Of Marriage Divorce - Case Study Example

Vocabulary assignment The next case on the agenda to be presented before court is Jackie vs. Kim who have filed for divorce. Judge: Who is the plaintiff representing Jackie Lawyer: I represent Jackie, the woman at the stand who is dejected with her life and marriage. While the ambience of this courtroom is warm, my client stands with cold hands and feet. This is her confrontation with the ugliest truth in her life. Judge: (looks at the dapper lady at the stand. Her presence seems to light up the rather dilapidated court room) And why do you allege so. Lawyer: The lady comes to court as a drastic resort. After being deluded by mediation firms who misled her through their bureaucracy, the lady finally seeks the candid justice that only a court can provide. One may understand that in our enclave, divorce is an adverse step for a demure and docile woman like Jackie. Judge: Let this not be a discourse, but I advocate divorce mediation as an eminent step to be taken as a marriage buttress before a couple comes to court. Often marriages are saved when divorce mediators arbitrate and collaborate to get couples back together. So rather than making divorce mediation sound as a defect in the system, I would insist the lawyer to cohere to the specific case. Please divulge the details endemic to the case. Lawyer: Yes, your honour. As you state, the issue of divorce mediation is an arbitrary one. My client seeks a divorce from her husband, after their five year marriage as a dire resort. The basis for the divorce is that her marriage is devoid of the main ingredients: trust and love. Her mental and physical torture has been chronic and justice has been dilatory. The distraught lady deferred divorce till now and lived with the fear of physical attack. She went through physical abuse for simple reasons like not setting the plate right or for bungling up cooking. Kim put her through hell and all she wants is an affable life and equitable justice, which the mediation firm failed to provide. Judge: As you allude all these charges, do you have any proof. Lawyer: Jackie is a victim of the system, and we have all the evidence the court needs to prove the case. However, let me delineate from the issue and take you to the time of Kim's schooling. School reports constantly emulate Kim to be a rough child. He records show a delinquent affectation through his college days also. He had been denounced by his affluent parents on account of his drug addiction and other vices. Moreover Kim is constantly in and out of clandestine love affairs. I put forth the court an assimilation of his anomalies. Judge: Please also pass the details to the jury so that they can check that there is no disparity and the facts cohere together. Also I would suggest you as a lawyer to abstain from such strong statements. Judge: (After viewing the documents with a discriminate eye) A circumspect view of the records of violence does appall me. However, Kim's records also show that he was quite dextrous and diligent at his work as a mechanic. But let me not deviate from the issue. Was Jackie aware at the time of her marriage that the situation was askew and Kim was a charlatan husband Did she know the situation she would get herself into, with the marriage Lawyer: Jackie's marriage to Kim was more of an arrangement by Kim's parents, who sought a bride from an affluent family. His agile nature led no clue in the first year of marriage. She soon knew about his duplicity and drug abuse, a caustic issue, but thought marriage would cure it. After the first happy year, there was anarchy especially when Kim tried to curb her academic pursuits. Jackie is a devout catholic, and tried to circumvent the situation by attempting to talk to Kim about the issues their marriage was facing. But his behaviour just became increasingly cantankerous and her life was effete with physical and moral abuse. I thus elicit the court to apprehend Kim not just for divorce but also rendering circuitous moral and personal injury to my client. Judge: Jackie could you articulate the case for the court in an efficacious manner. Jackie: The first year was compatible for us but soon he began abhorring every thing I did. His anger was desultory, his attitude was captious and he became increasingly callous. I do not embellish the truth, but those are four years, I want to delete from my life. Mediation did not help and Kim does not agree to divorce. It is in abject despair that I come to the court for justice. Judge: Would Kim like to censor or censure the statements made here. Kim: It is appalling to hear the calumny, Jackie and her lawyer emanate before the court. They seem quite complacent with the incomplete account. Much to my chagrin half of what is spoken here is ambivalent to the truth. I come from an elite family and had a sad childhood. While my family tried to exalt my status, things began to exacerbate when people teased me at school. My parents went on to arrange and plan an event as personal as my wedding. I grew to be a rough person and probably a ruffian to my wife. It is an enigma that a woman whom I considered empathetic could go so far. However, I accede that the eclectic statements have truth and I seek amnesty. Lawyer: Kim, your efforts are emaciated and just a euphemism of your violence. You seek to disparage your sentence, because you know that the records demonstrate clearly your effrontery to harm my client. Not only did you staunchly condone a divorce, because this would keep you out of the family fortune, there have been instances where you have even coerced Jackie with abuse against going to court. In this jury of erudite men and women, I entreat justice for my client. If the court refuses Jackie her right, it is only going a mile to abet wrong-doing. I plead the court to look at the case like mature individuals and alienate themselves from the sympathetic picture that Kim is trying to paint. I do not want my client to be acclimated to this nature of marriage. I envisage a better life for her filled with the equanimity she deserves. I thereby seek that the jury do not absolve Kim on emotional grounds that he has presented. Judge: You have spoken in an exemplary yet concise manner, and the jury has passed its verdict. Jackie, the court appreciates your courage to address the dormant issue. This is not just a single case, but an anecdote that has discomfit the society. All points aggregate and show cogent proof that Kim has shown apathy. Even though he shows remorse, his comments are esoteric to say in the least. At the conjecture, it has also been decided that Kim would also be punished on charges of personal injury. With this the court is adjourned. Read More