Acceptance Of Invitation Parental Consent Form: Fill & Download for Free

I refer to a case in 2006 tried in Andhra Pradesh. The FIR was regd in 2006 Sep-Oct, after a few months of a stormy marriage.I was posted to AP and was consulting (without fee of course) on a friendly basis with a friend of mine - and he had a horrifying dowry case.The Groom was a telugu kamma and the bride was also a telugu kamma but from a different sub caste. The Groom worked in the USA and was around 26 years old and the bride was around 22 at the time of marriage. The Brides father was asked to pay Rs. 20 Lacs in cash, a good amount of land, a SUV car for the groom and around 200 grams of jewelery. The Brides father was OK with this - i mean entirely OK - not forced to pay etc - he was happy to do so.Marriage was announced,printed on cards, Father of the bride bragged a lot and all was good. He bought a brand new Innova for groom and was happy to pay the other dowry items.Around 2 weeks before the marriage - the Bridegrooms family had yet another demand - they demanded a kidney of the brides sister who was 0- for the bridegrooms father who was on dialysis. They made it conditional for the marriage. And would you believe it - the spineless father was more worried about the invitation cards and his reputation that he literally forced his younger daughter aged 19 to undergo surgery and give her kidney. The local cops in the village led by a bumbling inspector - refused to accept a complaint by the young girls friends and advised the young girl to give 1 kidney after all.The bridegroom and his family threatened to call of the wedding and spread lies about the bride causing even the bride to start threatening her sister to give up the kidney.At last the younger girl signed a bogus consent form and decided to give her kidney and the marriage took place. After which - the bridgegroom harrassed his wife daily demanding that his wife persuade her sister to give her kidney.Finally the younger girl agreed and was taken to a hospital in Secunderabad where luckily for her a woman doctor who was asked to do some tests noticed the girl weeping and soon got the whole story. She called the cops who arrived by the dozen. These were not village bumpkin cops but Secunderabad Cops who immediately arrested the Bridgegroom, his parents and his sister and threw them into jail.I prepared most of the initial submissions in English and had it transalated to telugu. You would not believe how angry the judge was. She called the bridegroom and his family ‘Animals’ and ordered them to return every dowry gift within 10 days and even refused them bail. Finally the judge convicted the man for 2 years and his family members for 6 months and the HC surprisingly upheld the verdict though the HC reduced the sentence to time already served.One critical issue during trial was that the woman doctor did not turn up even after many summons. I believe that local cops were also paid off, so watered down their testimony. Otherwise they may have got a much longer time.The guy finally served around 9 1/2 months and his family around 4 months. His father is still alive. The marriage is dissolved and the younger girl was saved. However this was a terrible dowry price in my books.I have handled many dowry cases where the bride is almost always at fault and takes advantage of the law but this is one case where a woman was harrassed beyond reason and the fault lay solely with the man.EDIT:-Many questions have been asked - so a few more clarifiactions on this issueBoy was 26 yrs old and was a Kamma. I am unsure about telugu castes or subcaste but the boy was from a better background and was working in the states. The girl was also from a Upper middle class farming family. Girl had secured around 45% in her Bachelors in Commerce so the match was an excellent one.It seems that even before the matchmaking was done - the middleman in question - a dubious person - made inquiries and found that both daughters were O negative in blood group and the father was anxious to marry an NRI groom to his daughter. Subsequently this middleman approached the father with horoscopes of his NRI bridegroom plus photos of his US house, US Car etc etc. In short - the Bridgegroom approached the Brides family and the marriage was discussed.The family even promised to guarantee a US life for the sister.Initially they say they wanted the Brides kidney but were reluctant due to prospects like childbirth etc. These rogues in the pretext of testing for HIV (claiming it is mandatory in USA for visa) for the bride and her sister - took them to some clinic in Hyderabad / Secunderabad and soon found that the brides sisters blood was O negative.Subsequently they treated the girls like their own daughters , lots of love, lots of photos on Orkut (It was a facebook equivalent in 2006) and then they delivered the sword.EDIT:-Grooms parents actually had the audacity to say “Can a daughter not give her kidney to