Sanjiv Prasad, an Indian, loves his only son, and spends a lot of effort and money to raise him and marry him. Unexpectedly, the son and daughter-in-law are "unfilial" and have not had children after six years of marriage. Sanjiv took them to court and demanded production within one year or compensation of 50 million rupees (about 4.3 million yuan).
Rs 50 million is a lot of money in any country, but Prasad insists it is not excessive. According to reports in the English-language Times of India or paraphrased to other media (the Times of India did not break it down), Prasad was eloquent and persuasive about the case:
“I have only one son. All my savings have been spent on raising and educating him." The
co-plaintiff's mother, Sadhana, also echoed the various expenses that his father had repeatedly counted: "We paid everything for the child. We used The best way to raise him. We paid 3.5 million rupees to send him to the United States for a pilot training program, and another 2 million
rupees to let him live a luxurious life there." When the US economic crisis hit, he lost his job and returned to China for two years of unemployment. "During that time, he also depended on me to support him," the father said. The
61-year-old father continued: "After he got a job as a pilot in a private airline, we decided to let him marry and start a family because I was 57 years old. His wife often suffers from physical problems. In 2016, we finally arranged for him to marry." The
luxurious wedding was organized in a five-star hotel. The parents also gave the newlyweds an overseas honeymoon and an Audi sedan worth Rs 6 million. The mother said it was 6.5 million, which was bought with a loan.
Arranged for the marriage of the son, the father said "in order to bring a grandchild to play in our retirement years"; the mother said "in order to continue our surname. However, 6 years have passed, and they have not fulfilled our wishes. ". "It caused us a huge amount of psychological harassment," the father said.
Although India enacted legislation in 1956 to provide adults with the obligation to support their parents, and further legislation in 2007 criminalized acts of failing to fulfill their maintenance obligations, punishable by fines or up to three months in prison, Prasad's complaint Instead of resorting to the second law, accusing the infertility behavior of the son and daughter-in-law is not fulfilling their "obligation to provide them with the pleasure of a grandson or granddaughter", and thus is "psychological harassment" for them.
The father told the Times of India generously: "My daughter and daughter-in-law live in two different cities because of their work, which has brought us great pain. Staying with us exacerbated our ordeal. We even told her that if she was worried about child support because of her work, she could give the child to us to support." The
parents' lawyer said the two were so miserable at first sight Feeling ashamed to go to other old people to pick up and drop off grandchildren at the station. "From the parents' point of view, their demands are reasonable and legitimate. They expect nothing wrong."
It's just that most Indians, at least English-speaking Indians, don't seem to see it that way. The online comments after the "Times of India" report, except for a few weak arguments of "thinking about the elderly", were all one-sided condemnations. Some people called them "shameless" and others laughed at them "absurd".
Most people try to "reason" but can't hide their anger: "They brought their sons into this world on their own initiative and for their own purposes. Sons don't owe anyone anything because of their birth. Sons only take care of their parents. Moral responsibility."
No one in the legal world thinks parents can win. Some commentators called: "The court should sentence them to abusing their sons and daughters-in-law."
India was once known for its bullock carts pulling satellites. Perhaps, there is a generation gap between the bullock cart and the satellite?