Acharya Prashant begins by expressing his personal dread at the thought of having to call his wife's mother "Mummy" after marriage, a word he feels he could never utter for a random woman. He extends this to the term "Papa" for a father-in-law, questioning the triviality with which such profound relationships are assigned. He finds the entire concept of "in-laws" absurd and the term "father-in-law" obscene, as it implies a relationship created by law, not by genuine connection. He questions the audacity of any law to designate someone as his father, brother, or sister. He explains that since the age of 18 or 19, he has understood that a relationship like "son-in-law" cannot truly exist. He asserts that if he wants to form a relationship, he will do so by his own will, and no power can stop him, but he will not seek permission or a stamp of approval from any law or court. He states that some matters are of the soul and are not meant for public display. If he wants to be with someone, he will not create a spectacle by inviting thousands of people. He asks rhetorically if one goes around showing their soul to everyone, emphasizing that love is a matter of the soul. Acharya Prashant critiques the societal norm of involving numerous people when two individuals decide to be together, a practice he has never understood. He compares it to friendship, which does not require a formal stamp of approval. He argues that as long as he is not breaking civic laws like evading taxes or stealing, society can demand what is socially due, but it cannot take his soul. Using an analogy, he says that while an authority can define the boundaries of his property, it cannot dictate what he does inside it. After the father of the body, he states, the only other father can be the Guru; a "father-in-law" is an impossible concept. Addressing the questioner's reference to a "second family," he explains that according to the saints, one's first family is the earth into which they are born, and the second family is the divine realm above. Finding a second family on this very earth, he argues, prevents liberation. He criticizes the conditioning of women to leave their paternal home for their "own home" after marriage, pointing out that neither house is truly theirs. He questions why women leave their homes in the first place, suggesting their intelligence has not developed to see the futility in moving from one house to another and then claiming ownership. He concludes that creating multiple brick-and-mortar homes, which are akin to the body, is a misfortune that hinders spiritual progress.