Kudos to the virtual amicus for bringing such insightful and informative lectures from experts and eminent personalities on variety of topics for everyone's benefit. Eagerly waiting for next lecture.
Very illuminating; however We as men not realize, if that be so, why men are talking and triple talaq has important issue-can any one force to live with anyone, no matter, how trivial the incompatibility, same goes for wife, she choose to leave//if a man to obsessed with job leaving no time for family, it is cruelty- put the female as party- why can't it be read against her-can it be acquisence if one married working woman but realised, no time for family - earlier,woman cannot leave because of dependence, but today, she herself like to move from no time for family relationship - the issues are broad then narrow.
This non binding persuasive judgement is misconceived as the judge in court A will tomorrow be at court B by transfer and all high court judgement next destination,apex court, can he say, I will not consider the legal ratio laid by me in that court, on the contrary, very often say, I have already given a judgement on this point in that court, will u like to see first before arguing. Even article 14 speaks equal protection under law, thus time to see high courts judgement from that perspective then territorial one. The judgement, which was persuasive, suddenly becomes wall to climb.
The best session by Honorable justice.
Kudos to the virtual amicus for bringing such insightful and informative lectures from experts and eminent personalities on variety of topics for everyone's benefit. Eagerly waiting for next lecture.
Very illuminating; however We as men not realize, if that be so, why men are talking and triple talaq has important issue-can any one force to live with anyone, no matter, how trivial the incompatibility, same goes for wife, she choose to leave//if a man to obsessed with job leaving no time for family, it is cruelty- put the female as party- why can't it be read against her-can it be acquisence if one married working woman but realised, no time for family - earlier,woman cannot leave because of dependence, but today, she herself like to move from no time for family relationship - the issues are broad then narrow.
This non binding persuasive judgement is misconceived as the judge in court A will tomorrow be at court B by transfer and all high court judgement next destination,apex court, can he say, I will not consider the legal ratio laid by me in that court, on the contrary, very often say, I have already given a judgement on this point in that court, will u like to see first before arguing.
Even article 14 speaks equal protection under law, thus time to see high courts judgement from that perspective then territorial one.
The judgement, which was persuasive, suddenly becomes wall to climb.