Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC

[Precambrian]

I really don't understand the paranoia and panic that grips some men every time such topics are brought up. There are some simple social rules to follow. Most Indian girls in India will expect to get married if you are already in the physical relationship. Most people do not jump into bed on the first few dates...the sleeping around comes after considerable going around. That time is enough to gauge if she expects marriage if you get into the next stage of relationship. If you have doubts...just ask.How difficult is it to say...look dear I am not to sure if this is leading to a permanent situation...in the mean while do you mind some sex.You will surely have your doubts cleared. Don't s*l*u*t around with good girls..don't aim to deflower girls .I am sure most of us don't expect our sisters,daughters to have casual sex with guys.Don't expect that from other girls either.Don't mess with people's emotions and bodies. Advice for both parties. If after a serious relationship you don't think it will work out ...then be sensitive about the breakup.Don't dump people disrespectfully. Don't hurt the ones you loved once just because that is the easier option. For those wanting the option of having sex without the promise of marriage ....There are girls(and guys) who don't mind having fun.....find them and let them know that you want only fun.

Do not agree with generalization. I know at least one girl who didn't hesitate to jump into bed with guys she found hot, in one instance the guy fell so much in love with her, knowing her background antics and proposed to her. She ***** slapped him out of her life and the guy attempted suicide. Societal stereotypes usually dictate guys to act the aggressor, sometimes even against their innate sense, just because they are tuned by the society to be so. A guy who is shy and cries for small things is derisively looked at, and has to change. Girls are taught by society to be coy and shy, never the initiator in a sexual tryst. Times are changing. Girls are becoming independent. I completely agree with joint responsibility of father and mother in raising a kid regardless of born in our out of wedlock. But to dictate on things like the guy having to provide for the girl for life just because they had consensual sex is taking it too far. G

[beetle]

^ >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.... >>If after a serious relationship you don't think it will work out ...then be sensitive about the breakup.Don't dump people disrespectfully. Don't hurt the ones you loved once just because that is the easier option. >>>For those wanting the option of having sex without the promise of marriage ....There are girls(and guys) who don't mind having fun.....find them and let them know that you want only fun. >>>>I agree Priyanka...and it should be the same for both parties. If a girl is ok with premarital sex without marriage...it should not be with some guy who is sure that sex means marriage.:) >>>>>I really don't see how it matters.The person who is not serious about marriage should let the other person know about it so that the other person has the option of opting out .It doesn't matter whether it is the girl or the boy.If the person is just looking for fun.....let the other person know. It is just that the girls are judged far more harshly than boys for such behavior .Like some wise guy in this thread implied...girls are ****s and guys are players. I have always believed that such cases of break of promise to marry should be dealt under cheating or fraud laws and not under rape or marriage laws.

[DomainK]

‘Verdict to protect women, culture’ Judge Defends Order On Sexual Relations, Warns Critics

Chennai: Two days after his sensational judgment on sexual relations between adults, Justice C S Karnan has further elaborated on the order, which accords the status of marriage to all such relationships, and said his ruling would help maintain the “cultural integrity of India” and “protect the welfare of women”. On Wednesday, issuing an unusual addendum in reaction to the heated debates it has generated in social media and other platforms, he said: “This court’s order does not in any way run against any religion and is not intended to wound any Indian. The order had not in any way degraded the system of marriage performed as per the various religious and customs and rites among the various communities.” Reiterating his conclusion that sexual ties between a man and woman of marriageable age would raise the affair to the status of a marital union, Justice Karnan said: “If a bachelor aged 21 years or above and a spinster aged 18 years or above had premarital sex with intention to marry and subsequent to this the man deserts the woman, the victim woman can approach a civil forum for remedy after producing necessary substantial evidence to grant her social status as wife. This remedy is not only for the purpose of giving relief to the victim woman but also to maintain the cultural integrity of India.” Cautioning critics of the judgment, Justice Karnan said: “Law permits the affected woman to initiate criminal proceedings against her paramour for cheating her and deserting her after making a promise of marriage, but there is no provision to approach the civil forum for her remedy. The high court is the apex court of this state and constitutional authority. Therefore, this court has given the legal relief to the affected woman. Without fully understanding the court’s judgment, adverse comments shall not be passed.” However, legal experts have questioned the judge’s decision to further elaborate on the order and go beyond the scope of the subject to address issues relating to culture. While the order has been broadly accepted to be in keeping with Supreme Court judgments on live-in relationships and maintenance, a senior sitting judge of the same high court said Wednesday’s addition ought not to have referred to the issue of ‘cultural integrity’ and the welfare of women. “The issue pertains to maintenance, and to justify the award he had discussed sexual interaction and status of marriage. But linking it to a larger and intangible issue of culture is unwarranted,” he said. There is also the view that such a view of the man-woman relation was liable to be misinterpreted in the subordinate courts.

