forget attractive Bharatanatyam dancers with call center headsets or book covers with sari-clad women, cows or a paisley print. this is the sort of obnoxious behavior that really reflects badly on indians and indian culture in general and is more harmful to women. the pandeys should be countersued for wasting the court's time with this disgusting display. apparently this is not the first time.

"don’t make me take my earrings off."

*tears* ...classic.

i'm not entirely against what this family's trying to do. i took a set of calipers to my Pinky's round billowing bum before marrying her, confirming the exact dimensions of the "junk in her trunk".

to this day she regrets not having made qually good use of a ruler to verify my equipment.

heh

Any boy who accepts an arranged marriage without first verifying that his future spouse's teeth are straight, her English good and her complexion as close to white as possible deserves what he gets.

And Anna, what are you talking about? Didn't you read his parents description of him as "handsome, personable and good English skills"? Pranjul is obviously a catch, regardless of age. Don't be mad because you can't get any of that Pandey lovin'

*growling*

The end of the article says that Pandey has filed a bunch of civil lawsuits since the 80s against a variety of concerns......a chronic and frivolous "suer" perhaps?

Details on the case. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706061uglybride1.html?link=eaf

Oh, wait? Can he sue me for my comment? I take it back,then......

The Hindu family, residing in Belchertown, Mass., had agreed to an arrangement proposed by Hindu friends in Maryland to marry their niece, who lives in India, the Springfield Republican newspaper reported.

Are you surprised ;)

Whose God does address the key point: when we read about a crazy white guy who sues everyone for stupid reasons, they are brushed off as crazy. But I bet a lot of Americans are reading this story and thinking "Those goddamn brown people sell women blah blah blah." I hope they are smart enough to realize every culture has dumbass wack jobs like the Pandeys, and that they are in no way representative of Indians in America or in general. And I will pay someone for a photo of the parties concerned; I want to see how smooth Pranjul really is. I bet he looks like a cross between Om Puri and Apu, chest hair and all.

Don't be mad because you can't get any of that Pandey lovin'

Oh, I ain't mad (atcha). After reading this, I've never been more thrilled to be single. ;)

Seriously, it IS the groom's side fault. They should have done a better job to see if their requirements were met BEFORE making a commitment.

And if they realized the bride-to-be wasn't the 'right' girl, just call it off and move on. Whining, bitching, and moaning like this is stupid. Talk about taking responsibility for one's own word.

EVERY relative/friend will always say how great/good the girl/boy is when they're proposing a match. It is FOR YOU to figure out if the person is right FOR YOU. It ain't your parents, relatives, or their friends getting married. Suck it up and be damn adults for lords sake. If you effed up by making a bad choice, say your apologies and move on.

Now if the girl and her family actively misrepresented herself (fake degrees, lies about what her future intentions are, lies about who she is, etc.) after the marriage, then one would have a legitmate gripe. But not doing your own homework, being lazy, and letting others make the choice for you then crying about it is absolute bullshit.

But I bet a lot of Americans are reading this story and thinking "Those goddamn brown people sell women blah blah blah." I hope they are smart enough to realize every culture has dumbass wack jobs like the Pandeys, and that they are in no way representative of Indians in America or in general.

i think they are smart enough. letz give our fellow citizens some credit. suing like this is ugly american behavior. throwing acid in her face, that would have been brown.

This is one of those stories that helps to explain why you keep sleeping with your ex ... ;) [No, not you you silly]

More than that, I can't believe how many people trust their dumb ass parents to find them a spouse. Look, I'm all for arranged marriage like Anna, as long as both parties agree to it. But that's also because I know my family; they aren't stupid. If I had parents like the Pandeys, I would hesitate before I let them pick the woman I was spending the rest of my life with. If your parents are idiotic, or have completely different values than you, then you should probably just pick your own spouse. In this case, it's not like he could do worse than them.

