Kalaiselvan, Advocate Vellore IS WRONG - Raj123 IS WRONG - only civil option = sec. 11 - neither 9 nor 10 nor 12, 13 is applicable

Well in my view, there was no marriage at all in this case. There is a technical flaw in this marriage. Additionally, as someone opined that marriage is consummated. This is highly erroneous inference of the law. Only because a woman had physical intimacy (even if intending to be a married man's wife) would not make her his wife unless this person is not legally divorced. In the subject case, the @Author never got legally married to her "so called" husband and has only proceeded to live with him under one roof and had intimate relation against the morality of the society. Although it seem very interesting when so many experts have advised on subject matter and gone to the length of S.11 & S.12 HMA (1955), but unfortunately they skipped to consider the fact that the @Author married to an already married man and hence there was no marriage at all. And when there was no marriage, there is no point going to court at all. Void/Voidable options are given in the statute so as to protect the interests of the parties to marriage and not to cover legal misunderstandings. It is a simple case of misunderstanding and the @Author is free to move out of this "live-in" relationship which she has misunderstood as marriage. //peace /Saurabh..V

A very Landmark judgement given by Justice Karan of Madras High court which was critcized allover. Through his judgement he has clearly mentioned that if Two adult's have consummated the S.E.X on the very purpose of marriage then the account should be treated as married couple.Even Supreme court has clear that if a marriage is consumated knowing all the fact's then it can't be treated as void/Voidable marriage.Hence ,if any question of consumation continues with the time limits of appeal in the court for making it void or voidable then such marriage is under the question of why it has been consumated even after knowing the fact's.

Iam again shocked that some one has opined here his legal farting without any reasoning. It's not a cake walk or a baby solution that the wife will go to court and make his marriage as void. The situation here is quite different because the extra 6 months of her marriage after his real divorce making such circumstances where she will be croos question out in the witness box as why you have continued living with the same man even after knowing the truth. Rememebr one thing: A marriage without consummation is a dead marriage in eye of law,in the same way a consented s*x after marrying a lady and living like a husband and wife,even whole society is knowing that they are husband and wife,even knowing the truth the lady here had continued the realtionship as husband and wife,then what proof is need to go against nullify.

If her husband would have been a blind or dumb man then definately she had gone for everything as he was not able to see and talk to counter her claims at hon'ble court floor. But here the situation is quite different,her husabnd would definately will backfire her if she will say that he had done s.e.x with me without my consent and were living as BF and GF and not husband and wife......hehehee the judge will also laugh after knowing the truth that 2.5 years you people have lived as husband and wife and know your wife is telling that you are his BF and not husband.

Someone has been overlapped with his legal farting that's why he alway's come for only theorotical knowledge by ingnoring the practical scenario of the case. Again I pity.

 

Last reply..!!

@Kalaiselvan and others, Why are you so caught up with sections and laws here. Be practical. You advocates are too caught up with sections and rarely apply your mind. You want sections? Well, she can even claim RAPE (Section 375, read "Fourthly..."), that is applicable where a man has misled a INNOCENT woman into believing that his marriage to the woman is valid and had s*x with her. This woman is anything but innocent. She is "Miss Modern." She, all along, fully knew or should have known what was going on. I think in her case we have to advise her from a P&L (profit&loss) perspective not from which section is applicable to her marriage, void, etc. This experience has taught her a good lesson so the years spent with the first Bakra were actually profitable. For example, she has learned that the most expeditious way to dump a Bakra is to ensure that the Bakra is still married when she enters into a "marriage" with him. She can now get maintenance from the second Bakra even if he is just in a live-in relationship with her. She could have got maintenance from her first Bakra too but he is, according to her, not making good money. Therefore, I am advising her not to pursue maintenance from him as it would not be a profitable project as legal expenses may exceed maintenance amount. Also, filing any case on the first Bakra will make the second Bakra wary of her intent and she may lose the second Bakra too. Filing any petition to void the previous marriage could also end up getting the second Bakra involved. First Bakra will also not take it kindly that she is now with a rich Bakra. So, as they say, let sleeping dogs be. Let her just forget about the past and just move on. She is working in a MNC so she can easily find a new rich Bakra without disclosing to him about previous Bakras. With experience, she can keep two Bakras at the same time (Bakra No. 9 and Bakra no. 10), without them knowing about it and then file for maintenance from both the Bakras, while starting new relationships with Bakra no. 11, Bakra no 12 and Bakra No. 13. As she graduates from modern to ultra-modern, who knows, she may even start relationships with Bakris, as long as they are rich! So, if you are so caught up with sections, check if there is any section allowing a woman to seek maintenance from two Bakras at the same time or from a Bakri. Prepare for her future questions!

its OTHERWISE VALID ceremonial marriage , that is void due to the HUSBAND'S DEFAULT. There r SC rulings in this regard. IPC 494 is 100 % maintenable - 495 as per facts.

