“Adult children need parents’ approval to stay with them”. This verdict alone wud hv solved the problem. Was it necessary for the judge to add “When a daughter gets married she ceases to be a member of the father's family and becomes a member of the family of the husband” ?? After marriage when she goes to the house of the parents, legally she is only a guest in the house and does not have a legal right to continue there." I do not completely agree with this. I don’t disagree with the judgment-- but I just did not agree with the observation made by the Court about Girls home-- In case of a martial dispute, it is likely that the husbands family will cease to be her family and in that case she should be allowed to reside in her parents house (atleast for some time till she can support herself again). The judge should have restricted his observation to the case instead of making a sweeping generalized observation “When a daughter gets married she ceases to be a member of the father's family and she is just a guest“. Or if he has to make this observation then he should have also added that 'When son gets married then he forms new family of his own and he is no more part of his father's family and he and his wife [dil] are only guests at his parent's place. Why the gender specific remarks and comment only on daughters? It perpetuates an evil notion that the daughter after marriage is outsider while son and dil are still family and real heirs of parents property and only they are obligated to live with and take care of parents.. That goes against equality of man and woman. Now these same intellectual highly educated people will be lecturing abt “support for girl child”, “no to female foeticide”. This may be the right ruling in this case, where the daughter may be harassing her father, but what of other cases? what the judge has said holds true for this case, but there may be other cases when it does not hold true, there are as many good/bad parents as there are good/bad adult children and one should comment only on a case by case basis.. It is misleading.What will be the 'natural implications' of this one sided observation made by court especially in a country like India with so many economic and social problems!!! what about an adult illiterate/unemployed divorced/widowed women or women abused in her marital home? She may ends up on the streets going by this lunatic judgement in case if she has selfish or heartless parents/brothers/sils! Just like few 498A dowry cases are misused, this generalised observation which is highlighted and published in newspapers too can be misused by parents/brothers who don't want to support their divorced/widowed/abused daughter/sister in genuine need. The judge just threw 'natural justice' out of the window! or he's unaware of the condition of millions of women in this country! instead of making a sweeping generalised observation, judge should have limited to the relevant case. bad observation by judge with very dangerous repercussions. What does a genuinely unemployed or helpless divorced or widowed woman do? Are we living in a country where everyone is well educated and has access for jobs enough to sustain living? This is a middle class and an upper class judgement! and needless to say... anti-women! you dont have to be a feminist to figure this out! & what about battered women who are abused by their husbands? they cant go back to their parents because if the parents dont consent who will take care of the women? especially in a country where many parents would love to get rid of their girl child! a woman has problems with her husband cannot legally return to her parents if they dont want her! then who will take responsibility if she cant find a job if she is not well educated?? she'll end up being a prostitute or commit suicide! It has always been a social compulsion/norm for the parents/brothers to support a "returning" daughter/sister.-BUT- what if the girl is abandoned and does not earn enough to stay on her own--I can think of hundreds of parents off hand who would delight in this ruling to get rid of their downtrodden-daughters who have returned home

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol


Well said rissy... The point about a daughter 'ceasing to be a member of the father's family' is what is totally wrong here. It might have made sense in that particular context, but not as a generalised statement. This is what I mentioned in my post too!!

It is not about children looking after parents or parents looking after children, I think it is about doing what is right!! When the law decides to step into the family home, things get ugly. The judge has actually proven to be a typical Indian male!!

Mythili

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

I guess in this particular case the parents were fed up by d,tor and snil, but had the parents filed case against son and dil if they were mistreating them??? Thats the problem. In our country ppl have sooo much greed and desire for male child that they will either go to extent of harassing or fighting dil to keep hold over son or keep taking humiliation or abuse from son/dil, but don,t want to let go the greed of living with a son

 

Re: Supreme Court - Kids after 18 need stay permission from parents/ reverse will fol

So are you saying that the son and DIL should throw away their belonging to make room for the parents old furniture and things and spend any amount that it takes to transfer the parents' furniture to however far they live. The son and DIl couldn't possibly have any attachment to any of their own possession of course and are totally immune to any pain.
Also it is alright that the DIL loses the freedom that she has been used to and is confined to a room in her own house, because her ILs have made the great sacrifice of leaving their home and moving in with them.

Don't the DiLs suffer from the same dilemma, when she enters the ILs house? I am not talking about the good ILs here of course, but I am sure you have gone through many posts in the forum where DILs have the same problem that MIL doesn't let her do anything and also complain that she doesn't do anything. There are many posts, where a dil has a problem that her visiting ILs take over the house completely and she becomes a guest in her own house. I hope you not so immune to a dil's pain, that you haven't noticed a single post of these sorts.

In case you are really wondering why, my take on this is that many MILs who wish to move in with the son even though they need no looking after actually think of the son's home as her own. She believes that she has the first right on everything that the son owns because she gave birth to him. The DIL always remains an outsider even in her own home and the MIL hopes to establish her new kingdom. Many MILs also claim that they want to live with their son because they don't feel confident that the DIL is capable of taking care of her son and 'his' home and 'her grandkids' properly and thus she needs to either do it herself or supervise the Dil in her job.