velu Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 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. 500Rs per month :hysterical:
rkt.india Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 In this case' date=' she did have - didn't she?[/quote'] Yes, but then why only male is responsible for it?
Raghav_12 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Yes' date=' but then why only male is responsible for it?[/quote'] You are surprised because you don't know Indian laws. :giggle: The day is not very far when guys will have to pay with half of of their inheritable property (ancestral and other movable, non-movable property) for any kind of physical relationship, even if that was for one day.
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 >>>>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 chill guys....the judge said either party Now is the time to get that girl you want to marry to willingly sleep with you...collect documentary proof and head to the court...:haha:
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Yes' date=' but then why only male is responsible for it?[/quote'] You think a man should be allowed to have two children with someone and not be held accountable for their welfare? The woman is anyways taking care of the kids and hence is responsible.
Raghav_12 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 You think a man should be allowed to have two children with someone and not be held accountable for their welfare? The woman is anyways taking care of the kids and hence is responsible. Children welfare is fine and I might agree with. But this judgement would be used to ensure that women's "welfare for life" is also taken care of by guy for one day relationship. And you would very well know that what "welfare for life" might mean.
beetle Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I think the judgment is case specific as far as the welfare part is concerned.Once you have a child...it is a responsibility for life.As for the rest about being married because you had sex....it seems very flimsy and I don't think it is lawful unless she can prove that he had sex on the promise of marriage.
DomainK Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I think the judgment is case specific as far as the welfare part is concerned.Once you have a child...it is a responsibility for life.As for the rest about being married because you had sex....it seems very flimsy and I don't think it is lawful unless she can prove that he had sex on the promise of marriage. Unfortunately, AFAIK, general statements made by a high court become guidelines for lower courts and lawyers would often quote these lines in cases in high courts and lower courts.
rkt.india Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 You think a man should be allowed to have two children with someone and not be held accountable for their welfare? The woman is anyways taking care of the kids and hence is responsible. I think this is right but court has taken it too far declaring their case as married. Married and live-in are two different things and should be dealt differently. They must be living together without being married and had kids. In this case, according to judge's verdict, what if the guy has also married to someone else.
Crookbond Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Unfortunately' date=' AFAIK, general statements made by a high court become guidelines for lower courts and lawyers would often quote these lines in cases in high courts and lower courts.[/quote'] I think such practice itself should be stopped.
velu Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 :omg:So' date=' I am married to 9 girls..:omg:[/quote'] rocky.. r u the Vicky Donor guy ?? :hmmm: :cantstop:
Aaku 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 :--D
Sachin=GOD Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 next up - unmarried couples kissing will also be considered married :idea: Kya ho gaya hai iss Judiciary ko :wall:
DomainK Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I think the judgment is case specific as far as the welfare part is concerned.Once you have a child...it is a responsibility for life.As for the rest about being married because you had sex....it seems very flimsy and I don't think it is lawful unless she can prove that he had sex on the promise of marriage. There are laws regarding the rights of an illegitimate child. They should make necessary changes to those laws.
Raghav_12 Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 I think such practice itself should be stopped. This is accepted practice worldwide in all judiciaries. Judgement from higher and apex courts become guidelines for lower and trial courts and can't be done away with. Any country's written laws and procedures can't cover all possible scenario that real life situations may throw up. So lower courts are bound to take directions from judgements of higher courts. If there are no written law for any particular case, judge decides on the basis of previous judgements. In fact if you have a SC judgement you can challenge lower court judge on his/her judgement openly in court and if case is identical he would be forced to change judgement. There is established legal concept called ratio dicidendi. As per this concept judgements are given on the basis of relative ratio of previous judgements in similar situations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi So, anybody who says that it is one off case without any consequences clearly don't understand judicial system.
adi B Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 HC has gone bonkers,ridiculous judgement and ottot absurd compensation :facepalm:
Sachin=GOD Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 Serious question - a few days ago there was a discussion on ICF about prostitution and some people said that it was legal in some parts of India. Now, will an unmarried man and a prostitute be considered married if they have sex?
Recommended Posts