Any guy who lets his parents put his name on a lawsuit as shitty as this obviously isn't ready to get married, 37 or not. I wonder what his story is though... a secret marriage to a person his parents don't approve of? Or maybe he was one of those guys that asks for a bikini photo with the biodata :)
See, I'm so set to be an aunty. I wish I could skip these in between decades altogether and just get to my true calling already :)

Sleepy,

Is it cool to request a bikini photo with biodata? If that's the case, I might consider this whole arranged marriage deal.

Is it cool to request a bikini photo with biodata? If that's the case, I might consider this whole arranged marriage deal.

letz watch the heteronormativity and objectification, shall we? this is a gender neutral safe space.

Razib - watch out or you are getting some acid to the grill. As you said, that's how we brown folk roll, son.

Razib - watch out or you are getting some acid to the grill. As you said, that's how we brown folk roll, son.

yes, threats of violence and disfigurement. thanks for making this an open and welcoming place.

Dark Knight,
I was just making a (bad) joke from this thread.
You don't want that though, I mean bikinis?! Seriously, have you seen a more uncomfortable looking piece of clothing? And don't hurt people either, acid is bad :) You need to get with Sleepy Aunty and have a nice talk about what to look for when you go arranged marriaging :)

Because I'm a dorky recent law school grad studying for the bar, I found this post really interesting and I"m pretty sure that they plaintiffs will lose. A breach of promise to marry is not enforceable by the courts. So as far as contract and family law, I think they're screwed. Now they're suing on a conspiracy to commit fraud, fraud, and violation of civil rights. The civil rights claim is total bunk because there are no state actors involved. Private parties have a lot of leeway, though not unlimited, to stomp on people's rights. That's just bunk. The fraud seems to be a claim on contract theory and there is no way a court in a state that is, hopefully, not totally backward will rule in their favor. It's lawyers like that of the groom's family that gives the rest of us who are actually trying to do something real a bad name. Any thoughts from any other legal types?

Synthesis of the worst in Indian and also American social mores. What makes me really uncomfortable is the generalizations about the desi community that will follow.

Sriram:

Just curious. Why is the charge of fraud in a verbal contract like this unenforceable? For the sake of argument, lets say the prospective bride lyed about something relevant and the groom incurred financial costs, like a plane ticket or something.

If this was a business deal, I assume the plaintiffs would have a case. Is there a lower standard for a "personal contract?"

If this was a business deal, I assume the plaintiffs would have a case. Is there a lower standard for a "personal contract?"

It all has to do with subject matter. My understanding of family law, at least in most jurisdictions, is that contracts for marriage are void and unenforceable by the courts. Therefore, it is impossible to breach the contract because there is no contract to begin with. Again, I'm no expert on this, so I'd welcome any other input.

Because I'm a dorky recent law school grad studying for the bar

Awww, yeah. Come to Butthead.

contracts for marriage are void and unenforceable by the courts

What about the personal itself, besides marriage? I remember a decade or 2 back, the catherine Mckinney and andrea dworkin wing of the feminist movement trying to sue men who had sex w/ women under false pretenses (maybe saying they were single when really married, rich when really poor, etc) for fraud or even rape. I guess it didn't go to far, but is there a higher standard for fraud if the "contract" is personal in nature?

the catherine Mckinney and andrea dworkin wing of the feminist movement trying to sue men who had sex w/ women under false pretenses (maybe saying they were single when really married, rich when really poor, etc) for fraud or even rape

I don't know anything about the lawsuits to which you are referring, so I can't really comment on those. I can see why they would be losers though, and it's not because there is a "higher standard for fraud," as you put it. If I was the man being sued, I would argue on simple fraud grounds. I guess there is an argument to be made that consensual sex can be viewed as a contract of sorts. However, the type of fraud to which you refer occurs when one party makes a misrepresentation that induces the other party to enter the contract. A contract only exists when there has been an exchange of promises, "I promise to do X and in return you promise to do Y." Contrast the previous sentence with "I promise that I'm rich, and therefore you and I should do it." That is not a contract, so it can't be fraud. In that case, the dude is not promising to do anything, he's just lying about his wealth. If you wanted to view consensual sex as a contract, the exchange of promises would be something along the lines of "I promise to have sex with you and in return you will promise to have sex with me." I'm not doing a very good job of explaining, is this making any sense?