her father?”They also changed the tact by claiming that it was voluntary.The bride was like their daughter and they claimed they would even find a good husband for the sister.The groom lived in US and judge demanded his passport claiming he did not deserve to go to states as he did not have the mental growth.Judges name was Mrs. Ramabhadraraju something. Tough woman.EDIT NO 3:-After many questions - i think it is best to add how the case was prestented.The Case was bought under Sections 498A (Dowry Act), DV Act (Domestic Violence) and for some reason Section 420 (Cheating) against A1. Husband A2. Husbands Father A3. Husbands Mother A4. Husbands Sister A5. Sisters Husband and A6. Marriage Broker (Under Section 420 Only).All were arrested except the Broker/Middleman. Bail was applied and denied for all by Sessions Court who wanted investigation to be closed. A Womans NGO representative wanted Section 307 (Attempt to murder) to be added. Middleman absconded and disappeared.During Bail Hearing the Accused changed the story and claimed that the Brides side were Greedy for NRI groom and had actually cost them a few lacs in Hotel Costs during their ‘Trip’ to Hyderabad. However Judge did not agree.Finally after roughly 70 days- the accuseds parents, sister and sisters husband were released. Then another 12–15 days later Accused was released but his passport was impounded. Both Sessions court and HC refused to release the passport during trial claiming he would disappear.The Brides family also filed for Divorce in a civil proceeding where they listed Rs. 20 Lacs as Cash plus an Innova plus Gold plus some Land for Groom. Of this they produced proof of Innova and Gold and the Land but not the money which they claimed was paid in Cash. They did not list any demand of kidney in the divorce case. My friend handled the divorce case and i also consulted (for no payment) on the same divorce case.The Charge sheet was filed sometime in 2008–2009 - during the Arushi Talwar Media Frenzy. The Middleman turned up asking for Anticipatory Bail and was granted the same (Since all accused had anyway been released).During the case the Prosecution depended on 15 witnesses but of these only 4 witnesses appeared - P.W 1 - the Bride P. W2 - Brides Sister P.W 3 Brides Father and P.W 4 Police Inspector /Arresting Officer. The Lady Doctor was C. W 2 and her statement was crucial as she has told the police that the grooms father and mother were forcefully coercing her and shouting at her to stop crying of which she was an eyewitness to. She was also eyewitness to a threat made by the grooms mother that they would ruin her sisters life and ensure her famiiy committed suicide. However despite several summons - the Doctor did not turn up at all. Likewise two other crucial witnesses - Friends of the Girl (Brides sister) also did not turn up despite issuing many summons. Police Inspector watered down his statement - by saying he did not remember what the lady doctor had told him because he handled more than 400 cases from that time (Judge scoffed at this in open court) and he did not recall much. In fact he was useless as a witness.The Defence cross examined the Father and portrayed him as Greedy and suggested that the father had only suggested the idea of the kidney and portrayed the girls as greedy and wanting to go to USA.The Accused stated that the offer of the Kidney came from the girls side as the younger girl wanted to go to USA and that the Innova was a gift to which the family had repeatedly wanted to pay for . that they did not believe in dowry and the 20 lacs was absolutely fake. The Groom demanded proof of such withdrawal from the Prosecution. The Accused agreed to the gold and returned the gold.The Judge subsequently ruled in favor of the prosecution and convicted the accused to 2 yrs and the co - accused to 6 months each. The Judge could not use the Kidney part because of conflicting statement - instead she convicted for (a) Dowry of Innova which she did not believe was a gift (b) The 20 lacs - she did not believe the groom (c) The Gold which groom admitted totaking and (d) Harrassment of the Bride believing brides word over grooms word.Groom was incarcarated and so were his parents and sister and sisters husband. The Groom appealed to HC.HC finally ruled that (a) 20 Lac could not be proven (b) No Prior Records for Groom (c) Career of Groom ruined completely due to criminal case and agreed for leniency and released all for time served. However Judge did not reverse the conviction. He delivered a stern lecture on dowry.Divorce was granted in 2010 September - October. Groom was asked to pay alimony of Rs. 5 Lac plus monthly support of Rs. 10K for 2 years. Groom has not paid a single naya paisa but Brides family dont care.Brides father kept saying his daughters kept him in the dark about the kidney even to this day perhaps.Last but not the least i presume the middleman after getting AB absconded again and is still missing maybe.

