SITARA JEE, hajur ko laagi hai yo reply chai. She had married a widower of three children and whose youngest was one year old>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sitara jee, mero aangreji ali kaamjoor cha, tesaile maile bujheko thik ho ki hoina. Maile bujheko chai, "the guy whom she married to was already married and his wife is dead, and has three children from her. Nepali ma tellai khai k po bhanchan" J sukai bhanun. The question here is, Y did she marry him ? That's the reason I want, before coming to any conclusion. Now, is it only because she loved him ? Difficult to believe. But possibility is there. I said, drag him through court... for having used all of her services and then more>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, what I feel here is, u r asking your friend to take him to the court and make him pay for the services. So, it looks like here she is comparing herself with a maid, by asking for the pay for services. He is not the one who offered the pay, saying "here is the money for what you did for me" she is the one who will be saying "here is what I did for him and now he has to pay for my contribution." I am here not saying, what he did was good but also can't say what she would say would be good. I suppose the equation of love and marriage changes as the term "mutually beneficial" reaches the tipping point>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I understood is, sitara jee is supposing, marriage is "mutually beneficial". Excuse me.................................. marriage is not a mutual fund, its not a business where two companies comes together for mutual benefit. Marriage is mutual support, morally, emotionally, physically, financially and what not, but not mutual benefit. If you think marriage is mutual benefit, it surely breaks apart like american cars. Please don't mind if I have a different view and opinion