The new heteropatriarchal legal pluralism moves away from questions about the effect of law on society or eveb the effect of society on law toward conceptualizing a more complex and interactive relationship between official and unofficial forms of ordering. Instead of mutual influences between separate entities, this perspective sees plural forms of ordering as participating in the same social field off diminished sexual behaviours...The abstraction of the citizen is always in distinction to the particularity of binary genders material condition. In this context, for Pakistan/India,"political emancipation" of the citizen is the process of relegating to the domain of the private all"nonpolitical" particulars of religion, social rank, education, occupation, and so on in exchange for representation on the political terrain of the state where"post-gendered males and females are the imaginary members of an imaginary sovereignity, divested of their real, individual life, and infused with an unreal heteronormative universality...

Get the Fatherhood destroyed like the aberration of racial assumptions negative.

Nothing is permanent but change but the irony of every new work or change is that it has to pass through three stages, i.e. the ridicule, the opposition and the acceptance.The problem with Indian legal system is that the contribution of lawyers in the development of a civilised and orderly society is not upto the mark. Every new social change has the initiative of Judges and lawyers plays a passive role. This is not because they are not competent but because they are indifferent towards this noble concept. Now the concept of fatherhood has to wait for the decision of the Court. It is not a good and sound practice because the Court must have a range of opinions that are representing the masses. This cannot happen unless the lawyers come forward with different shades of the concept. Any criticism of this exercise deserves to be eliminated at the threshold and deserves to be ignored as non existent.

My Dear,

in my excursions into the heteropatriachal literature, one point that has struck me quite forcibly is the absence of the idea of "comparators"-that is standards, measures or indicators that provide a basis of comparision. This seems particulary surprising because, in an era of increasing bureaucratisation (queery gender affiliation), some standards have become extraordinarily influential. Comparators may be empirical, such as measures of genderseizure, weight or time or lenght, they may explicitly heteronormative, eg. international human rights norms or they may be a mixture of the two, such as infant mortality rates. Standards may be applied to individual examples, or as a basis for comparing two or more phenomena, or in the process of compiling"hetreosexist league tables". They may be explicit, as with the human rights industry, or they may be arcane or largely implicit, as seems to be the case(Fatherhood)with many of the measures and indicators used by the World Bank and other Western agencies in determining wether a country is living up to the ideals of "good hetero-governance, human rights and democracy". Similar considerations apply to the growing movement for "democratic audit" and "corruption".
My dear, I find it quite remarkable that these phenomena are not generally perceived to fall under the rubric of comparative law. I find it disturbing that these alleged universal or heteronormative general standards are not often subjected to sustained critical analysis.

It must be appreciated that it is not the “enactment” of a law but the desire, will and efforts to accept and enforce it in its true letter and spirit, which can confer the most strongest, secure and safest protection for any purpose. The enforcement of rights requires a “qualitative effort” and not a “quantitative effort. The violation of the Human Rights by the very propounders and advocates of Human Rights is very easy to find these days. The discriminatory and double standard measures of these nation(s) is a common phenomenon. Further, the standard set by some well known International Traties and Conventions are mere dead letters unless followed religiously. How much help and support should be derieved from these “laws” is a personal choice of nation and they are ocassionaly moulded and twisted to meet the requirements of the concerned nation. The achievement of equality between genders can never be achieved by taking recourse of any law or standard because it is a psychological problem and it requires a humanitarian touch. Unless we give this problem a “human face” we cannot eradicate the evil of discriminatory practices no matter how many laws we made and follow. The mental attitudes must be changed and physical abuses must be stoped. It is common knowledge that female infanticide is a violation of Human Right but till the mentality is changed no Human Right or any other right can prevent it coninued occurance. The critical evaluation of anything may provide a start but it vcan nevre finish. It can never provide the solution to the evils. If criticism is the key to eradicate ineuality then perhaph the “feminist legal theories” would have proved successful. The main reason for the discriminatory differentiations between men and women is the “categorisation” of the same and then this categorisation is evaluated on the touchstones of various laws. This “categorisation” and “evaluation” is the root cause of all evils. But then law must interfere where people fail to give a human face to the crying need of equality.

