firstwivesworld - HIV Status Grounds For Divorce - Comments

I think my situation is

Guest — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:38:28 -0500

I think my situation is somewhat similar. When the cancer struck and most surely will affect my sex life...The Dick said his final goodbye. I'm sure it was in the coming and our sex life was non-existent before then but it was the timing he used that connects the situations.

I'm sure to someone at sometime he will probably say, "well her who no longer worked and so I was outta there!" Because that's the kind of man he is.

Randie

I admit that I would be

Guest — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:35:35 -0500

I admit that I would be angry and hurt to find out my partner had HIV and not have told me. Yes, it would be horrible. I can't say that I blame the husband for not wanting to stay married... the question remains though- how did she get HIV and did she know and choose not to tell her husband?

HIV Status Grounds For Divorce

Rachel Small — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:30:00 -0500

For the first time on record, a court in New Delhi, India, granted a divorce to a man because his wife is HIV-positive. The judge allowed the divorce petition on the grounds that "marriage without sex is anathema."

Few facts have been revealed and I find this case troubling. I question the reasoning for the divorce and the public policy implications. Does this divorce send the right message to other couples experiencing similar medical situations?

This couple were married in October 2000, and it's implied that they never had a "cordial" sexual relationship. The wife became pregnant in March 2001 and her doctor advised that she undergo the HIV-1 and Elisa tests. The Elisa test showed she was HIV-positive.

The wife, who worked at a hospital, claimed the test results were erroneous and said she would get tested again in the seventh or eighth month of her pregnancy. The husband objected and persuaded her to undergo another test. The second test also showed she had HIV/AIDS. She had an abortion in July 2001. The husband tested negative, so she was not infected by him.

The judge found the wife guilty of cruelty by not disclosing her status. The court proclaimed that the husband "cannot be reasonably expected to live with her and lead a happy married life."

I thought that marriage was a commitment for better or for worse. While the wife may have been deceitful, if she knew before the marriage that she was infected, there's no evidence to prove it. Was she previously married? Did she have a blood transfusion? Did she work in a laboratory of the hospital?