FischerTal Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC If any unmarried couple of the right legal age “indulge in sexual gratification,” this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed “husband and wife,” the Madras High Court has ruled in a judgment that gives a new twist to the concept of premarital sex. The court said that if a bachelor has completed 21 years of age and an unmarried woman 18 years, they have acquired the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution. “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.” The court said marriage formalities as per various religious customs such as the tying of a mangalsutra, the exchange of garlands and rings or the registering of a marriage were only to comply with religious customs for the satisfaction of society. The court further said if necessary either party to a relationship could approach a Family Court for a declaration of marital status by supplying documentary proof for a sexual relationship. Once such a declaration was obtained, a woman could establish herself as the man’s wife in government records. “Legal rights applicable to normal wedded couples will also be applicable to couples who have had sexual relationships which are established." The court also said if after having a sexual relationship, the couple decided to separate due to difference of opinion, the ‘husband’ could not marry without getting a decree of divorce from the ‘wife’. Justice C.S. Karnan passed the order on Monday while modifying an April 2006 judgment of a Coimbatore family court in a maintenance case involving a couple. The lower court had ordered the man to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 to the couple’s two children and Rs. 1000 as litigation expenses. The lower court observed that the woman’s wedding with the man had not been proved by documentary evidence. Hence, she was not entitled to maintenance. In her appeal to the High Court, the woman’s counsel contended that she was legally married and had two children in wedlock. Justice Karnan said he was of the view that a valid marriage did not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnised. In the present case, the woman and her husband had no encumbrance or other disqualification for solemnising their wedding as per their customs. For solemnising a wedding, legal aspects should be placed on a higher scale than the customary aspects. 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.” The judge directed the woman’s husband to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs.500 from the date of petition, i.e. from September 2000. The arrears of maintenance up to May this year should be paid within a period of three months. is this for real? Source:the hindu
Crookbond Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 “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.” I don't think there's any twist here. AFAIK, the judge treated the woman like a wife for the compensation to be meted out by the father. The guy was trying to use the non-marriage loop hole to absolve from the responsibility of the 2 children he had with the woman.
ganeshran Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I don't think there's any twist here. AFAIK' date=' the judge treated the woman like a wife for the compensation to be meted out by the father. The guy was trying to use the non-marriage loop hole to absolve from the responsibility of the 2 children he had with the woman.[/quote'] Check out the other comments by the judge
Crookbond Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Check out the other comments by the judge I read those comments but I thought they were made specific to that case. Is there any way to get the whole judgment? I think the defendant was trying to use some loop hole to avoid (alimony?) some responsibility and the judge disagreed. I still think there is some selective reporting here with loss of context.
FischerTal Posted June 18, 2013 Author Posted June 18, 2013 I read those comments but I thought they were made specific to that case. Is there any way to get the whole judgment? I think the defendant was trying to use some loop hole to avoid (alimony?) some responsibility and the judge disagreed. I still think there is some selective reporting here with loss of context. Indiankanoon.org
rkt.india Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I read those comments but I thought they were made specific to that case. Is there any way to get the whole judgment? I think the defendant was trying to use some loop hole to avoid (alimony?) some responsibility and the judge disagreed. I still think there is some selective reporting here with loss of context. Why would girl want to have kids with a person who she has not even married?
Crookbond Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Why would girl want to have kids with a person who she has not even married? In this case, she did have - didn't she?
Aaku Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 what is documentary proof for a sexual relationship? :hmmm:
Mariyam Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Just read the first few lines of the article. Does no one else see the ruse? If any unmarried couple of the right legal age “indulge in sexual gratification,” this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed “husband and wife,” the Madras High Court has ruled in a judgment that gives a new twist to the concept of premarital sex...... yadda yadda... The judge has worded it so poorly that any half decent lawyer will wriggle his/her way out of it. All the guy/gal has to do is say" Oh judge saab, it is right that we had sexual relations, but under no stretch was the act gratifying. So, we cannot actually be considered a couple as we do not meet the necessary prerequisites." :P
ganeshran Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I read those comments but I thought they were made specific to that case. Is there any way to get the whole judgment? I think the defendant was trying to use some loop hole to avoid (alimony?) some responsibility and the judge disagreed. I still think there is some selective reporting here with loss of context. He hasn't made any mention of the kids while making the comments specified above. Even if he did mean it very specifically to this case, the wording of the judgement can be used as a precedent for other cases. Plus this is The Hindu we are talking about, which avoids sensationalist reporting.
kumar713 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 so am i the only one unmarried on icf ? :woot: Me too
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I think the judge got carried away.He should have limited himself to the case.As for the case...this is not new....live in couples specially with two children will have the same rights as married couples and no child is illegitimate irrespective of the marital status of the parents. Rest seems more like an over reaction and I wonder if it supported by law..... And WTH is documentary proof of sex....:hmmm:
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Just read the first few lines of the article. Does no one else see the ruse? The judge has worded it so poorly that any half decent lawyer will wriggle his/her way out of it. All the guy/gal has to do is say" Oh judge saab, it is right that we had sexual relations, but under no stretch was the act gratifying. So, we cannot actually be considered a couple as we do not meet the necessary prerequisites." :P :hysterical::hysterical:true.... How gratifying should it be on a scale of 1-10?
Raghav_12 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 So, this judgement enables any female who would have been in physical relationship to claim maintenance and alimony from guy, even if they never got married. Fall out of this judgement are severe and I hope Supreme court intervenes.
Recommended Posts