I'm not doing a very good job of explaining, is this making any sense?

Sriram:

Actually you did a very good job. Especially this:

However, the type of fraud to which you refer occurs when one party makes a misrepresentation that induces the other party to enter the contract. A contract only exists when there has been an exchange of promises, "I promise to do X and in return you promise to do Y." Contrast the previous sentence with "I promise that I'm rich, and therefore you and I should do it

The precision and nuance of legal thinking is often quite impressive.

Yeah, this reminds me of law school (I went for 2 terms). This is not the type of contract that can be enforceable. If a man promises to marry a woman (verbally) and then changes his mind, she does not have any cause of action. One of my old profs had a fun time explaining that!

I don't know what they do in other places, but in Bangladesh (as my dad said) there is a contract that some couples (and male relatives from both sides) sign when they get officially engaged. But, before this happens, the couple have known each other for some time and agreed to get married. It's just a paper, but it means the couple will marry!

Anna,

This used to disburb me before till I got involved in an equally ugly situation. My best friend's mother went to India and shopped a "gori/tall/educated" girl for her darling loser son who hasn't ever held a job nor an education or a friend in his life.

After 3 years of consistent abuse where the girl was constantly threatened to be "returned" to her parents as if she's a lemon bought at a bad dealership the father in law of all people couldn't take it and removed the girl from the house to a relatives house. In the meantime mom kicked dad out of the house! While the rest of the family entertained themselves for months on end about her "poor plight" and yakked and yakked on end while doing nothing to better her situation he filed for divorce.

I just saw the papers yesterday. Fucker wants her to pay "restitution for emotional distress". He also wants ownership of all "marital property" meaning all her jewelry her parents gave her during marriage! This girl has no job, is suicidal, malnourished because her mother in law counted her calories and how much food she ate, was systematically abused by the MIL and husband for 3 years.

I wouldn't blindly support her just because she's a woman and he's a man if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Emotional distress, this coming from a man who used to make her go to work with him, sit across the street at a cafe so he could watch her anytime he wanted to during the 8 hours his pathetic ass was there! I think dogs get treated better. Personally I'd love to see the NYPD throw him in the cooler at Rikers for the coke they'll find in his house so he can spend the night being Julio and Tyrone's bitch. And mom just needs a beating! Don't even get me started...

Here is the 12 page complaint

SriRam: Good luck on the Bar. I am sure you will easily pass the Bar. I have seen your legal reasoning here and you should have no problems taking the Bar Exam.

It's lawyers like that of the groom's family that gives the rest of us who are actually trying to do something real a bad name

Here is an unsolicited 'tip' from a fellow desi lawyer; Unless you think that filing a complaint for the plaintiff will get you Rule 11 sanctions, there is no case which is unmeritorious, as long as you have time.
Mr Pandey is representing himself and does not have a lawyer. I would urge everybody on here to read the complaint though. Its second to none in its hilarity. I havnt laughed this much in years. No lawyer could write this ridiculous a complaint.

I hope we lawyers can make atleast a colorable claim for Mr Pandey, so here goes:

A breach of promise to marry is not enforceable by the courts. So as far as contract and family law, I think they're screwed. My understanding of family law, at least in most jurisdictions, is that contracts for marriage are void and unenforceable by the courts. Therefore, it is impossible to breach the contract because there is no contract to begin with

Its not enforceable as in the Court will not enforce specific performance of the marriage itself or compensate for emotional loss/pain and suffering due to the marriage not taking place. Money spent preparing for the marriage, property exchanged etc. in anticipation of the marriage can still be recovered under Contract Law (If I am incorrect, some domestic relations lawyer can correct me)

I dont think Mr Pandey is suing for breach of promise to marry. Mr Pandey is not suing because the woman refused to marry. He is suing because he was promised an 'xyz' kind of a person for marriage, but the person promised did not turn out to be the 'xyz' which was promised. In this case, the plaintiff is not suing for specific performance nor is he suing for damage caused because of the refusal by the bride to marry. So the prohibitions on breach of promise to marry actions should not not apply here.