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2013/06/20&PageLabel=13&EntityId=Ar01300&ViewMode=HTML ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It also shows that his statement was not meant to be specific to the case. It was a general statement intended to create guidelines the objective being, in how own words, "to protect the Indian culture and women".

[rkt.india]

‘Verdict to protect women, culture’ Judge Defends Order On Sexual Relations, Warns Critics http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2013/06/20&PageLabel=13&EntityId=Ar01300&ViewMode=HTML ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It also shows that his statement was not meant to be specific to the case. It was a general statement intended to create guidelines the objective being, in how own words, "to protect the Indian culture and women".

What India culture is he talking about? Do India have a specific culture? Its mix and mash.

[Raghav_12]

^ But ain't judges supposed to be protector of law than protector of culture?? There are well defined set rules, called law, there responsibility is limited to implement those, instead of creating their own. It is similar to the cases where Police try to work as morals enforcement agency than being law enforcement agency.

[nikred]

Culture is overrated.

[rkt.india]

^ But ain't judges supposed to be protector of law than protector of culture?? There are well defined set rules' date=' called law, they should try to implement those, instead of creating their own. It is similar to the cases where Police try to work as morals enforcement agency than being law enforcement agency.[/quote'] Agree. Culture always takes new turns with time, adopts something, leaves a few things back. It does not always stay stale.

[DomainK]

What India culture is he talking about? Do India have a specific culture? Its mix and mash.

^ But ain't judges supposed to be protector of law than protector of culture?? There are well defined set rules' date= called law, there responsibility is limited to implement those, instead of creating their own. It is similar to the cases where Police try to work as morals enforcement agency than being law enforcement agency.

Correct. Law is not meant to protect social morals. This is seriously getting out of hand.

[rkt.india]

Correct. Law is not meant to protect social morals. This is seriously getting out of hand.

What this verdict has also implied is it has limited and defined marriage to sex. Other than that who will make the judge understand that if eh is talking about specific Indian culture then premarital sex is not encouraged in our society. So he needs to save that and declare premarital sex as a punishable offense.

[Sachin=GOD]