The facts of this case with respect to void or not-void are very different than some of the cases discussed above. Here, if this marriage is allowed, it would effectively be allowing bigamy which the law cannot allow. Need I say more? In any case, this is all theoretical discussion. Practically speaking, let this woman move on to the next Bakra.

I feel pity for those who without having any regard to the due process of law continues mudslinging and boasts bravery by using immoral, unethical and provocative slang.

 

Anyways! I just want to reiterate, that law is very simple. A married male or female cannot remarry untill his or her spouse is alive. If at all he or she performs any ritual or even goes to marriage registrar (while hiding first marriage), such second marriage has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. And when there is no legal marriage at the first place, then question of consummation does not arise. Such inference is highly fallacious and cannot be ever supported by any citation. However, which citation has this gentleman provided? Just naming a judge from any High Court and stating that he said something is not called citation. Additionally, no court in India can declare such marriage as legal marriage only because of the couple lived together or had s*x (misconceived as consummation). By calling such live-in amounting to marriage, SC and various HC have only tried to save rotting females who fall into traps of married men. But no inference can be drawn in simple words about a default marriage based on s*x (so called consummation).

 

Having said this, I would like to add, that the female who was fooled into marriage by an already married male, enjoys a right of residence and maintenance but only on the ground of morality and such right acts as a deterrent for the erring male.. When a male deceives a female, and performs a fake marriage to convince her that now they are married, and then indulge into s*x and lives with her like a husband, then such act is punishable under various sections of IPC like rape. But if the female herself states that she knew about her so called husband's first marriage, then she cannot claim anything other than maintenance.

 

When my dear friend "the mud slinger" says, 'Consummation of Marriage', I wonder why he forgets the significance of the word Marriage. The word Consummation cannot be used in isolation but has to be read in the light of marriage. Unless there is no marriage, we cannot call s*x as Consummation of Marriage. My humbke request to you is to first understand the law and then point others mistake. Just by using third grade slang you may in your own thoughts malign the other, but in reality, you have only tarnished your own image. If you have anything valid, and someone else is at mistake of law, there are subtle ways to express. Just think about this topic and may be after a due thought, you would agree to my inputs.

 

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

 

 

 

It's sarcastic & very flimsy to read Saurav's view on law. Mr.Saurav have you forgoten the other day I have pointed you on your post where you have written That transfer of case to one state to another state need to take permission from Rajasthan HC. Here again doing the same mistake,You are rightly mentioned by Mr.Sufferer. for your misconception of RCR and Judicial seperation in one of the thread's few day's ago.You are continuously doing mistakes and acclaiming yourslef as Law consulatant...again lol on you. Please stop commenting on Ld. Members. I have got your number of Law mistakes which I will post now. Don't worry.

Iam 100% agreed with Mr.Sufferer on what he had said,Iam putting the article on such landmark judgement of Justice Karnan here.

 

 

 

The Madras High Court has stunned one and all with its recent ruling, pertaining to marriage. In a decision that has perplexed many, specially the younger generation, the court has ruled that if both partners are of legal age, that is the 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 s*xual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional considerations." Justice C S Karnan said in his order. Terming the traditional marriage customs of tying a mangalsutra, garlands and rings, with flowers and calling priests as mere formalities Justice Karnan said that they were only for the satisfaction of society.

The judgment also means that either party can approach a family court for declaration of marital status by producing documentary proof for a s*xual relationship. The judge also said once such a declaration is obtained, the couple can establish themselves as husband and wife in any government records.

This judgment came in the wake of a case which had come before the Madras HC. Justice Karan modified an April 2006 judgement of a family court in a maintenance case, according to a report in the Hindu. A family court in Coimbatore had ordered a man to pay Rs 500 maintenance per month to his two children and Rs 1000 as litigation expenses and had held that the woman's wedding with him did not have any documentary proof. In his judgement, Justice Karnan directed the man to pay her maintenance of Rs 500 a month from the date of petition (September 2000) and that the arrears be paid within three months.


