No. I did not make that one up. Read the news below, and figure out for yourselves:
Should a rape victim be allowed to marry the man who destroyed her self-esteem? “Yes,” feels chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan. “No,” indicates popular wisdom.
As the world celebrates International Women’s Day on Monday, the government plans to protect women from all possible tormentors, including their husbands, by introducing “marital rape” as a separate provision under the proposed new law against rape and sexual assault.
I could say as in the IDEA advertisement -- “kya idea hai sirji”, except in this case it is hardly funny.
If one thinks about the 2 diametrically opposite views expressed by experts above, it will become clear the the sole idea is to allow women to express their choice without legal repercussions, howsoever reprehensible that choice may seem by social standard of conduct.
For example, a woman can file rape case on a man in case of broken promise of marriage. But a man cannot file any case of fraud, cheating of money on woman in case of broken promise of marriage, leave alone rape. The woman is now being given the option by judiciary of changing her mind again at judicial stage and get married to the rape accused! Why I always loved my rapist!
A married woman can accuse man of rape at any time of marriage. Of course, there was no notary public present at the time the alleged event happened, so the man will be made to run around to arrange bail, then to prove his innocence, and so on. And the woman could always condone the rape against husband based on some settlement, say some property or money in her name! After all, judiciary is quite open to condoning non-marital rape, they will only be too glad to condone an alleged marital rape.
A man who is forced to give presents or money to wife who does not fulfil her promises cannot accuse her of marital robbery, or marital cheating, or marital fraud etc. But a wife will now be allowed to accuse husband of marital rape, because her rights must be protected. And her rights are whatever she wants at the moment, there should be no reciprocity of rights when it comes to man-woman relationship, that is so 19th century ….right?