COURTLY AFFAIRS MADRAS STYLE

So what’s this social media chatter about the Madras High Court putting a spanner in the works for anyone wanting to make the beast with two backs out of wedlock? Nothing of the sort happened. This was all a reaction to a Madras High Court judgment which said in a given context premarital sex establishes marriage. But since little knowledge is a dangerous thing, everyone before getting all worked up about having to wear chastity belts, should have read the full text of the judgment. How did they know of the judgment? Well, any legal reporter who would have been in Madras High Court on the day of the judgment would have heard about the hearing. The judgment itself is from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and it can take almost a month for it to be uploaded on the High Court’s website. Only after this period can a copy be obtained by contacting the Public Information Officer at the Madras High Court. Certified copies of the judgment can only be obtained from the High Court’s Information Centre, litigants or litigant’s lawyers. Any other source is uncertified. The law is silent on that. The Supreme Court Rules 1955 and various High Court Rules, only state the procedure of how the Court collects the information. So is it legal to get a copy of the judgment from any other source? Your guess is as good as Kapil Sibal’s. No one seems very clear about this rule. (Please feel free to insert an appropriate Kapil Sibal poem.) Getting back to the belt of chastity, are you saying we don’t have to indulge in abstinence till we’re married then? First of all, everyone seems to be missing the point that the judgment wasn’t a comment on sexual relations between unmarried men and women. It was a correction of an earlier judgment from the Coimbatore Family Court in April 2006 on maintenance to a petitioner. You can read the entire judgment (don’t ask how they got it) on LegallyIndia’s website. Maintenance? What maintenance? A woman named Aysha married Ozir Hassan in 1994 and led a “marital life’ in Coimbatore. They had two daughters between 1996 and 1999, after which Ozir Hassan left Aysha. She went to the Coimbatore Family Court to get maintenance money from Ozir Hassan for herself and her children. In April 2006, the Coimbatore Family Court awarded a monthly amount of Rs 500 to each of the girls but did a googly on Aysha. The Family Court reasoned that since there was no documentary proof of Aysha having married Hassan, she could not get money for herself. Documentary proof? Like what? A sex tape? Don’t be ridiculous. You sound like those idiot journalists and tweeters who’ve been writing nonsense about this judgment. The “documentary proof” in the present case is the record of the marriage having taken place. Aysha approached the Madras High Court with two documents that were ignored by the Coimbatore Family Court. One was a hospital record signed by Hassan authorising a Caesarean operation for the delivery of their second child. Another hospital record was a Live Birth Report that had separate columns for the husband and wife to attest their signatures. Hassan had signed as “husband” in the Live Birth Report. Consequently, the Madras High Court concluded in favor of Aysha by awarding her monthly maintenance. Simply put, it is important to understand that the basis of the decision is specific to the facts and circumstances of the Aysha-Hassan case and has to be read in context. If you take a part of the judgment and read phrases from it out of context, it will obviously seem “regressive”, “archaic” and “Victorian”. How come the Madras High Court gave a judgment which was contrary to the Coimbatore one? The Madras High Court gave the following reasons for its judgment. In legal jargon it is called the Ratio Decidendi or rationale of the case. “A valid marriage does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnised.” Customary formalities are not the only qualifier of a relationship as marriage. The fact that Hassan had signed a hospital record authorising a Caesarean operation for the delivery of their second child is enough valid proof of a marriage. Since Hassan had attested his signature as “husband” in the Live Birth Report of the hospital, he had committed himself as a parent to the two girls. Consequently, the argument of the children being illegitimate does not hold ground. “For solemnising marriage, legal aspects are to be placed on a higher scale and the customary aspects do not command such a scale.” Hassan had “openly” and “officially” admitted in the above two documents that Aysha was his “wife”. “Without legal encumbrance or third party interference or without affecting third party’s rights, both the petitioner and the respondent lived together as spouses and begot two children. Therefore illegitimate relationship does not arise in this case.” Which means that customary rights and obligations of getting married are not mandatory. So what’s everyone been quoting? That’s what we call the Obiter Dicta of the judgment. These are opinions or viewpoints which are made in passing by the Court. They do not form the basis of the decision and have the possibility of being woolly and unsettled. The fact that the obiter dicta holds no precedential or authoritative value serves as a saving grace for the judiciary’s love of verbosity. The judgment doesn’t say that unmarried men and women indulging in sex before marriage, are married in the eyes of god? Right you are. It’s the Obiter (which has no binding power) which said that “The Court is of the view that if a woman aged 18 or above has a sexual relationship with a man aged 18 or above has a sexual relationship with a man, aged 21 or above, and during the course of such relationship, if the woman becomes pregnant, she would henceforth be treated as the ‘wife’ and the man would be treated as the ‘husband’. Even if the girl does not become pregnant after having such sexual relationship with a man but if there is strong documentary evidence to show the existence of such relationship then also the couple involved in such acts would be termed as ‘wife’ and ‘husband’.” This Court is of the further view that even after such a sexual relationship, if both decide to separate due to difference of opinion, the ‘husband’ cannot marry without getting a decree of divorce from the Court of law against his ‘wife’. He could not marry a second time without getting such a decree as it had been established that the sexual relationship had existed between them and the consummation had taken place. If any couple, subject to their attaining the mandatory age of freedom, who indulge in sexual gratification, then that would be considered as valid marriage and they could be termed as “husband and wife”, as a result of their choice of freedom. On the other hand in some cases, both bachelors and spinsters, who adhering to all formalities of their respective religion and culture with marriage solemnized, find it that their conjugal rights for sexual consummation had not been fulfilled, then such a marriage is deemed to be a failure, void or lapse. So in total what is expected after adhering to norms and facilities is the sexual consummation by the couple, which has occurred in the case at hand Lesson being, that one must read the Obiter in context taking the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Look at the reasoning/rationale/ratio decidendi of the decision; ignore the rest. How does this make the judgment “progressive”? Well, look at the context. The Madras High Court granted Aysha maintenance money because she had two documents in which Hassan openly claimed himself to be her “husband” and the father of her children. The fact that there was no documentary proof of marriage did not nullify her claim to maintenance money. This widens the scope of the right to claim maintenance beyond the restrictive terminology of “marriage”, “husband” and “wife”. This keeps in mind the increase in the number of couples not getting married nowadays. Yet, don’t forget, since obiters do not hold any authoritative value, this won’t set a precedent. As in you cannot approach a Court of law based on this aspect of the judgment. Decisions of the Supreme Court take precedence over those of the High Court, so you have to first look at what the Supreme Court says. In 2010, a bench comprising former Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S Thakur in D Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010 discussed what came within the hazy confines of a “relationship in the nature of marriage”: 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 2010 Supreme Court judgment also stated the following – “merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship”. A Supreme Court bench of Justice G.S Singhvi and Justice A.K Ganguly in Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & on 7 October, 2010, asked the Chief Justice to consider the following questions- Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C? Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005? Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.? Status: Undecided! Then why on earth did the Madras HC judgment create such a furore in the media? Could be the media was just inebriated by the exuberance of the verbosity of the Obiter. The Hindu was the first to comment on the judgment. Well, less of a comment and more of a stenographer’s job. Next was a more spot-on article by Firstpost declaring the Madras judgment a progressive one. The rest just repeated the same misinterpretations – whether it was Hindustan Times or DNA. NDTV 24×7 in The Buck Stops Here and The Social Network focused their discourse on “vocabulary” and “judicial over-speak”. Surprisingly, The Hindu’s Op-ed titled “Law, Sex and Dicta” failed to understand the judgment in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The media translated Aysha’s victory and Justice Karnan’s verbosity into a return to the Dark Ages. Basically, I don’t have seven wives and don’t need to liquidate my meager investments to support them? Seven? You wish.