This case is analogous to you asking me to buy your brothers painting from an art gallery in London. In addition, you promised me that if the painting is not XYZ, you will compensate me for the travelling expenses. Apparently the girls uncle/aunt made a similar promise.
Consideration can be an issue but then again we can always try promissory estoppel (promise, reliance, detriment, breach)
Now if I go to London and reject the painting, do you have to pay me? In cases, where the decision is solely based on the 'subjective' whims of the promisee to reject or not reject, the Courts will usually side with the promisee. Mr Pandey was however promised 'fair, english speaking and good teeth', so the Court might apply an objective person's standard. I am not sure how Pandey will meet his evidentiary burden of proving that the woman was not the 'xyz' he was promised. Also the Court in Ma might not be competent to decide this case so a forum non-conveins action might knock out the case.

On a serious note, I hope the Court does not grant any relief on public policy grounds alone.

"promissory estoppel"

I love that phrase. I first heard it on Law & Order, and it just sounds so musical, unlike most legal terms. I have no idea what it means though!

Promissory Estoppel:

You make me a promise.

I rely on your promise.

You fail to deliver on your promise.

I rely on your promise to my detriment and suffer a loss.

You will now compensate me for the loss under the theory of promissory estoppel.

Is there any caveat emptor in promissary estoppel?

caveat emptor basically means that the seller has no responsibility for the quality/fitness of the product being sold.
These days the UCC (Uniform Civil Code) has various provisions which protect the buyers. For example, if you buy a cellphone and it blows up in your face, the seller cannot say 'caveat emptor' as their is an implied warranty that the cellphone will not blow up in your face.

We do have some versions of 'Caveat Emptor'. For example, when you go to a used goods store and they have a TV there marked as 'As is'. Now the risk shifts to you and it is upto you to inspect the TV. Of course there are exceptions to the 'Caveat Emptor' rule in almost all cases, but they are too detailed to discuss here.

The concept of 'buyer beware' or 'caveat emptor' cannot really apply in promissory estoppel situations. As you are promising me that something will or will not happen and I rely on your promise to my loss, then you cant really turn around and say that you have no obligation.

Ennis: Can you please fix my first post, as I forgot to italicize a paragraph in the first post.

Mr Pandey is representing himself and does not have a lawyer. I would urge everybody on here to read the complaint though. Its second to none in its hilarity. I havnt laughed this much in years. No lawyer could write this ridiculous a complaint.

I've been trying to post since yesterday and have been getting a strange error. I read it when Anu posted it and thought it was actually a joke. There is no logic or appropriateness to the complaint. Glaxo Smith Kline is spelt wrong, it's filled with a ton of redundancy and sounds so hokey I laughed the entire time thinking it was a joke. Pray someone tell me this guy is for real? Can the court just throw it out for stupidity?

This is just another one of those "isolated incidents" that shows the bullshittness of this entire system. But it does remind me of Paul Varghese's joke

"If I meet a girl through online dating, and she doesn't look like the picture, can I call tech support?"

But in all seriousness,

You know how in all action movies, whenever the "hero" (with one face, not many) infiltrates the bad guys at some fancy party in a big mansion, or yacht, or hotel or something, there's invariably ALWAYS some random Indian woman in a sari, walking around and chatting (sometimes it's a hispanic or black women, depending on the resourcefullness of the casting director) Anyway. I want to get SET UP WITH HER. Do you hear me all you conspiring aunties and uncles??