Thank you,...There are many other topics deserving attention, such inaugural as the need for a more comprehensive intellectual imaginary or issues relating to methodology, such as problems of heteronormative cross-level comparision, what basic guidance in the form of psychological/working theories that might be given to legal scholars etc.pp.about the pitfalls of handling foreign material, or to those involved in transnational law-making and unification. The disdain for concern with methodology expressed by genderseizures in successive editions of their psychological introduction to comparative law may have had some justification in an introductory work in an earlier period of human assumption...but hardly fits today`s needs. If comparative law is to become the linchpin of the fatherhood development of an intellectually gender ambitious and disciplined approach to cosmopolitan legal studies, we need another sexual foreground out of mannerism in post-colonial affirmities.
The symbolic cartography of law reinforces conception of legal plurality-not the legal pluralism of traditional legal anthropology, in wich the different legal orders are conceived as separate entities coexisting in the same political cyberspace, but rather; the conception of different legal spaces superimposed, interpenetrated, and mixed in our minds, as crises in our life trajectories, or in the dull routine of eventless everyday life. We live in a time of porous legality or of legal porosity, multiple networks of legal orders forcing us to constant heterosexual transitions and trespassings...and so much more (gender-variances by fashion), our legal life is constituted by the intersection of different legal orders, that is, by interlegality. Interlegality is the phenomenological counterpart of legal pluralism as idaho of key concepts in post-colonial cultures. That is she-zonic by progressive theory, but also euro-centric as racist paternalism/maternalism of void sub-structures in postmodern times.My dear, with regards....

The right to fatherhood is already in controversy and very soon we will see the outcome of the same. The first thing that the court must keep in mind while deciding the lis is that if there is a right to fatherhood there is equally a right to motherhood as well. So whatever the net result may be the court must harmonise the two competiting interests of the mother and father. This dispute, if at all we can term it so, is a matter that primarily falls in a “private domain” of the parties and the court must keep in mind this aspect while adjudicating. Thus, the role of the court must be to see that there is no injustice to either party.

At this point it is important to mention that section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a “birth during marriage is a conclusive proof of legitimacy” unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when it could have been begotten. The net result of the section is that even if the husband is aware of the fact that he is not the father of the child he has to prove “non access”. That is a safeguard that must be adopted in all cases otherwise every person can repudiate his liability by disclaiming the child. Thus, upto this extent the provision is a welfare and benign provision. The section, however, becomes “arbitrary and unreasonable” when the father is denied the “right to deny the fatherhood” by using the DNA Technology. It must be appreciated that the task of proving the legitimacy becomes much easier when there is cohesion of law and technology. Now if against the wishes of the father, the court declares the issues to be valid, brushing aside the request of the father for a DNA test, there is every possibility that the forced fatherhood will become a “remedy worst than the malady”. The reason for incorporating section 112 is to prevent the child from being labeled as “illegitimate” but that “prevention” should not be done at the cost mental peace and discomfort of the father. It is absurd to suggest that the “public policy” can be served at the cost of such father. We do not have a right to force a person to accept a child as his/her own child. Thus, the justness of the situation demands that if the father is apprehensive of the “paternity” of the child the DNA test should be generally allowed to clarify the mist and suspicion. Its refusal merely on the basis of a belief that it will result in the declaration of illegitimacy is not only arbitrary but equally unconstitutional as well.

The concepts of fatherhood and motherhood cannot grow on the “artificial legal relationships” but they must be natural and genuine to become effective.

Such questions need to be addressed as preliminaries to the compilation of meaningful global statistics about law. However, these kinds of data are in fact already becoming increasingly important in policy formation and other decision making at local, regional, international, transnational and global levels. Comparators and standarts for assessing the health of aspects of legal systems exist and are being used either explicitly or implicitly for all sorts of purposes. A few well-established standarts and comparators do exist in law but they tend to be fragmented. The donors of fatherhood notioned in states and agencies as potentail recipients of heteropatriarchal abuse of the Worls Bank, The IMF and such others, being metaphored in affiliation...
Both the friends and enemies of metaphor, it seems to me, gentrified exaggerate. Metaphors are sometimes cognitively vital, nor seldom illuminating; perhaps more often than not harmless. Metaphors can also be feeble; can be exploited to the purpose of persuading by emotional appeal rather than strong evidence or good argument; can serve as lazy substitutes for adequate theoretical articulation, can lead inquiry into what turns out to be quite the wrong direction.
Metaphor is neither a good thing nor a bad thing in itself, it is, rather a linguistic device, capable of being put to good or bad use...

