Delhi High Court has reportedly ruled that marriage of
a girl at 15 is not void or voidable. At least Brinda
Karat, Renuka Chaudhry, Girija Vyas and Indira
Jaisingh have reportedly disapproved and at least
Pinky Anand and Madhu Kishwar have reportedly
not-disapproved. I am confused, as I had the
impression of clear law and consensus on later
marrying, confirmed by nearly all (varied) responses
to the question I had begun asking the week before
about youngest age for a woman to have a child without
breaking any law or offending any rights lobby.
I was asking to figure out the age of grandchild that
I could theoretically and politically correctly claim.
After the ruling it seems I could be grandmother of
nearly-teenager, and I spot an issue. At present (as
mother of teenage son, under the obtaining consensus
on gender issues) I have benefit of 2 generations of
men duty-bound to take care of me and low probability
of improvement in my circumstances on that count. If I
were grandmother of teenage grandson (possibility that
seems open at least in law), I would have had already
3 (and very likely also more respect than I do in the
world at large).
NB:
I am not taking or joining issue with any
public-spirited women of substance; I have only
personal interest in the affairs of the world and this
is mere mention of a perceived personal problem that
might seem trivial to most and is made in context of
gender-rights only because I am a woman short of years
for elderly-rights eligibility and yet to understand
why the gender discourse goes on in name of all women
including myself.
btw:
I studied architecture pre-marital, planning
post-marital and research post-natal and love them in
that order. could that be a bio-chemical thing? (I am
often told I do not otherwise display any noteworthy
changes since childhood)
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
a girl at 15 is not void or voidable. At least Brinda
Karat, Renuka Chaudhry, Girija Vyas and Indira
Jaisingh have reportedly disapproved and at least
Pinky Anand and Madhu Kishwar have reportedly
not-disapproved. I am confused, as I had the
impression of clear law and consensus on later
marrying, confirmed by nearly all (varied) responses
to the question I had begun asking the week before
about youngest age for a woman to have a child without
breaking any law or offending any rights lobby.
I was asking to figure out the age of grandchild that
I could theoretically and politically correctly claim.
After the ruling it seems I could be grandmother of
nearly-teenager, and I spot an issue. At present (as
mother of teenage son, under the obtaining consensus
on gender issues) I have benefit of 2 generations of
men duty-bound to take care of me and low probability
of improvement in my circumstances on that count. If I
were grandmother of teenage grandson (possibility that
seems open at least in law), I would have had already
3 (and very likely also more respect than I do in the
world at large).
NB:
I am not taking or joining issue with any
public-spirited women of substance; I have only
personal interest in the affairs of the world and this
is mere mention of a perceived personal problem that
might seem trivial to most and is made in context of
gender-rights only because I am a woman short of years
for elderly-rights eligibility and yet to understand
why the gender discourse goes on in name of all women
including myself.
btw:
I studied architecture pre-marital, planning
post-marital and research post-natal and love them in
that order. could that be a bio-chemical thing? (I am
often told I do not otherwise display any noteworthy
changes since childhood)
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs