Referring to another case, advocate Jahagirdar said that a session judge advised his/her client to be ‘flexible’. The judge had said, ‘If a woman earns well, she will always look for a husband who earns more than that. Will not marry a low -earner. But if a man who wants to get married, then he/she can also marry a man who has been in his/her house. Look, how flexible men are. You should also show a little flexibility. Do not be so rigid. ‘ The lawyer was also stunned to hear this.
Then he/she says, ‘I think unfortunately there is a spontaneous tolerance for some derogatory things in our society. Everyone also knows why this is- the first rule of the patriarchy club is that you cannot talk about patriarchy club. ‘ Advocates also regret the fact that no person along with them does not interrupt such comments to the judges. he/she writes, ‘I did not like these comments. But I did not like even more than that neither client nor any witness like me can do anything against such impeccable comments of judges.
Actually, promoting extremism in the name of social reforms has become a common practice. The element of ‘male dominance’ in Indian society cannot be denied, but arguments in support of the ‘irrational dominance of women’ demanding equality. Lawyer Ankur R. The shipping object to the fact that how can the judge suggest the woman to be decorated for her husband? By linking it with patriarchal thoughts, it wants to show and tell that the judge asked the wife to decide his/her living husband’s choice. This is extremism. The question is whether a educated person of comprehensive vision would like to present the suggestions of general understanding and present the suggestions of general understanding?
