What's new

Indian Court says premarital sex to be considered legal marriage

Indian news papers adding their own spice to the judgement.

The point here isn't pre-marital sex but cohabitation as husband and wife which according to law in many countries is similar to living as a married couple(Common-law marriage). The guy here lived with the woman for years and even fathered 2 children with the woman. Now he wishes to separate and avoid paying any alimony to his wife under the pretext that they were never married.

I never expected the Hindu to write sensational headlines but in the end nobody is immune to financial pressures.
 
. .
You seem to have a low IQ inspite living in the US? Its a fine Judgment and live in relationships do have certain obligations once a child is born just as a legally married couple would have if they had separated. I guess you were brought up in closed society in Pakistan where women rights are decided by men to subjugate them.

Ummm...


Tank you. Come again?

Are Guru jee ka kiya hoga ?

Apnay haath say shadee karnay parii ghi.


:rofl:
 
.
scrumpy males have been nailed.

The point is if such cases surface where one male signed birth certificates for kids he father with different women sans any legal marriage then what will be the way for applying same judgement?

Already did.

It also happens to be the right comment.

Anything else?

Hell even Pakistanisage provided the counterpart law in the sates.

What is your understanding of this judgement pray tell?

Other states declaring living relationship and other such legal formalities are the same as in Indian case?

lets say if a man has such relation with more than one women and he also fathers kids from more than one women and on top of that signs the birthcertificates of all of them, how will this judgment apply there? specially when your Indian law does not permit marrying more than one woman at a time?
 
.
scrumpy males have been nailed.

The point is if such cases surface where one male signed birth certificates for kids he father with different women sans any legal marriage then what will be the way for applying same judgement?



Other states declaring living relationship and other such legal formalities are the same as in Indian case?

lets say if a man has such relation with more than one women and he also fathers kids from more than one women and on top of that signs the birthcertificates of all of them, how will this judgment apply there? specially when your Indian law does not permit marrying more than one woman at a time?

Told you your understanding of this specific judgement was flawed as evidenced by your line of questioning...nothing wrong with that though.

Let me clear that up..No if you had children from an affair then you will not be considered to be married to that woman in question..BUT you will have to provide maintenance for the child and other spousal support.

Here the signing of the birth certificate is just the circumstance of secondary concern..let me simplify it.. established cohabitation+having a child will be considered to be as good as de facto marriage in terms of maintenance and spousal support and even in totality IF you wish it be so.

BUT this will not apply IF a man is already married and has been married before the conception of the child and cohabitation.

When it comes to the law these nuances and VERY IMPORTANT..IN FACT THEY ARE EVERYTHING. And YES the example given by Pakistanisage is the same as this judgement.

Anything else?
 
.
scrumpy males have been nailed.

The point is if such cases surface where one male signed birth certificates for kids he father with different women sans any legal marriage then what will be the way for applying same judgement?



Other states declaring living relationship and other such legal formalities are the same as in Indian case?

lets say if a man has such relation with more than one women and he also fathers kids from more than one women and on top of that signs the birthcertificates of all of them, how will this judgment apply there? specially when your Indian law does not permit marrying more than one woman at a time?

Having read this thread and the actual judgement, let me clarify. Let us see what the judgement says. It says,

1. The persons involved have been in a relationship for years.
2. They have been living together in the same house.
3. They have had 2 children together while staying together in the same house.
4. The person concerned (male) has given consent as the the father of the child before performing the ceasarian.
5. They have been bringing up the children together in the same house.

Under the above circumstances, the man is as good as a husband, maybe not legally, but for this particular case he has to be 'elevated' to the position of husband and father and not just partner. Under these circumstances, for this particular case, the court says, it is as good as marriage and he is liable for maintenance.

If one reads the full judgement, it is quite a sane one. The Hindu for once has completely messed it up. Hope this clears things?
 
.
Having read this thread and the actual judgement, let me clarify. Let us see what the judgement says. It says,

1. The persons involved have been in a relationship for years.
2. They have been living together in the same house.
3. They have had 2 children together while staying together in the same house.
4. The person concerned (male) has given consent as the the father of the child before performing the ceasarian.
5. They have been bringing up the children together in the same house.

Under the above circumstances, the man is as good as a husband, maybe not legally, but for this particular case he has to be 'elevated' to the position of husband and father and not just partner. Under these circumstances, for this particular case, the court says, it is as good as marriage and he is liable for maintenance.

If one reads the full judgement, it is quite a sane one. The Hindu for once has completely messed it up. Hope this clears things?

In this case it is a sane judgement. But the judgement given out today was another one, modifying this one.
 
. .
Can you specify what the modification was?

The one you quoted was a previous judgement made by a court to ensure that the benifits are passed on to that family. In Today's judgement a judge has taken that and generalized it- anyone in a pre-marital physical relationship can be declared husband and wife. That's kooky.
 
.
Holy ****~!!!

