Demand for too much sex is cruel, grounds for divorce: Supreme Court

[ViruRulez]

NEW DELHI: Persistent demand for excessive sex causing injury can be ground for seeking divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled. Dealing with the undefined term "cruelty" under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which provides grounds for divorce, a Bench comprising Justices P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said the onus was on the one seeking divorce to prove with evidence that a particular conduct of the other partner had caused him/her cruelty. The ruling came on a plea by an aggrieved husband. While dealing with the whole gamut of what can be called "cruelty", entitling a spouse to move court for divorce, the Bench said even a single act of violence which was of grievous and inexcusable nature could fit the definition. "Persistence in inordinate sexual demands or malpractices by either spouse can be cruelty if it injures the other spouse," said Justice Sathasivam, who wrote the judgment for the Bench. However, a few isolated instances of cruelty over a certain period of time would not amount to cruelty as married life should be assessed as a whole, the Bench said while rejecting one Gurbux Singh's appeal seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. "Making certain statements on the spur of the moment and expressing displeasure about the behaviour of elders may not be characterised as cruelty. Mere trivial irritation, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life which happens in day to day life in all families would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty," the Bench clarified. Having failed to prove cruel behaviour of his wife, Singh tried to impress the apex court to grant him divorce saying the marriage had broken down irretrievably as he and his wife were living separately since 2002 and there was no chance of their reunion. The Bench said divorce has to be granted strictly under the grounds provided in Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act though the apex court might have dissolved marriage on account of irretrievable breakdown in one case.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Demand-for-too-much-sex-is-cruel-grounds-for-divorce-SC/articleshow/6789057.cms One of the rulings in a series of judgments and rulings by Supreme Court regarding marriage, divorce and live-in relationships. I was just thinking as to how would it be proved that a man indulges in excessive sex with his wife. And how often can it be called excessive. Dont know how will a lady prove that her husband has sex too often in court. I am not married just to avoid any confusion. :giggle:

[ViruRulez]

SC lays down conditions for women seeking maintenance in live-in relationships

NEW DELHI: A woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfils certain parameters, the Supreme Court held today while observing that merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship. A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur said that in order to get maintenance, a woman, even if not married, has to fulfil the following four requirements: (1) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses (2) They must be of legal age to marry (3) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage including being unmarried (4) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. "In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005 (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act). To get such benefits the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied and this has to be proved by evidence. "If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and or as a servant, it would not in our opinion be a relationship in the nature of marriage," the court said. "No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act) but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live-in relationship'. The court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute," the bench observed. The apex court passed the judgement while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to D Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy. Velusamy had challenged the two courts order on the ground that he was already married to one Laxmi and Patchiammal was not married to him though he lived with her for some time. Interpreting section 125 of CrPC relating to maintenance, the apex court said besides a legally-wedded wife, dependent parents and children alone are entitled to maintenance from a man. But the Domestic Violence Act expanded the scope of maintenance by using the expression 'domestic relationship' which includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship 'in the nature of marriage'. "Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct discussion of this court on the interpretation of this expression, we think it necessary to interpret because a large number of cases will be coming up before the court in our country on this point and hence an authoritative decision is required," the bench said. According to the apex court, the legislation was enacted in view of the new social phenomenon in the country in the form of live-in relationship. "In feudal society, sexual relationship between man and woman outside marriage was totally taboo and regarded with disgust and horror as depicted in Leo Tolstoy's novel 'Anna Karenina', Gustave Flaubert's novel 'Madame Bobary' and the novels of the great Bengali writer Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay. "However, Indian society is changing and this change has been reflected and recognised by Parliament by enacting the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005," the bench said. The apex court discussed at length the various US courts' rulings on grant of maintenance under the doctrine of 'Palimony'(pals) under which divergent rulings were passed vis-a-vis maintenance to a woman in a live-in relationship. The bench recalled the California superior court's ruling in Marvin versus Marvin (1976) case wherein maintenance was awarded to the woman in live-in relationship. The case related to the famous film actor Lee Marvin with whom a lady Michelle lived for many years without marrying him and was then deserted following which she claimed p alimony. In the present case, the apex court said that since the two lower courts had been given an opportunity to Velusamy's first wife Laxmi to be heard, the directions passed by it was erroneous hence it remanded the matter back to the matrimonial court to examine whether Laxmi was the legally wedded wife of Velusamy.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-lays-down-conditions-for-women-seeking-maintenance-in-live-in-relationships/articleshow/6786239.cms

[ViruRulez]

