Keep, concubine?

Senior lawyer says SC's usage anti-women

N K Gurjar (Surat)

23 Oct, 2010 01:55 PM

So called modern woman want to enjoy in every way and want to be protected by
man in every way. How is it possible. Bachara Admi !

Agree (0)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

Saleem M Azad (India)

23 Oct, 2010 05:22 AM

SC has used the most appropriate word. Ma'am ASG please learn to face the cruelty
of truth.

Agree (2)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

Indian (me)

23 Oct, 2010 04:10 AM

It is absurb to glamorize and legalize live in relatin. It is a curse for the human
society specially Indians. It is high time to condemn such culture and we can use
highest of absurb language so that its culture can be discouraged. Indian

Agree (4)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

Ganapathi Hegde (Dharwad)

23 Oct, 2010 12:25 AM

In Karnataka; especially in North Karnataka Area, for a woman her leglly wedded
Male Partner i.e. husband is called as 'GANDA'. Whereas, her unwedded Male
Partner is called as 'MINDA'. 'MINDA' is the 'Keep' or the "Kept Master" for her. All
depend upon the dominant position of a person.

Agree (4)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

seyed ibrahim (Chennai)

22 Oct, 2010 11:50 PM

Leave aside the moral values. What exactly is wrong with the word "Keep". It is
neutral and non-offensive. A woman has every right to sell her soul, values (if any)
and body for some money. But, please don't throw any tantrum if the Judges use a
term that point to that activity. May be the ASG didn't like the Judgement. So, she is
diverting the attention to linguistics matter.
Agree (6)Disagree (3)Recommend (3)Offensive

Radha Krishnan (Mumbai)

22 Oct, 2010 10:49 PM

Finally, I see somebody paying attention to the language used by the high and
mighty. It is not at all difficult to use 'partner outside marriage' or just 'partner' or
even 'extra-marital partner' or something like that. I say even 'concubine' is an
outdated term. How about this "If a man has a relationship outside marriage that he
maintains financially mainly for sexual purposes..."? Even better would be to
acknowledge that a woman with sufficient money might also find herself in the
same place and will have the same 'protection' from a claim for maintenance. This
is very important seeing that such a judgement from the SC would be in record for
posterity and quoted ad-infinitum.

Agree (3)Disagree (10)Recommend (2)Offensive

GANAPATHI HEGDE (High Court Advocate, Dharwad.)

22 Oct, 2010 10:27 PM

The phrase 'Kept Woman' is found even in the 21st Century Oxford Dictionary. A
woman who is given money and a home by a man who visits her regularly to have
sex is the dictioinary meaning of that term. There is no meaning in making hue %26
cry objecting the use of the word 'Keep' in a Judgment. The Supreme Court has used
the most pertinent, relevant and contemporary word.

Agree (15)Disagree (4)Recommend (8)Offensive

gope lalwani (USA)

22 Oct, 2010 09:47 PM

"keep" is not live-in-relationship. "keep" is tenant and landlord relationship. landlord

can have multiple tenants (keeps) accordingto his capacity of fulfilling his
obligations and recieving the satisfying compansation.

Agree (5)Disagree (4)Recommend (1)Offensive

JSM (Chandigarh)

22 Oct, 2010 09:07 PM

the court has to use some term after all. 'keep' is not at all obscene nor is it out of
place in the context of larger Indian social set up. India is not just about metros
where free consent equal sexes might be a modern truth but there is a large society
still suffering from age-old phenomena. 'keeping' is a social reality and the Court
has just used a more sober term for a harsher malaise.
Agree (15)Disagree (7)Recommend (10)Offensive

Mina Anand (Chennai)

22 Oct, 2010 09:05 PM

Completely agree with Ms.Jaisingh. Where is the gender equality guaranteed under
our Constitution, when a woman live-in is called a 'keep' and the male is called
'partner'? Let's keep to the Constitutional guarantees.

Agree (8)Disagree (17)Recommend (2)Offensive

Sushma Gupta (Covington USA)

22 Oct, 2010 08:37 PM

It is high time both men and women are treated on equal basis. Any two people
living together ( unmarried) or married should be same in the eyes of the law. Men
are not called 'kept'. It is unfair and demeaning to woman to be called kept. Married
or not she is not any one's property.