Hoo boy, now this is a complicated, nuanced, and extremely important question to ask. Let me take a crack at it.Disclaimer: I have a feeling that this might end up to be a long answer. You’ve been warned.The Talk.We’ve all had some variation of “The Talk”, whether it was given by mom, dad, a best friend, or television. We were told, in varying degrees, of STD’s, pregnancy, risks and warnings of sex. We were told that it was something done between two people that cared for each other. Some of us were told it was something to be ashamed of, and some of us were told it wasn’t. The content of “The Talk” was usually determined by the type of household you grew up in; religious practices, political practices, moral practices, dogma, are a few of the things that would influence that content.One thing that boys are NOT told, during this talk, is about consent. One thing that isn’t talked about in school, during sex education, is consent. At least I wasn’t - any other guys want to back me up here?I can imagine that more women are told about rape, sexual abuse, and consent, than men are by caring parents. They’re told it as a thing to watch out for, and a thing to carry pepper spray for. Men are told not to get anyone pregnant and to wear a condom.Is that an excuse? Hell no, but it sure doesn’t help. Men grow up, and as they age, they know that sexual abuse is a thing, but not an epidemic. They understand, in a very concrete and definitive way, what consent means. It means “Yes” or “No”. They know it as a violent struggle between a man and woman, in which the woman has shown vocally, and very physically, that she does not want to have sex.Women, I believe, know these things in a very visceral way. They hear stories from moms, friends, magazines, and television. They hear how someone was too afraid to say “no”, or how she was backed into a corner and felt like she couldn’t say “no”. They hear these things, imagine it happening to them, and become scared themselves. Consent, for them, as a result becomes something less than concrete. It becomes laced with fear, doubt, and uncertainty, and sometimes, fatalistic resignation.These things women know, while men are in the process of learning; and sometimes, that process is slow. Depending on the circles we move in, and the family we’re raised in, and the shows we watch, we are eventually shown the difference between verbal and nonverbal consent. We are, eventually, shown that not saying “no” doesn’t automatically mean “yes”. We are given a glimpse into the other side, and depending on what we grew up surrounded with, we either accept it, accept it with reservations, or reject it outright.AttitudeI think most of us can agree that, socially and culturally, men and women have viewed sex differently. When you talk about a “notch on the belt”, the comment is usually directed at men. We all know that a man who sleeps around is a stud, and a woman who sleeps around is a slut. We know that for men, it’s a conquest, and for women, it’s a sacred thing that must be kept intact. This shouldn’t be news to anyone.I’m not going to go into the bullshit of foisting that antiquated crap onto the heads of women, rather I’m going to talk about the attitudes it fosters between the two.I believe that, given the expectation that men should seek sex often, and with ardor, we also grow to view it with, almost, indifference. Our attitudes towards sex can be described as cavalier. We sometimes see it as we would playing a game of touch football. An enjoyable activity divorced from emotions, done only because it is, in fact, enjoyable.For example, I’ve spoken to many women who have confessed that the act of sex will often carry a huge emotional burden. It’s so bad that they won’t have sex until they know (as much as they can) that the other person involved will stick around, for fear of “heartbreak”. This is something I’ve never completely understood, as a man.Yes, sex can be an emotionally charged experience for me, but it’s not the act of sex that does that; it’s who the other person is. If I have no strong emotional feelings for the other person, sex won’t (usually) change that. Men, I believe, have the ability to have more casual and recreational sex without those attachments forming - or at least, we’re TOLD we can, and damned if most men will admit otherwise.There are a couple reasons for that. One, of course, is societal expectations. That’s how men are supposed to be. That’s how I am supposed to be, and frankly, it’s how I am. While single, the idea of having a lot of sex isn’t one fraught with danger, aside from the usual danger of disease. I don’t worry about falling for someone, I don’t worry about my emotional health. Sex has never been the determining factor when it comes to deciding whether I enter into a relationship with someone. Sex does not become an emotional act UNTIL I’m in a relationship with someone, not before.This, I feel, is due to how men have been conditioned to view sex. We can become detached from it, and therefore, have a harder time seeing it for the violation that women may.Another point I’d like to bring up is biological. This may seem silly, but when I think of a physical violation of body, I automatically assume that going into something will always be less traumatic than having something going into you. Women feel a trespasser physically inside their bodies, not to mention the subsequent bodily fluids as a result. Am I the only one that automatically sees that as more of a violation than what men experience? My half-baked belief is that this may also contribute to men’s attitude about sex, which admittedly shows a lack of collective empathy.TimeHere is a shameful story about myself that serves to illustrate the importance of consent, and also the acceptance of it’s implications, or the rejection.Years ago, I flew to another state to meet a woman for the first time (I know, I know). Everything that we did, everything that happened, I paid for. Does this mean I felt entitled? I don’t know. I don’t think so, but that could simply be me grasping. But when I look back at how blind I was, I must admit that resentment may have played a role. A misplaced and toxic resentment that I was too immature to recognize.The few days we spent together were great, but the time for me to leave was drawing near. It was the last night before my flight home, and we were laying in bed without clothes on. She was on her back, I on top. There was no indication that it wasn’t something she wanted as much as I - at least until she audibly said, “no, not yet”. I got up, and we