As daft entitlements go, your correspondent came across a doozy recently while reading a story concerning a ruling made by the High Court of Madras, India in relation to a disagreement between a divorced couple over maintenance.
To fill you (reader) in, a divorced women had argued that she wished her ex-husband to continue paying maintenance to her and at the same time be in a new relationship with another fella. The Judge (Justice Nagamuthu) ruled she could be in a new relationship with another fella but would then have to forgo financial support from her ex-husband.
Your correspondent then read of the South Asia director for Human Rights Watch, Meenakshi Ganguly’s criticism of the judgement. She said that the judge’s ruling was regressive and hoped it would be overturned by India’s supreme court.
What your correspondent finds regressive is the Human Rights Director’s view that the ex-husband (legally separated) should be made be out-of-pocket to assist a divorced wife, while her new fella profits in the pocket (not having to maintain her) and in the bedroom.
This correspondent doesn’t blame the divorced woman for chancing her arm; indeed her action reminds your correspondent of a divorce-of-sorts he had, where he also wished to benefit from a previous status.
Back at the beginning of the century your correspondent worked for Barings Asset Managment, London. At Barings this correspondent was made to wear a suit & tie, and after two years of this decided to enjoy the benefits of suit-free & tie-free living by leaving.
Soon after your correspondence’s departure, he was out drinking with the Essex lads he’d got on with while working there. They informed him that the staff Christmas party had been organised for that year (at a previous Christmas Party, held on a Thursday evening, the lads & your correspondent had drank all night there, and then on into the early hours of the following morning in an unlicensed Soho Club and then from there to work that Friday morning, stinking of booze, dressed in the same clothes, but on-time). Your Correspondent expressed an interest in the up-coming Christmas party and the lads said they’d ask the boss if this correspondent could go, arguing that your correspondent had worked most of that year, there. The following week in the boozer, the lads gave this correspondent the Boss’s verdict. She ruled that this correspondent was quite entitled to be suit-less & tie-less during the week but at that year’s Barings Christmas party he would also be cake-less.
