HIV+ By Marriage - High Court Denies Rights

Ah the male hater Sakshi is back to her games again .
Sum and substance of her Great thinking a man facing medical problems should be jailed

How is this male hating?!! How dumb! A man too could be duped by a woman who is aware she is HIV positive as well. Just because this particular article documents a woman's case it is immediately "male hating"?? How regressive and paranoid.

"A man facing medical problems"?!! Ha. Did you forget to add "who is duping someone into marrying him without disclosing he has a sexually transmittable disease"? He just had to infect somebody else and an innocent child?

An HIV test for both parties should be made mandatory before a marriage is registered I think. In any society where stigma is associated with everything from single status, homosexuality, divorce to HIV/ AIDS a law needs to mandate that people are not getting married out of social obligation and irresponsibly altering an innocent party's life.

This is not man-hating. The legal routes don't allow much options for women or men for that matter duped in this manner.

bharati... you are not so smart, hunh? I suppose you'd be the very same one crying foul if a woman did such a thing.

the point is that this test should be mandatory so that NO ONE is duped. Being exposed to HIV without your consent should be legally "attempted murder" and charges should be filed.

This man has doomed his wife and now his child to an early death. If the wife had at least known she could have taken anti-retrovirals and saved the child. Now 3 are suffering from one man's anger.

depressing

Then please show me a case where in a man got his wife or any woman in jail for inflicting him with HIV case dear and also show me that Shakshi asked that such women should be jailed

Its male hating Dear becuae we we just want to punish a male for some medical problem show me a law where in a women has be punished to jail for not medical problems

there is no percentage in arguing with people like you because you are incapable of an intelligent conversation. your argument is flawed, your thinking is flawed and quite frankly you're just immature. you won't listen or have a conversation so I am not going to waste my time.

go back to your SIFF hideout.

the problem w/ ur question bharati is this: in this case listed above, which I'm guessing you didn't read, the man did not get any jail time either. so I could ask YOU to show me a case where a man was jailed for the same and you wouldn't be able to do it either. meaning that it does not matter if it was a man/ woman who was duped in this manner. all that matters is there is no law to prevent it irrespective of gender. the only known case available at hand is that of a man having misinformed a woman about his HIV status.

i hope that if someone ever transmits HIV to you or your loved one (male/ female) say through a blood transfusion, used syringe or sexual contact in a completely irresponsible fashion knowing fully well that they have it you will have the same optimistic nonchalance of referring to the disease as a "medical problem".

I am all for pre-marital mandatory medical testing of both partners.

There is no question there are many cases of women concealing their diseases and cheating a male into marriage. I remember one such case in which a delhi woman approached the court accusing her husband of contracting her HIV. The court ordered the HIV test and found the man was free of the virus :(

I can bet if there were to be more cases coming to the fore of women concealing their diseases, all the femfascists would be coming out of the woodwork condemning the practice of pre-marital mandatory medical testing on the grounds of privacy, best interests of the society or whatever else reason they could dream up.

If you want examples, look at the screaming feminists condeming the DNA paternity testing when a woman commits paternity fraud, suddenly concerned about the best interests of the child, social harmony blah blah.

Bloody hypocrites!!

digression:

it is not always right to hope for govt. initiative and intervention

a niche on which we took initiative and work for whenever we get a chance (and no it has not caught the popular imagination or backing of multinationals yet) is to convince the couple anticipating marriage to voluntarily go for a check up prior to wedding...in our neck of woods HIV-Aids is not the only fatal, communicable disease...

they owe it to each other

T: I agree. If both parties are educated and/or progressive then its best that they as a couple address this issue in an informed and responsible manner before making a lifetime commitment BUT in India where a lot of marriages are arranged, where the issues concerning nuptials etc are often discussed by parents/ relatives/ elders/ people belonging to a different generation or just a different mindset that is not conducive to open discussion regarding such stuff the government absolutely needs to do something to stall a growing epidemic. In the rural areas it is taboo to discuss matters concerning sexually transmitted diseases etc. In such a scenario if the government mandates blood tests/ health check-ups etc before a marriage can be registered it makes the process easier, fool-proof. The system could offer free health check-ups for the couple so that the arbitrary health officials say from a government hospital are a neutral party less likely to give a botched report to dupe someone.

I personally feel this is an area where man-woman boundaries and the usual completely pointless feminist-masculist war gets shot to hell. I mean really, this is so plainly about human lives and health that can get affected irreversibly due to ignorance or social pressure.

The problem with AIDS is not just that its "fatal". It is a manageable disease if one has the medical resources. What sucks is that its sexually transmitted which makes it imperative that people disclose their HIV positive status before in engaging sexual contact. In a situation where a person has a heart defect it may result in a casualty or fatality but it wouldn't result in getting another party or an unborn child infected.

My neighbor from a while ago had a maidservant, married off at 17 years old to a 29 yr old riksha driver by her aunt and uncle. At age 36 7 yrs after their marriage the riksha driver had full blown AIDS and thats when the girl and her relatives discovered that he and his family had known all along that he was HIV positive. She'd had two daughters with him by then and all three of them were HIV positive. people need to know that HIV positive does not mean AIDS. An HIV positive person need not look sickly. It takes a while for the symptoms to manifest themselves. But in lower economic sections of society all the people arranging the nuptials check is if the boy/ girl "look healthy".

There some people here who are and will make this about why there aren't enough laws to protect a woman from doing this. There should be a law to protect both genders. There isn't one to protect either. BUT more importantly they also need to think about this: In Kamathipura and red light areas teeming w/ HIV positive sex workers who makes the visits? Men or women? Who is likelier to transmit it to an innocent spouse having visited a prostitute? In their zeal to make this a men versus women fight they just never stop to think about lower economic sections and rural areas.

I think it is an incorrect headline. The HC did not say that the husband should not be tried. It says that 420 does not apply. That is correct

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine

They should have instead fought on the basis of section 418

Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was found, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.