Now no more blackmailing , sida adalat.?...:butcher:

Wow i dont wana live in this country anymore.:help:
 
.
Hope this will clear the confusion!!


“Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC,” trumpets the headline of an egregious piece of reporting in The Hindu. Cue the inevitable flood of tweets expressing shock, outrage and dubious humour.

“My country is the best place to watch theater of absurd everyday,” grumbled one member of the twitterati. “Dear Madras HC, If premarital sex is considered as Marriage, is sex with a prostitute considered as Arranged Marriage?” chirped a wannabe comic.

As is typical of Twitter, no one had bothered to pay attention to the actual case at hand — likely because it would require one reading past the fourth paragraph. Justice CS Karnan of the Madras High Court was ruling on a maintenance claim made by a woman who had lived with her partner and had two children with him. In declaring them as good as married, Karnan gave weight to a number of factors:

In this case, the man had signed in the ‘live birth report’ of his second child and given his consent for a Caesarean section for its birth. As such, he had officially admitted that she was his wife. “Without legal encumbrance or third party interference or without affecting third party rights, both the petitioner and the respondent lived together as spouses and begot two children.” Therefore, the question of an illegitimate relationship did not arise. Wedding solemnisation was only a customary right, but not a mandatory one. Hence, the judge said, he was treating the couple as spouses in normal life.

“It is not disputed that the petitioner has been a spinster before she gave birth and that the respondent was a bachelor before developing sexual relationship with the petitioner. Both of them led their marital life under the same shelter and begot two children. Therefore, the petitioner’s rank has been elevated as the ‘wife’ of the respondent and likewise, the respondent’s rank has been elevated as the ‘husband’ of the petitioner. Therefore, the children born to them are legitimate children and the petitioner is the legitimate wife of the respondent.”


Karnan is clearly ruling on the issue of domestic partnership, awarding rights to couples who may not legally married but have lived together in every other way as spouses. Or as Hindu‘s far more astute reader Suresh Ramasubramanian comments:

The court seems to have created precedent that a civil union (or as the court puts it, an *established* relationship) is equivalent to marriage. Which means someone can’t live with a woman for years, have kids with her and then dump her without support.

Perhaps your paper needs a new special correspondent and maybe an editor, with some more legal training, without which you end up printing an article like this, that’s currently creating waves in the sillier parts of social media – they’re saying things like “I can now sue my ex boyfriends who married other people”.

To be fair, the judge did indeed make a number of incendiary statements, such as: “Consequently, if any couple choose to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional considerations.” But none of these are pertinent or have legal value given the actual case at hand and the Supreme Court’s own rulings on premarital sex.

On the matter of premarital sex, in cases brought against actress Khushboo for endorsing premarital sex, the SC bench observed, “When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence.”

In 2010, a Delhi Court held that sex outside marriage was equivalent to rape because the man had coerced the woman into sex by promising marriage. But in 2013, the Supreme Court overturned a similar conviction by raising the bar of proof:

Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case like this, the court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives, and had made a false promise only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between the mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise.

The notion that a man has robbed a woman of her honour by falsely luring her into bed may be somewhat Victorian, but we are nowhere close awarding a one-night stand, casual affair or a longer dating relationship the status of marriage. :victory:The courts are inching closer each day to a more progressive view of sexual behaviour. And those of us past the age of 14 ought to welcome the Madras HC ruling as one more step in the direction of the 21st century.


Misreading the Madras HC ruling: Premarital sex is not marriage - Firstpost
 
. .
Duly noted.

No tail chasing in India.
@Dillinger damn mate now I have no reason at all to visit. :undecided: Ok wait I have one but you won't like it. :whistle:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
The one you quoted was a previous judgement made by a court to ensure that the benifits are passed on to that family. In Today's judgement a judge has taken that and generalized it- anyone in a pre-marital physical relationship can be declared husband and wife. That's kooky.

not really. please do read the judgement.

Hope this will clear the confusion!!


Hindu‘s far more astute reader Suresh Ramasubramanian comments:

The court seems to have created precedent that a civil union (or as the court puts it, an *established* relationship) is equivalent to marriage. Which means someone can’t live with a woman for years, have kids with her and then dump her without support.

Perhaps your paper needs a new special correspondent and maybe an editor, with some more legal training, without which you end up printing an article like this, that’s currently creating waves in the sillier parts of social media – they’re saying things like “I can now sue my ex boyfriends who married other people”.

Misreading the Madras HC ruling: Premarital sex is not marriage - Firstpost

Good explanation by the Hindu reader. @Guynextdoor2 hope this clarifies?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Duly noted.

No tail chasing in India.
@Dillinger damn mate now I have no reason at all to visit. :undecided: Ok wait I have one but you won't like it. :whistle:

Unless you plan on cohabitation with that woman for a considerable period and father a child this judgement doesn't apply to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Back
Top Bottom