Or maybe he was one of those guys that asks for a bikini photo with the biodata :)

Er, I was just kidding about all that. In fact I don't even have a copy of "biodata" representing myself, although if I did I guess it would probably have just one line on it, ie. "Unsuitable Boy seeks Unsuitable Girl".

You don't want that though, I mean bikinis?! Seriously, have you seen a more uncomfortable looking piece of clothing?

Well, if the lovely lady concerned finds wearing a bikini so damn uncomfortable, one way to become more comfortable is to just take the damn thing off, dammit ;)

Anyway, us guys don't really consider the comfort factor in these things (bad of us, I know). It's like the effect of high heels -- definitely difficult for women to wear and they also take a bit of practice to walk in, but wow what an impact they have. When combined with bikinis the whole ensemble looks very foxy indeed, by the way. (Handy hint to you ladies.)

Okay, I think I've overstepped my badmaashi quotient by several multiples this week, so I'll stop now. I'm a good boy really. No really, I am.

ANNA,

If they are so superficial, they should’ve demanded sharper pictures.

Considering the fact that a marital relationship is not platonic, I don't think having an interest in the potential spouse's physical appearance is necessarily "superficial" -- however, it does depend on how far the individual's appearance falls below one's expectations/preferences and whether there is a lack of other positive qualities which may mitigate this. It's a complicated issue as those of us who have at least some degree of significant romantic experience will know. However -- playing Devils' Advocate here -- in this particular situation, it also depends on how much "photoshopping" was done and the disparity between the woman's appearance on the photo(s) and her real-life appearance.

Maybe they should have actually tried to speak English to the woman on those “heavily involved”, “long telephone calls to India”.

Yes, absolutely. They should have double-checked all the facts first and I certainly don't think suing the middlemen for "fraud" is necessarily the correct step to take, although -- again, playing Devil's Advocate -- I guess it depends on exactly how much time, effort and expense had been involved before the cat was eventually let out of the bag. It also depends on the extent of the perceived deception which had occurred -- if there had been a massive amount of "massaging" of the facts, perhaps the family were angry enough to (possibly justifiably) want to "punish" the guilty party for their duplicity.

*shrug* I don't know.

fixed. :)

Just read the complaint. Absolutely ridiculous. What a tool!!!

SriRam: Good luck on the Bar. I am sure you will easily pass the Bar. I have seen your legal reasoning here and you should have no problems taking the Bar Exam

Thanks!!! If I fail I shall place the blame squarely on the World Cup and my poor judgment in not turning away drumming jobs.

The Pandeys got a photo of the prospective bride, but “couldn’t tell much” from it.

Jai, my darling, I was ranting about the above when I wrote that they should've demanded sharper pictures. ;) My "superficial" accusation is based on the entire story-- not just that bit. Besides, I'm the first person to agree with you about the laws of attraction. :D

Thanks Anna.

Jai, the fact that this guy is 37, when it's de rigeur for desi-american men to marry in their late twenties/early thirties at the latest, suggests that he's not the handsome, charming, personable chap that his parents make him out to be. You've got to play in your own league, and if you're not Brad Pitt, you don't really have the right to expect an Angelina Jolie. I've had friends who've been set up with people with whom they don't have any physical spark, and they've usually managed to disengage themselves quickly (and gently). This lawsuit, which seems specifically designed to humiliate the woman, marks Pandey uncle as a gigantic asshole.

DUDE! That complaint was HI-LARIOUS!! So, they sued the "family friend's" employer and, if I'm not mistaken, defendants' attorney. And so bizarrely written - "in cahoots" - seriously?

Just lately, my parents are talking about setting ME up w/ some guys. This stuff is making me VERY NERVOUS- LOL! I'm sure I'll get out of it somehow...

this pandey guy seems to have combined the worst of
indian culture (treating women as objects) with the worst of
american culture (frivolous suing). bloody freak !