Agree (10)Disagree (13)Recommend (2)Offensive

veeru (delhi) replies to Sushma Gupta

23 Oct, 2010 08:15 PM

If woman want to be treated on equal basis, then why the demand for maintenance.
Since she is demanding maintenance,she should be treated as 'kept'.

Agree (0)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

sk (usa) replies to Sushma Gupta

23 Oct, 2010 02:11 AM

u r quite right, but i hve a question, why does the women ask for maintenance.
women r having dual advantage in society always using men for there purposes

Agree (2)Disagree (1)Recommend (0)Offensive

Ram Jethmalani (New Delhi)

22 Oct, 2010 07:41 PM

With all due regard to the submission made by Ms. Jaisingh, she must understand
that courts cant dissociate themselves with the reality of the outer world. The world
uses more scathing words then "keep"

Agree (30)Disagree (14)Recommend (9)Offensive

Vijay Jagadeesh S (Cochin) replies to Ram Jethmalani

22 Oct, 2010 10:34 PM

its true

Agree (1)Disagree (0)Recommend (1)Offensive

SP (Bhubaneswar)

22 Oct, 2010 07:32 PM

Kudos to Indira Jaisingh! It is high time institutions like the Supreme Court
(especially) revise their vocabulary.

Agree (13)Disagree (22)Recommend (2)Offensive

Sagar (By Supreme Court) replies to SP

22 Oct, 2010 09:16 PM

Indira Jai Singh has to understand that using right words in the Judgment leads to
good judicial system and stops the ABUSE of laws in India. I guess Indira jai singh is
unhappy that she cannot use the worded judgment to abuse the law. The word by
supreme court sounds course but it infact it isn't. This is the most correclty
sounding word without any denigradation.

Agree (8)Disagree (2)Recommend (1)Offensive

SP replies to Sagar

22 Oct, 2010 11:43 PM

The usage of correct (and not redundant and insinuative of abuse)vocabulary

cannot come in the way of providing justice. After all legalese is about the right
usage of vocabulary!

Agree (0)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

Shibu (Taiwan)

22 Oct, 2010 07:30 PM

So the argument seems like it is fine if a man have a live in patner provided he
pays. So a man can have any number of partners if he could pay for their living. And
so is it that women can have as many partners to the level of income she expects.
Hope atleast the later will have more objections.

Agree (6)Disagree (1)Recommend (2)Offensive

Pratha (Brussels) replies to Shibu

22 Oct, 2010 08:09 PM

Exactly!

Agree (2)Disagree (1)Recommend (1)Offensive

ta_manna786 (mum)

22 Oct, 2010 07:06 PM

there is nothing called live-in. either you marry or remain bachelor/maiden or

widowed/widower. how long stay together entitles maintenance allowence? this is
21 century. every human problem that was in centuries before is still there.
centuries have nothing to do with human natures and their problems. Human
nature is unchangeable hence problem will keep surfacing.

Agree (11)Disagree (7)Recommend (0)Offensive

Natarajan R. (Chennai)

22 Oct, 2010 06:18 PM

I think Ms. Jaisingh is right in her expression of request. Will the Supreme Court be a
'gentleman' in expressing regret for usage of words that affect sentiments? Same
goes with the usage of word, 'female.' This word is used in many expressions when
referring to a woman. We seldom use 'male,' for men. It would only be appropriate
to refer to a person of the opposite gender in meaningful terms, since, after all, we
are all born in Mother India. I guess the Legal fraternity requires a course in
grammar and english sooner than before !

Agree (17)Disagree (15)Recommend (2)Offensive

cmrao (India) replies to Natarajan R.

22 Oct, 2010 07:44 PM

A keep is a keep or a concubine is a concubine by whatever name you call. If some

women choose this category in life, what is wrong calling a spade a spade? I dont
think Supreme Court should relent.

Agree (19)Disagree (6)Recommend (6)Offensive

tlverma (faridabad)

22 Oct, 2010 06:15 PM

So a lady has ultimately jumped into the conflict which was all a man's subject for
discussion ever since the judgement was pronounced. Now let us see how many
more women in India join her. Ab Ayega Maza.

