Elderly Indian couple suing son and daughter-in-law for $675,000 US unless they produce a child within a year

Nitpick: Depends on which “westerners”, and when. Of course, arranged marriages were common worldwide until about the 18th century, after which the idea of individual marital choice became dominant in most of northwestern European society.

But arranged marriages were still very frequent in eastern Europe and in many communities resident farther west, such as Ashkenazi Jews, until well into the 20th century. Probably anybody you know who’s descended from 20th-century immigrants from eastern Europe has an arranged marriage no more than three or four generations back in their ancestry. For people of solely western-European ancestry, add a few more generations.

I’d say that puts the concept more in the category of “currently unfamiliar” to westerners, rather than “foreign”.

A quote from a NY Times article:

"Raavi Birbal, a lawyer in India, said that the suit would probably not go far because its arguments violate rights enshrined in India’s Constitution, including the right to liberty.

“This is actually a very rare case,” Ms. Birbal said. “That is why it is so much in the limelight. But, ultimately, it is the couple’s choice to have a child, not that of their parents.”’

A quote from the Times of India:

"The father told TOI: "My son and daughter-in-law are living in two separate cities because of their jobs, . . . "

I’m guessing that has something to do with the parents’ frustration.

The fact that he feels the need to say this is pretty bizarre from an outside cultural perspective.

Little does wannabe grandpa realize that, once a baby is born, he will be full-time slave to the little coot, toiling away all day as his son and daughter-in-law chill out in their climate-controlled workplaces. Oh, and the end-of-day status report to the parents, and dealing with parental tut-tuts, is an exercise in itself.

Source: An aggrieved Indian grandpa I was talking to earlier today.

I don’t think it’s bizarre that he needs to say it. That’s what the lawsuit is about, and it’s kind of what we’re all wondering here–is this a thing, legally, in India?

The lawyer referred to as “he” in posts 45 and 47 is a woman.
And yes, I quoted her because her words addressed the question of whether this is a thing in India.

Any updates on the case? Wasn’t it supposed to be heard this week?

Thanks. Ravi is a common male name, and Raavi is a variant spelling. I’m not sure if this female Raavi is the same name, or if it’s a different name with the same transcription.

Ms. Raavi Birbal seems to be a high-powered Advocate - Supreme Court of India https://twitter.com/raavibirbal?lang=en