Your Honor, my client acted out of prudence, not malice. He has worked hard to build his savings and is simply being responsible about entering a lifelong commitment. He is not saying he won't marry her, but merely asking her to address her debt before they legally bind their finances. It's not about conditions on love, but about sensible planning for their shared future. The woman should understand this is a financial partnership.
Your Honor, the plaintiff is clearly prioritizing money over love. He is holding the engagement ring hostage until she meets his financial demands. This reeks of control and a lack of trust. He knew about her spending habits and is now using her debt as a weapon. The woman is right to feel judged and unloved. He should either accept her as she is or let her go.
The court acknowledges that marriage involves both emotional and financial considerations. While the man's concerns about the debt are valid, his approach lacks empathy and understanding. He should've addressed this before stringing her along with proposal talk. The woman, on the other hand, needs to take responsibility for her debt and understand the man's perspective. However, the man's rigid stance is creating unnecessary tension and casting a shadow over their relationship. He needs a lesson in compromise.