lay there, talking. No problem.Eventually, things became heated again. Again, I found myself on top, with her on her back. Again, there was no indication that it wasn’t something she wanted as much as I. And what happened next? She *ahem* grabbed a hold of me.Now, this can be seen in two different ways. This can be seen as an attempt to redirect and block, or as an invitation. I believe that, for most men’s experience, when that happens it is an invitation. I took it as an invitation. I was wrong.With a frustrated cry, and a look of outright surprise and fear, she pushed me back and jumped out of bed. She was furious, and she was scared, and I was confused. She left.This was a turning point in my understanding of consent. She gave the signs, but in my cavalier attitude and my indifference, I ignored them or dismissed them. I allowed my personal desires to cloud my judgment. I allowed myself to discount her initial rejection as a passing thing, when I should have seen it as a line in the sand. It was a no. It was always a no.I was lucky. I was lucky because penetration wasn’t achieved. I was lucky because, thanks to how long we had been talking prior to this, she decided that I wasn’t a horrible person - just a dumbass. She returned, we talked, I apologized, and left that state a new person. We’re still friends, but I still see that look of abject fear on her face before she walked out that door. The look that said,“I trusted you, but I was wrong to”.I was lucky because she gave me a chance to prove that I wasn’t that guy - or at least, that I didn’t want to be that guy. I was lucky because I allowed myself to accept this experience as a lesson, instead of reject it. I was lucky because my upbringing, thanks to my family and my circle of friends, prepared the way for me to be shown the truth of body autonomy, even if it wasn’t something I totally understood at the time.Many men aren’t as lucky. Many men are told all the things we’re told, through media, through friends, through society, without the wisdom of a mother, father, or trusted mentor, to tell us differently. Then, when it happens, and accusations form and mistakes are made, instead of these men falling back onto the wisdom of their upbringing, they lash out.They say, “She didn’t say no!”, they say, “She wanted it!”, they say, “What’s the big deal!”.Men and women view consent differently, yes. We view it differently because we haven’t been told otherwise. We haven’t been told by our schools, by our parents, or by our friends, that consent is more than just a yes, or a no. We haven’t been told, as young boys, that rape is more than just the violent struggles we see on television.Consent needs to be talked about - not only between adults, but to children. Consent needs to be taught in our schools, and during “the talk”. Men need to be taught that sex without full and eager consent is still rape. Men need to learn to not be so cavalier about sex, while women should become, arguably, MORE cavalier about sex.It must be evened out, and it must be talked about.Edit: It occurs to me that I was very presumptive here when talking about what women think, feel, been taught, or have lived through. Those are my assumptions, and I welcome and hope someone would please educate me if I am incorrect.

Athira Manesh has given the classical Eight Forms of marriage according to Manu and several other Dharma Shastra. Vasiṣṭha and Apastamba who is followed in South India lists only 6:–Brahma-marriage, father gives away his daughter for procreation and performing the duties that must be performed together by a householder, after having investigated the bridegroom’s family, character, learning, and health, and after having given to the bride ornaments according to his ability. (Manu 3:27; Yajñ. 1:58)Arṣa-marriage, the bridegroom shall present to the father of the bride a bull and a cow to defray expenses. (Manu 3:29; Yajñ. 1:59).Daiva-marriage, the father gives her to an officiating priest, who is performing a śrauta-sacrifice. (Manu 3:28; Yajñ. 1:59)Gāndharva-marriage, a young couple unite themselves through love, without the involvement of the parents . (Manu 3:32; Yajñ. 1:61)Asura-marriage, in which the bride is “bought”. (Manu 3:31; Yajñ. 1:61.)It must be understood that, at this rite, a regular sale of the bride must take place. If a suitor merely gives presents to the bride, that is not an Asura-marriage.Rākṣasa-marriage, If the bridegroom and his friends abduct the bride after having overcome by force her father or relations. (Manu 3:33; Yajñ. 1:61.)The last two forms, although reluctantly accepted by the Law-givers in order to grant legal status to the bride, are severely condemned by all.Obviously the first 3 pertained to the traivarnikas (The Three-castes) and the others were found among the commoners.Currently only two forms of marriage are found:- a modified form of Brahma/Prajāpatya – which is basically an arranged marriage and the Gandharva vivāha.The vast majority of Hindus are ignorant of the fact that a couple who live together by mutual consent are legally married according to Dharma Shastra (de-facto or common-law-wife according to English law.) and there is no need for a wedding ceremony. But if, after some time, the parents come to accept the union and wish to perform a wedding they may do so, but there can be no kanya-dāna or “giving away of the bride.The authorizing sūtra is:– gāndharva vivāheṣu punar vaivāhiko vidhiḥ |Some Legal Authorities commend the Gandharva form of marriage for all as it flows from love. (Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra 20:16)gandharvam apyeke praśaṁsanti sarveṣāṁ snehānugatatvāt ||Classically speaking, the Gandharva form was eschewed by the traivarnikas but common among the rest of the population.In South India (which I know best) marriage among the common people was known as sambandham (union) and kalyānam (auspicious occasion) and the regulating rules and customs differ widely among the various castes. The most important element being the giving of a sāri to the bride and the tying of the mangal sūtra (tāli). Some castes were matriarchal and some patriarchal, so among the matriarchal Nairs for example the weddings are really short and consist of giving a sari to the bride, tying the tāḷi and exchanging garlands - 10 minutes as most!Most of the Non-brahmin castes of the South didn’t invite brahmin priests to preside over their marriages - they are officiated by caste elders - this is still the case among some communities, but the more upwardly mobile now do accept the services of a priest.