Anna,

Re: post #42 -- Thanks for the clarification, greatly appreciated ;)

Amba,

Jai, the fact that this guy is 37, when it's de rigeur for desi-american men to marry in their late twenties/early thirties at the latest, suggests that he's not the handsome, charming, personable chap that his parents make him out to be.

Well, maybe, maybe not. There could be other factors involved:

1. He could be divorced or widowed.
2. He could have previously been in some kind of long-term relationship with someone else.
3. He could have been involved in a long-term tug-of-war with his parents regarding their expectations in a potential daughter-in-law and what he wanted in a wife.

I'm not denying that the real reason for his unmarried status may actually be some kind of basic deal-breaking flaw in him, but -- with all due respect -- I think it's perpetuating a desi stereotype (both with regards to the guy and one's own reasoning) to assume that if a person isn't married by a certain age, it's because they "must" have something intrinsically "wrong" with them. The three points I listed above have often been known to happen amongst NRIs, in various combinations.

*Shrug again*

I love the fact that the plaintiff in this lawsuit is poor, aggrieved Pranjul's dad. (Not mom and dad, mind you, just dad.) Curious that he would even have standing here -- as what, a third party beneficiary of the would-be marriage? That theory would give him standing to sue if Pranjul went off on his own and married someone that Dr. Vijai (sheesh, they're everywhere) didn't approve of. (I don't know what that prospect says about Sleepy's theory -- maybe Pranjul is afraid of getting sued if he doesn't heed his father's directives. ;) )

Very sad when parents regard their kids' marriages as all about them.

Well, if he spent the money for expenses, isn't he the one entitled to recompense? BTW, context: Dr. Pandey filed for bankruptcy a year ago.

Ennis,
I doubt he could claim expenses though. If a court accepted that claim, wouldn't it kinda mean that whenever a blind date went bad, the person that paid could sue as well? There was no contract really. Even when there are contracts, weddings are kinda iffy. I knew a girl who knew a girl :) who sued her wedding photographer because the pictures didn't turn out well, but she got nothing because she did get pictures, bad though they were.
The Pandey's got what they could reasonably expect, the contact information of a certain girl. They weren't forced to spend money on getting in touch with her. If the picture was doctored though...
Now I want to be a lawyer :)

Jai,
I was joking. I do believe your nice boy claims, I just thought that the whole bikini thing was funny :)

xyz=zyx

My face matches your personality...

Case Dismissed!

Sleepy,

I was joking. I do believe your nice boy claims, I just thought that the whole bikini thing was funny :)

No problem, I was joking too. Well, apart from the part about how luscious ladies in bikinis should take them off (preferably in front of an appreciative audience) if they find them too uncomfortable. They can keep the high-heels on, though.

************

Anyway, the fraud issue can be a two-way street, of course. For example, a woman who's gone for the arranged marriage shebang finding out on her wedding night that her new husband's big bad anaconda is actually more like a limp Maggi noodle.

*wink*

Well, if he spent the money for expenses, isn't he the one entitled to recompense?

Well, on his legal theory perhaps, but that just reinforces what I'm saying about the underlying conception involved here of whose marriage this was supposed to be anyway. If Pranjul and Savita hit it off and eloped, but Dr. Vijai didn't approve, would he have had a claim simply because he spent the money that facilitated their meeting in the first place?

"Savita was ugly with dark complexion"

Read page 3 (statement #23) of the Smoking Gun document here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706061uglybride1.html?link=eaf

As a continuation to my post above...
Google this story, and you'll find that the American media keeps saying "bad complexion." Maybe that will change within a day, but as of right now, none of the articles say "dark complexion." PC PC, don't wanna let the truth out that non-whites can be racist too.

The Hindu family, residing in Belchertown, Mass., had agreed to an arrangement proposed by Hindu friends in Maryland to marry their niece, who lives in India, the Springfield Republican newspaper reported.

Are you surprised ;)

"Republican" is a common name for newspapers (i.e. "Gazette, Chronicle, Statesman"). It has nothing to do with political affiliations.