One-night stand isn't live-in relationship: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday pruned the scope of live-in relationships under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, thus preventing many women who have been dumped by their partners from claiming maintenance. The SC hinged its judgment on the fact that Parliament, while enacting the DV Act, had mentioned "relationships in the nature of marriage" and not "live-in relationships" and said both were quite different from each other. A Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur culled out four important grounds from the definition of `common law marriage' posted on the web pages of Wikipedia and said that arrangements commonly understood as live-in relationship must satisfy these conditions to be recognised as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" under the DV Act. When a live-in partners satisfied these four conditions in addition to living together under one roof, only then could a deserted woman move an application before the concerned area magistrate seeking maintenance from the man who deserted her, said the court. The four conditions are: * The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses * They must be of legal age to marry * They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried * They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time The SC was aware that laying down these conditions would exclude a lot of live-in partners from claiming maintenance from their male partners in case of desertion. "No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law," said Justice Katju, who wrote the judgment for the Bench. The SC also stated that "merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a domestic relationship" under the DV Act. Moreover, "if a man has a `keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Act. This judgment came in a case where a woman, D Patchaiammal, had a two-year relationship with an already married man D Velusamy, who later deserted her to be with his wife Lakshmi and family. Twelve years after the alleged desertion, Patchaiammal moved a Coimbatore family court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The family court held that Velusamy was married to Patchaiammal and not to Lakshmi and ordered payment of alimony. The Madras HC upheld the family court's order. Velusamy appealed against it. The SC set aside the trial court and HC orders saying without giving notice to Lakshmi, the courts could not have come to a finding that Velusamy was married to Patchaiammal because if he was married to Lakshmi before, he could not have married Patchaiammal without divorcing Lakshmi. It said that Patchaiammal would also have to explain why she filed the maintenance plea under Section 125 of CrPC after a lapse of 12 years. The SC remanded the matter back to the family court asking it to determine all these issues afresh.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/One-night-stand-isnt-live-in-relationship-SC/articleshow/6789125.cms

[ViruRulez]

Some right and bold decisions today regarding marriage and live-in relationships in India on subjects which were considered a bit taboo till a few years back. Good decisions and justified ones.

[Sir john]

:omg: ""There is no more lovely, friendly and charming relationship, communion or company than a good marriage.". :aha:

[DomainK]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Demand-for-too-much-sex-is-cruel-grounds-for-divorce-SC/articleshow/6789057.cms One of the rulings in a series of judgments and rulings by Supreme Court regarding marriage, divorce and live-in relationships. I was just thinking as to how would it be proved that a man indulges in excessive sex with his wife. And how often can it be called excessive. Dont know how will a lady prove that her husband has sex too often in court. I am not married just to avoid any confusion. :giggle:

There is a medical way of proving it. There are medical conditions that unnaturally boost the desires in a male or female called hyper-sexuality. Hyper-sexuality in males is known as satyriasis and in women it's known as nymphomania. The sex drive happens to be abnormally high in such medical cases and goes to obsessive levels where the person lives for sex only. So I think there are ways a doctor can determine hyper-sexuality and give evidence in a court of law. Interestingly, the opposite also provides strong legal ground for divorce- lack of sex. If one partner consistently shows disinterest in sex, the court considers it cruelty and permits divorce. I think in India divorce laws are very complex and it's very difficult to obtain a divorce. It should be easier. Forcing two incompatible people to stay together makes no sense to me.

[Aaku]

One of the rulings in a series of judgments and rulings by Supreme Court regarding marriage, divorce and live-in relationships. I was just thinking as to how would it be proved that a man indulges in excessive sex with his wife. And how often can it be called excessive. Dont know how will a lady prove that her husband has sex too often in court. I am not married just to avoid any confusion. :giggle:

:dontknow: :giggle: Yaaaaaaa yesterday it was on the news of how the woman in live in relationship was denied part of the man's property.. so mom was oooooonnnnnn bout the cons of living-in :phehehe: And bout too much sex, read that this morning :D

[Guest Gunner]

:WTF: PS: Holy frack, post no 6001. :woot::woot::woot::woot::woot:

[varun]

:WTF: PS: Holy frack, post no 6001. :woot::woot::woot::woot::woot:

:adore:

[flamy]

:adore:

wtf did u do to get an award :hmmm: :hitler:

[yoda]

wtf did u do to get an award :hmmm: :hitler:

build and run the site :dontknow: Actually it shows if you click on the star(s)

[flamy]

geez i thot nymphomania was a male fantasy

[achilles]

I read a very strong and sexist comment from the ADG in the papers today, taking on the SC for referring to women with "derogatory" words like "keep" et al. Sexism is at an all time high. And this time, its the women leading the charge.

[Guest Gunner]

I read a very strong and sexist comment from the ADG in the papers today' date=' [b']taking on the SC for referring to women with "derogatory" words like "keep" et al. Sexism is at an all time high. And this time, its the women leading the charge.

So in your view its ok for the SC (the highest court in the land) to refer to women as "keep"?

[achilles]

So in your view its ok for the SC (the highest court in the land) to refer to women as "keep"?

SC must have thought it through before using the word they did, coz as you said, it is the highest court of the land.

[DomainK]

The whole concept of live in was created for those who wanted to escape the complexities of a marriage. Now the court if forcing the laws of marriage on live in couples.:wall:

[Guest Gunner]

SC must have thought it through before using the word they did' date=' coz as you said, it is the highest court of the land.[/quote'] No obviously they didn't, if they had the esteemed court would not have used that expression. It was a very big blunder.

[flamy]

No obviously they didn't' date=' if they had the esteemed court would not have used that expression. It was a very big blunder.[/quote'] u said blunder :orderorder: