Marital restrictions on attire now amount to denial of self-expression

[P.J.]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Marital restrictions on attire now amount to denial of self-expression

(A couple file for divorce because the husband did not "allow" his wife to wear kurtis & jeans, insisted she wear only sarees. Now what would happen if courts in India were to grant a divorce on such grounds? )

Read on





It is now accepted that individuality and personality are manifest in everything we do, eat or wear. Careers and pastimes are often a result of both interest and chance, but modern existence does not allow the luxury of detachment between persona and livelihood.

Even food is no longer seen as mere sustenance; it's choosing — also cooking, if the person is so inclined — and ingesting are all regarded as expressions of self. And clothes are the most obvious manifestation of individuality. Attire is now elevated to almost a religion, thanks to hundreds of personal fashion blogs.

Even food is no longer seen as mere sustenance; it's choosing — also cooking, if the person is so inclined — and ingesting are all regarded as expressions of self. And clothes are the most obvious manifestation of individuality. Attire is now elevated to almost a religion, thanks to hundreds of personal fashion blogs.

It is no surprise that a couple ended up in the divorce courts here because the husband did not "allow" his wife to wear kurtis and jeans, and insisted that she wear only sarees.


Of course, the more egregious act of mental cruelty was to force a spouse to do anything against her will, but the sartorial angle strikes a very contemporary chord given how crucial clothes are to people's self-esteem nowadays.

Granting a divorce on these sartorial grounds, however, could set off a spate of litigation, not necessarily between warring couples.
.. If courts are seen to be siding with the fashion individualists, rebellious teens, uniform-averse students et al, all manner of other clothing adversaries could end up seeking judicial recourse for their stylistic disagreements.

Marital restrictions on attire now amount to denial of self-expression - The Economic Times

 

[prasad1]

Marital restrictions on attire now amount to denial of self-expression

(A couple file for divorce because the husband did not "allow" his wife to wear kurtis & jeans, insisted she wear only sarees. Now what would happen if courts in India were to grant a divorce on such grounds? )

Granting a divorce on these sartorial grounds, however, could set off a spate of litigation, not necessarily between warring couples.
.. If courts are seen to be siding with the fashion individualists, rebellious teens, uniform-averse students et al, all manner of other clothing adversaries could end up seeking judicial recourse for their stylistic disagreements.

Marital restrictions on attire now amount to denial of self-expression - The Economic Times

The attire must be the tip of the iceberg. People do not divorce lightly. Every divorce is a heartbreak as it is acceptance of failure. There must be other differences in addition to the one brought out.
The "men" still want to control "wife", should it be that way? Is a compromise better than a divorce? Men have to accept that society is changing, the days owning wife are gone for ever from civilized society. Unless we accept the reality, men are going to find that they are going to be lonely.

 

[renuka]

Ha Ha Ha...but the husband also should not impose dressing rules on wives as long the dress is appropriate its should be fine.

Whatever said and done a saree is not too easy a garment for everyday wear..it can be challenging if one is not so used to it and it takes time to wear it..where else its easy to put on a western attire or indian western fusion attire and head to work.

Men somehow feel they can decide everything for a woman..its high time they know that they are not Lords to decide everything.

If a husband wants his wife to only wear saree than he should only wear Dhoti and Kurta to work and that too wear a Komanam instead of western underwear!LOL

 

[sarang]

The Scots wore nothing under the kilt and the civilized west learnt from the natives, red Indians or true Indians. So the underwear is nothing but designer komanam!
There is a movie joke too. When the Scott regiment lifted the kilt collectively on 'charge' command, the enemy made a hasty retreat and vowed never to return.

 

[prasad1]

What has Scots Kilt got to do with Divorce in India. IRRELEVANT chatter.

 

[renuka]

When the Scott regiment lifted the kilt collectively on 'charge' command, the enemy made a hasty retreat and vowed never to return.

becos the enemy was not a Gay Regiment!LOL

 

[dhikshita]

The attire must be the tip of the iceberg. People do not divorce lightly. Every divorce is a heartbreak as it is acceptance of failure. There must be other differences in addition to the one brought out.
The "men" still want to control "wife", should it be that way? Is a compromise better than a divorce? Men have to accept that society is changing, the days owning wife are gone for ever from civilized society. Unless we accept the reality, men are going to find that they are going to be lonely.

Sir,

Well said. I entirely agree with you.