Agree (13)Disagree (7)Recommend (6)Offensive

SP (Bhubaneswar) replies to tlverma

22 Oct, 2010 07:20 PM

And, what exactly do you mean by that, tlverma of Faridabad? A man's subject and
subjects for discussion has always been the callous objectification of women, and
the usage of words to denote them as such. And, pray what conflict do you refer to,
which has been the "man's domain"? And, why is it so important as to 'how many
more' will join her? Are you saying that it is perfectly okay to use words like 'kept'?
Isme 'mazaa' kya hai? Is that all men want - mazaa at the expense of women? Grow
up.

Agree (4)Disagree (3)Recommend (0)Offensive

Prem S. Gupta (Amritsar)

22 Oct, 2010 06:08 PM

India already lacks ethics, morals, decency at the highest levels of governance and
is full of corruption. Supreme court is the only institution left out which gives some
semblence of hope of recovery from these lows, though Shashi Bhushan has painted
even this institute with black. It is therefore expected that the supreme court judges
will use every word in their judgements with care and thoughtfulness which should
not betray cheapness and thoughtless insults at any category of indian population,
least the women folk. I sincerely and genuinely appreciate and endorse the views of
Indira Jaising regarding the use of the word "keep"

Agree (10)Disagree (18)Recommend (4)Offensive

ASR Murthy (hyderabad)

22 Oct, 2010 05:37 PM

One who is KEPT is a KEEP. Someone is a MALE KEEP if he is male, or a FEMALE

KEEP if he is male.

Agree (24)Disagree (6)Recommend (11)Offensive

Uday Singh (Indore) replies to ASR Murthy

22 Oct, 2010 06:46 PM

"FEMALE KEEP if he is male."... ? gimme a breakk

Agree (2)Disagree (2)Recommend (2)Offensive

VMN (India)

22 Oct, 2010 05:36 PM

Our courts need not entertain issues arising out of the dynamically changing
formulations of relationships in the society today. They should step in however
when an aggrieved party commits a crime like physical assault, murder etc. Let
people define and use the relationship they like and pursue. We are anyway
witnessing realtionships unimaginable in our society until just a few years back. The
Youngistan has killed all the family values of Hindustan. Why waste time on use of a
word when the relationship itself has crossed the boundaries of decency??!! Let us
join the carnival celebrating the continuing descent into the gloom.

Agree (20)Disagree (8)Recommend (13)Offensive

SP (Bhubaneswar) replies to VMN

22 Oct, 2010 07:26 PM

Excuse me? Are you actually blaming the younger generation? Go ahead and blame
the West, or better still, 'the foreign hand'!Derogatory words against women have
been used for centuries - is that a 'value' you would like to see upheld? We can sit
and do armchair activism as much as we like; but please do not undermine the
efforts of someone who is trying to undo some of the dregs of the disvalues (if I may
so make up such a word)that the previous generations have left behind.

Agree (2)Disagree (6)Recommend (0)Offensive

Partha (Brussels)

22 Oct, 2010 05:26 PM

People in India and even some Indians living abroad are still sticking to old and junk
theories that living together is sinful. Just wake up. Stop living in bronze age. Sin a
notion promoted by religion. There is no such thing as sin. There are either illegal or
legal actions.

Agree (9)Disagree (24)Recommend (7)Offensive

ta_manna786 (mum) replies to Partha

22 Oct, 2010 07:14 PM

According to you now the problem of marriage is solved here. Anyone wants to live
with anyone is legal and anyone having so many children in various live-in becomes
legal too. Human nature feels guilty for the SIN. If marriage is legal than live-in must
be illegal. You cannot equate both. Human nature is unchangeable hence the
problem will remain same in all ages.

Agree (3)Disagree (1)Recommend (2)Offensive

SP (Bhubaneswar) replies to ta_manna786

22 Oct, 2010 07:40 PM

What is illegal about two consenting adults (with neither being married) in living
together? Human nature comes from what one has been taught and socialized to do
over several centuries; it is not natural. The urge to have sex is one of nature;
marriage is a social ritual.

Agree (3)Disagree (2)Recommend (1)Offensive

Shibu (Taiwan) replies to Partha

22 Oct, 2010 05:41 PM

My intention is not to hurt you with my reply. Living together may not be a sin but
one cannot accept if he is a child born out of a live in relationship. More worrying
will be if the mother got a lot of such relationships.

