Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Posts tagged ‘conclusive proof’

Marital asset!


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sperm-is-marital-asset-says-uk-donors-wife/993796/

The above link provides the cause of a woman who has gone to court stating that the donor of one’s own sperms has to take the consent of one’s wife, as she claims that her husband’s sperm is a MARITAL ASSET!

Whenever we talk of assets we have to see who has the TITLE to it; who is in POSSESSION of the ‘asset’; who is ENJOYING it and finally whether the owner/possessor/enjoyer of the ASSET has the power to ALIENATE and if so to what extent.

Let us take the issue of the TITLE to the SPERMS: a man’s body produces it and is stored in his own body and he therefore is the producer, storer and dispenser of the ‘asset’. But does this change when a woman gets married to a man- Does she acquire the TITLE to it? No, not at all. The woman could have entered into a marital contract /sacrament which entitles her to socially present the man as her husband and where polygyny is allowed, the woman becomes a co-wife of the man and neither individually nor collectively does the WIFE ACQUIRE A RIGHT to the TITLE to the husband’s body or the ‘produce’ therefrom! She just has the LICENSE to co-habit and demand MAINTENANCE to her and the children fathered by him through her.

The wife at no time becomes a POSSESSOR of the man because of her marriage to him. There was a time when the wife was thought of to be a chattel to her husband, and this has changed. Further, as per most of the EVIDENCE ACTS of various countries in a LIBERAL MODE, there is a presumption that the child born during the subsistence of a marriage the husband is presumed to be the father of the child born during the marriage (except when the man is able to prove that he did not/could not have stayed with her in the last 10 months!). This is almost a CONCLUSIVE PROOF! Why this section is in the statutes? Because, even if the woman had played the whore, if the man was designated as her husband, for the sake of the welfare of the child, the husband should be made the FATHER! When such presumptions are available for women, in the name of ‘child’s future’, the wife cannot claim custodianship for her husband’s sperms.

At best a wife could be called the ENJOYER as a licensee to the benefit of the sperms of the husband as she has a right to have physical intimacy with her husband, but that does not alter her status to a TITLE HOLDER or a POSSESSOR of the ‘asset’.

Further, gone are the days when a human being or his/her body parts/secretions could be called as ANY OTHER PERSON’S ASSET. The INTEGRITY of a human body has been assigned to each individual and no one can later that under any sane law.

The reason forwarded by this woman is that if the man were to donate sperms, the biological children may turn up in a future date and disturb the FAMILY PEACE1 How specious! Don’t we know how our own N D TIWARI had fathered a son outside his wedlock and the son got a court decree stating that N.D Tiwari was his “father”? Family peace could be destroyed even by other means and there are no guarantees applicable on this count.

This whole issue of wanting the court to declare SPERM as a MARITAL ASSET is one of those slimy agendas of the women’s lib to shackle men and curb MAN’s LIBERTIES.

This blogger is well aware of WOMEN who go on the sly and DONATE EGGS and make extra bucks on the sides. Even though the procedure for egg donation might be elaborate, there have been reported instances where the woman has gone and donated her own eggs for consideration or for other reasons! Plz read this item below on egg donation- they make it look so regulated, but clinics have field day on this .

http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/1127/

From gender equality, women seem to have launched on one-up-womanship! At least let humans give the liberty to individuals to dispose of their body ‘produce’ as each wishes, without gender classification.

CONCLUSIVE PROOF!


Is it a rule of evidence as per the EVIDENCE ACT of India that when the Matriculation Mark sheet of a person shows a particular date as the date of birth , the court is bound to accept that date as the DATE OF BIRTH OF THAT INDIVIDUAL? Surely NOT. Section 4 of  The Evidence Act 1872 says thus

“Conclusive proof”—When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.
The Evidence Act of 1872 gives 2 instances wherein a FACT would be CONCLUSIVE enough to prove another FACT, they are in Sections 112 & 113 regarding the paternity of a child and the other regarding the status of a territory ceded before a particular date to a Princely state etc., by the British Government through a Notification. Except for these 2 instances the EVIDENCE ACT 1872 does not PRESCRIBE instances of CONCLUSIVE PROOF.
The recent controversy regarding the real age of the Chief of Army Staff has generated quite a lot of heat, where the CoAS has even gone to the extent of stating that it was NOT A QUESTION OF TENURE BUT A QUESTION OF HONOUR!
Let us get to the fundamentals. the only instance that a human being cannot remember is his OWN BIRTH, therefore the record in respect of that event has to be recorded or remembered by another person, failing which it is impossible to say anything with certainty. Therefore, when the CoAS  emphasizes that his date of birth is 1951 and not 1950, he is obviously relying on a RECORD.
There are certain issues where, however credible the record might be, had it been scrutinized and if found to have been ERRONEOUS, it is nothing but grace to accept it and move on in life. Take for example the following case where, if the matriculation certificate of a girl shows that she is 16 years of age, whereas her parents had increased her age for accommodating her in that Academic Year of her joining school and if she had not attained 16 years on the date when, unfortunately she was seduced by a man into having carnal relationship, would the ACCUSED’s plea that her DoB in her Matriculation Certificate was showing her age to be above 16 years, be a sufficient reason for the court to acquit the Rapist on the grounds that the date of birth mentioned in the Matriculation Cert showed as above 16 years? NAY, NAY, NAY. If the parents of the girl were to produce a Birth Certificate and able to prove, that the victim was less than 16 years, the courts would have no option but to convict the man of Rape. PERIOD.
In the case of CoAS, he has reached the highest post in the Army and for any reason, if the Government during its due diligence on him stumbled upon something and consequently has in its possession a document to prove that the CoAS was born in1950, the Matriculation Cert would be no CONCLUSIVE PROOF of his birth in 1951, which would prevent the Government from citing that as proof to the court. No doubt, in the normal circumstances. the MATRICULATION CERT would be a good proof, but that could be upturned by a better proof and that would be for the courts to decide.
Any opinion given by a retired Chief Justice of India would and should carry a lot of weight, especially, when four retired CJIs have given similar opinion, but those OPINIONS could never match THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS OF A SITTING JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, for the simple reason, that the Constitution of India sanctifies a sitting Justice’ judicial opinion and clothes it with precedential value.
If the Supreme Court of India were to find the proof adduced by the Government to be better, the General may have to accept his new date of birth for all practical purposes, there is no question of honour in this, after all even when his DoB was furnished to the school authorities, he could not have given the details out of his MEMORY or with AN INTENTION TO ENJOY A YEAR MORE IN SERVICE. The general should be graceful enough to let the Courts decide and accept the verdict as a mere detection of a FACT or SUSTAINING OF A FACT which was called into question, for which he was not responsible except for BELIEVING THAT THAT WAS HIS DoB.
It seems to me that he is taking advantage of the Government adopted principle, in his case, OF GIVING HIM THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT on the reasoning that the General might not be involved in the matter of getting his DoB entered; and NOT interested in DISCOVERING or ARRIVING AT A CERTAINTY OF HIS DoB, but TOO WILLING TO BELIEVE that 1951 WAS HIS YEAR OF BIRTH!!!
GOD BLESS INDIA.

Tag Cloud