Some marriage go right into the crapper, but, in the case of a marriage in India, the problem was that they DIDN’T go to the crapper. It seems that a young Indian woman married a nice Indian man only to discover that the man did not build an indoor toilet for his lady, or even pay to have one installed. The woman found herself waiting until dark to wander into the fields to squat and crap.
After a while, the woman could take her husband’s crap no more (yes, we’re working on saying crap in this article at least 1o times…CRAP!), so she filed for divorce. In America, you can get divorced for any old crap, including the ubiquitous “irreconcilable differences.’ But in India, your crap has to be serious for a court to grant you a divorce. In this case, the judge sided with the lady and granted her a divorce from her crappy husband. CRAP! There, we did it, 1o craps (11, counting that last one).
SPONSORIf you like this content, be sure you click here and support iState's ability to deliver to you news for the iStater, the state of one.
Extra points for anyone who got our somewhat obscure reference to the movie Super Trooper and the famous MEOW scene.
An Indian woman has been granted permission to divorce her husband because he would not build a toilet in their home.
The woman in her 20s had been married for five years, but had been forced to relieve herself in nearby fields.
Indian law only allows divorce in limited circumstances such as domestic violence or proven cruelty.
The woman’s lawyer told the AFP news agency that the judge said forced open defecation was a form of torture.
The court, in the state of Rajasthan, said that women are often forced to wait until dark to travel to the open fields used instead of toilets.
A report carried by the Times of India quoted the court’s judgement as saying: “We spend money on buying tobacco, liquor and mobile phones, but are unwilling to construct toilets to protect the dignity of our family.
“In villages, women have to wait until sunset to answer nature’s call. This is not only physical cruelty but also outraging the modesty of a woman.”
The court said forcing the woman to use open fields amounted to cruelty.