Agree (17)Disagree (3)Recommend (9)Offensive

SP (Bhubnaneswar) replies to Shibu

22 Oct, 2010 07:43 PM

And, Shibu... what about the men? Would it worry or not worry you if the father got
into a lot of 'such' relationships?

Agree (0)Disagree (8)Recommend (0)Offensive

Partha replies to Shibu

22 Oct, 2010 07:12 PM

And what if a child takes birth after the woman is married but had sex with
someone who is not her husband? Will not that be a problem for the child? Say for
example you are an Indian and you wife is an Indian and your son looks like a
Somali? What if your wife has relationships with 3 such African hunks and 5 Chinese
nerds and 2 Italian studs while being legally your wife? Can you do anything? No,
you cant do anything unless you have the power to stop it. And you can stop your
girlfriend from doing any such thing also if you have power to do so. Your girl wont
sniff around if you are "man" enough no matter if she married to you or not.
Marriage provides solace to incompetent, irrational and stupid people. It gives them
fake security. Love can flourish outside marriage just as well. Emotional and
physical security cannot be guaranteed by a stamped piece of papers. You can have
illegitimate children born even if you are married. Be logical and be rational.And
above all be man enough to keep your woman faithful to you. Court can make you a
man and it cant keep your woman faithful to you. I live in Europe and I have seen
that live in relationship works perfectly and in fact works better and it poses no
problems to children because the biological father and mother take care of them
even if they are not married.

Agree (3)Disagree (5)Recommend (0)Offensive

Shibu replies to Partha

22 Oct, 2010 08:02 PM

I accept your eloboration but by you example my personel view is suppose if your
wife is not faithful to you and every one in your society including your family
justifies her to have any number of hunks or nerds or studs. And you are considered
just silly for being faithful. Yes i completely agree that courts cannot change her
mind but religion can by naming them sin. Yes Love can flourish outside marriage
and thats why there is divorse option. You may be clear with your ideas that doesnt
mean that a different view is stupid or rational.

Agree (5)Disagree (0)Recommend (3)Offensive

Partha replies to Shibu

22 Oct, 2010 10:16 PM

Religion is for mentally sick people. It is not for mentally healthy people. Secondly,
Do you need religion or court to keep a woman faithful to you? If so then I must say
that the man has sexual or emotional problem. No woman will drift from her man no
matter if she is married or not married if the man is can satisfy her emotionally and
sexually. Men who prefer marriage over live together are not sure if they can keep
their women to them under all conditions and thats why they need the handcuffs of
religion or legal system to keep the woman bound to them. My definition of such
men is "SICK"

Agree (1)Disagree (3)Recommend (1)Offensive

ldbhatia59c (Delhi)

22 Oct, 2010 04:58 PM

As an elderly person it is with great diffidence i am

Agree (1)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive

karavadiraghavarao (Vijayawada)
22 Oct, 2010 04:35 PM

keep or concubine mean almost the same..this is all social sphere. as per hindu
tradition and manu smruti a man can have any number of wives depending on his
financial status.though one man one wife is said to be an ideal one.after bigomy is
declared a s a crime by amending the hindu law the problems have come.this is
concerned with private life.even when bigamy was not a crime only few resorted to
marry a second woman when the first wife is alive.. Now Bigamy is a crime . At
there are evn some VIPS who are having more than one wife. Laws pertaining to
private lives will not be effective. Only gradual change in the outlook of the society
will change the situation.

Agree (18)Disagree (3)Recommend (9)Offensive

Indira (Mumbai)

22 Oct, 2010 04:26 PM

It isn't against women, it's against stupidity - of staying together without getting
married and the misuse of such r'ships. Women can always choose to marry to avail
the benefits.

Agree (29)Disagree (4)Recommend (16)Offensive

Rahul (Mumbai) replies to Indira

22 Oct, 2010 04:45 PM

Why people should worry when woman in live-in relations do not worry.

Agree (25)Disagree (3)Recommend (12)Offensive

Shibu (Taiwan) replies to Rahul

22 Oct, 2010 05:35 PM

If they do not worry in live in they should not expect a living from their partners
grace. Instead they can marry a person and seek for a legitamate earning. This is
just like.. oh i will live with you but pay me money. An another way of making
prostitution decent.