http://www.newslaundry.com/2013/06/courtly-affairs-madras-style/

[fineleg]

beetle, You have it reversed. If someone is so worried about not losing virginity before marriage, the onus is on that person(girl in many cases) to say NO to premarital sex. The onus is NOT on the other person. The onus lies with the person who wants to be careful - that person needs to decline sex before marriage (even if the other person promises marriage, the girl needs to decline premarital sex - if she is intent on having sex only in a marriage context)

[Crookbond]

beetle, You have it reversed. If someone is so worried about not losing virginity before marriage, the onus is on that person(girl in many cases) to say NO to premarital sex. The onus is NOT on the other person. The onus lies with the person who wants to be careful - that person needs to decline sex before marriage (even if the other person promises marriage, the girl needs to decline premarital sex - if she is intent on having sex only in a marriage context)

:agree: /thread

[rkt.india]

beetle, You have it reversed. If someone is so worried about not losing virginity before marriage, the onus is on that person(girl in many cases) to say NO to premarital sex. The onus is NOT on the other person. The onus lies with the person who wants to be careful - that person needs to decline sex before marriage (even if the other person promises marriage, the girl needs to decline premarital sex - if she is intent on having sex only in a marriage context)

This.

[Lord]

beetle, You have it reversed. If someone is so worried about not losing virginity before marriage, the onus is on that person(girl in many cases) to say NO to premarital sex. The onus is NOT on the other person. The onus lies with the person who wants to be careful - that person needs to decline sex before marriage (even if the other person promises marriage, the girl needs to decline premarital sex - if she is intent on having sex only in a marriage context)

thats what I said too.agree

[flamy]

Suppose one person wants to propose a following law. If a girl makes a guy to believe that she would marry him and under that impression guy spends some amount of his money on that girl. Now because of some circumstances or compulsions, girl fails to marry, guy shoud be allowed to prosecute girl under charges of robbery or loot. All arguments which were put in post #50 would be applicable to such case. So there are no chances of misuse. I would like to know how many are in favour of such law.

Sounds reasonable.

[maniac]

It makes sense,that if a guy impegrenates a won before marriage,he should be held accountable for Child support,etc,so in that context a good law

[Stuge]

‘Verdict to protect women, culture’ Judge Defends Order On Sexual Relations, Warns Critics http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIM/2013/06/20&PageLabel=13&EntityId=Ar01300&ViewMode=HTML ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It also shows that his statement was not meant to be specific to the case. It was a general statement intended to create guidelines the objective being, in how own words, "to protect the Indian culture and women".

Culture ? what culture ? Everyone try to moral police in the name of culture .