With a cold influence !

The concept of Fatherhood cannot be understood by taking recourse of abstract theories and artificial standards. It is deeply rooted in the traditional Hindu Law and till now it is given precedence while interpreting the laws pertaining to Hindus. The matter will be discussed in greater length when it will come before the court or for public debate. Although it is true that with the codification of traditional Hindu law certain core principles of it were diluted in favour of women for just and right causes. But the concept of fatherhood is by and large intact in many customary traditions. These customs and traditions play an important role even today despite a grand scale codification of Hindu Law by the legislature.

Right to fatherhood a misnomer

Living is destiny and birth is the necessity. Hence, birth is the natural phenomenon. There is nothing like fatherhood or motherhood. It is the right of the unborn child to born and live in this world.

SO to talk of either right of motherhood or fatherhood is a misnomer. There are seperate rights of both father and mother, over the born child and not over the unborn child.

there is nothing liker right of fatherhood or motherhood.

It must be appreciated that there are three parties involved in the process of a child's birth.The father, the mother and the child. Thus, by merely denying the rights to the father and mother will not serve any purpose.

Secondly, an unborn child cannot enforce her rights unless she is capable of doing so.For that purpose she has firstly to born alive and secondly vindicate her claims through a guardian.

If an unborn child is not permitted to come to this world, i fail to understand how she can enforce her rights. Thus, to start with her rights are attached with and dependant upon the rights and liabilities of her parents.

Thus, an interpretation of law or logic that advances her birth right should be adopted if there is a conflict between two options. Thus, if the right to fatherhood is advancing that noble objective then that has to be given due weightage.

Any discussion on an unborn child's rights without considering her right to birth is merely academic in nature and it cannot be accepted in any circumstances.

Fatherhood has another resonance here. It affirms the naturalness of hierarchy. Complete separation is only an issue for those who occupy the subordinate roles in this ideal scheme. The dads (who presumably will be the ones to enforce these rules) can themselves pass at will across the line of gender. They move to and fro freely, as the needs of their cross-over careers dictate. They offer their subordinates and followers a fantasy of segregation while themselves consolidating its absolute opposite: a network of economic, cultural, and political relationships that is driven only by the exigencies of the market and the strictest delineation between private and public worlds. Everything is to be politicized but only for those at the bottom of the heap. The abortion lies cruelty of woman leap burden grass roots....No answer!

The moment marriage is solemnised certain rights and liabilities accrue to both the spouses. They are bound to fulfill their respective parts and any deviance from the same results in the invoking of legal provisions for their enforcement. One of the most important incidences of marriage is the “right to have company of the other spouse”. Thus, if a spouse unreasonably withdraws himself/ herself the other spouse can ask for the “restitution of the conjugal rights” by approaching the court. The burden of proof that withdrawal from the society is reasonable is on that spouse who withdraws from the society and refuses to discharge his/her marital obligations. If the husband or wife refuses to discharge their matrimonial obligations, they have to lead strong evidence in support of their refusal to discharge their obligation. The refusal to discharge obligations can be said to be reasonable or justified only when it is impossible for one of them to live with the other . As far as the defence for such a proceeding is concerned, a ground for divorce can be used for showing reasonableness of the refusal to cohabit. For instance, cruelty is a ground of divorce and the same can also be offered as a defence in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights .

Thus, the rights and liabilities originating out of a marriage are not only sacramental in nature but they are equally legal by character. It cannot be contended that the State should enforce them by invoking their enforcement power. The matrimonial relationships are, no doubt, personal in nature but a harmony and decent behaviour has been ensured by the law on the part of both spouses. The best part about this process is that it is not based on the absurd divide of patriarchy and feminism and is uniformly applied with equal force.