治理夫妻关系:19世纪英国和印度的社会卫生与夫妻权利归还原则

Laura Lammasniemi, Kanika Sharma
{"title":"治理夫妻关系:19世纪英国和印度的社会卫生与夫妻权利归还原则","authors":"Laura Lammasniemi, Kanika Sharma","doi":"10.1080/13200968.2021.1923252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article focuses on the doctrine of restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) as a colonial legal transplant and examines how ideas of social and moral hygiene manifested in the debates around the doctrine in late-nineteenth century England and India. Originating in ecclesiastical law, the doctrine of RCR provides remedies and sanctions for the deserted spouse when one party has violated the obligation to cohabit as husband and wife. Through a critical examination of the history and application of the doctrine, the article traces the specific ways in which such suits developed and became rooted in Hindu, Parsi and Muslim marital law in India, while simultaneously falling out of favour in England. It places the doctrine in the context of changing ideas of marriage and argues that social hygiene became the tool through which the doctrine was both resisted in England and lauded in colonial India.","PeriodicalId":43532,"journal":{"name":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","volume":"47 1","pages":"67 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13200968.2021.1923252","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governing Conjugality: Social Hygiene and The Doctrine of Restitution of Conjugal Rights in England and India in the Nineteenth Century\",\"authors\":\"Laura Lammasniemi, Kanika Sharma\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13200968.2021.1923252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article focuses on the doctrine of restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) as a colonial legal transplant and examines how ideas of social and moral hygiene manifested in the debates around the doctrine in late-nineteenth century England and India. Originating in ecclesiastical law, the doctrine of RCR provides remedies and sanctions for the deserted spouse when one party has violated the obligation to cohabit as husband and wife. Through a critical examination of the history and application of the doctrine, the article traces the specific ways in which such suits developed and became rooted in Hindu, Parsi and Muslim marital law in India, while simultaneously falling out of favour in England. It places the doctrine in the context of changing ideas of marriage and argues that social hygiene became the tool through which the doctrine was both resisted in England and lauded in colonial India.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Feminist Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"67 - 84\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13200968.2021.1923252\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Feminist Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2021.1923252\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Feminist Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2021.1923252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要本文重点讨论了作为殖民地法律移植的夫妻权利恢复原则,并考察了社会和道德卫生思想如何在19世纪末英国和印度围绕该原则的辩论中表现出来。RCR学说起源于教会法,当一方违反了作为丈夫和妻子同居的义务时,它为被遗弃的配偶提供了补救和制裁。通过对该学说的历史和应用的批判性研究,文章追溯了此类诉讼在印度的印度教、帕西人和穆斯林婚姻法中发展和扎根的具体方式,同时在英国失宠。它将这一学说置于婚姻观念变化的背景下,并认为社会卫生成为这一学说在英国遭到抵制和在殖民地印度受到赞扬的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Governing Conjugality: Social Hygiene and The Doctrine of Restitution of Conjugal Rights in England and India in the Nineteenth Century
Abstract This article focuses on the doctrine of restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) as a colonial legal transplant and examines how ideas of social and moral hygiene manifested in the debates around the doctrine in late-nineteenth century England and India. Originating in ecclesiastical law, the doctrine of RCR provides remedies and sanctions for the deserted spouse when one party has violated the obligation to cohabit as husband and wife. Through a critical examination of the history and application of the doctrine, the article traces the specific ways in which such suits developed and became rooted in Hindu, Parsi and Muslim marital law in India, while simultaneously falling out of favour in England. It places the doctrine in the context of changing ideas of marriage and argues that social hygiene became the tool through which the doctrine was both resisted in England and lauded in colonial India.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
40.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Final Fatal Girls – Horror and the Legal Subject Life as Distinct from Patriarchal Influence: Exploring Queerness and Freedom through Portrait of a Lady on Fire On Romancing the Tomes: Popular Culture, Law and Feminism: A Public Conversation Performance, Credibility and #MeToo Testimony in Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd  ‘A Daughter is Like a Pot of Fish Paste While a Son is Like Pure Gold’: Gendered Conceptions of ‘Human Dignity’ in Cambodia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1