This controversial decision has set the Social media on fire. While law experts say that the decision pertained to this case only, we know that judgments passed by High Courts are of tremendous importance and are often cited in smaller courts. Sometimes these judgments are used a law themselves in case of ambiguity in the actual law or absence of any law, concerning this issue. Stated simply, the judgments says that if you have can consensual s*x with a member of the opposite s*x, then the two of you are legally married if you are able to show documentary proof of that s*xual relationship.

This judgment is open ended, open to different interpretations by different people . What is documentary proof? Perhaps a movie clip? Imagine having to play a movie clip of your s*xual relationship to prove that you are married to someone? The idea is hilarious. Secondly, what about extra marital affairs, that is becoming quite often in our society? If the "illegitimate" partner manages to prove that there is a s*xual relationship, the original partners will have to file for divorce because the illegitimate person and cheating partner are now husband and wife. The prostitution and p*rn industry, which are thriving in India can have documentary proof of penetration- then does it imply that that the people involved can get married? Casual consensual s*x with friends is pretty common and this judgment throws into jeopardy all such one night flings.

 

Saurabh..V Law Consultant [ Scorecard : 2352] PRO CHAT CALL 1 2 3 4 5 Thank Contributor : Send PM

Posted 26 minutes ago

I feel pity for those who without having any regard to the due process of law continues mudslinging and boasts bravery by using immoral, unethical and provocative slang.   Anyways! I just want to reiterate, that law is very simple. A married male or female cannot remarry untill his or her spouse is alive. If at all he or she performs any ritual or even goes to marriage registrar (while hiding first marriage), such second marriage has no legal sanctity in the eyes of law. And when there is no legal marriage at the first place, then question of consummation does not arise. Such inference is highly fallacious and cannot be ever supported by any citation. However, which citation has this gentleman provided? Just naming a judge from any High Court and stating that he said something is not called citation. Additionally, no court in India can declare such marriage as legal marriage only because of the couple lived together or had s*x (misconceived as consummation). By calling such live-in amounting to marriage, SC and various HC have only tried to save rotting females who fall into traps of married men. But no inference can be drawn in simple words about a default marriage based on s*x (so called consummation).   Having said this, I would like to add, that the female who was fooled into marriage by an already married male, enjoys a right of residence and maintenance but only on the ground of morality and such right acts as a deterrent for the erring male.. When a male deceives a female, and performs a fake marriage to convince her that now they are married, and then indulge into s*x and lives with her like a husband, then such act is punishable under various sections of IPC like rape. But if the female herself states that she knew about her so called husband's first marriage, then she cannot claim anything other than maintenance.   When my dear friend "the mud slinger" says, 'Consummation of Marriage', I wonder why he forgets the significance of the word Marriage. The word Consummation cannot be used in isolation but has to be read in the light of marriage. Unless there is no marriage, we cannot call s*x as Consummation of Marriage. My humbke request to you is to first understand the law and then point others mistake. Just by using third grade slang you may in your own thoughts malign the other, but in reality, you have only tarnished your own image. If you have anything valid, and someone else is at mistake of law, there are subtle ways to express. Just think about this topic and may be after a due thought, you would agree to my inputs.   Mr. Saurav Just read the above article where you have pointed which judge and which High court,I again remind you please make your proffession to say loud as only writing Law consultant below your name will not make you bigger.   //peace /Saurabh..V

Mr. Saurav You yourself say as Law abacus and Law consultant,here is your Silly mistakes where a Road side Law consultant will also not do.Just read it iam providing the links and many more will be added.Don't worry.

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Brother-s-wife-giving-false-police-complaint-and-harrasement-88631.asp#.UkCm6H-9LFw

see in this particular thread where you even don't know the meaning of RCR and judicial separation.In this thread you have mentioned that for judcial seperation 2 years of marriage is needed.Mr.Saurav First Learn yourself then point somebody and don't acclaim yourself as Fake law consulatnt because writing an Advocate or Law consultant or Legal expert doesn't cost anything here. But solving the real practical case of victims does matter's more than only giving your theory and applying forcefully.Mr.Sufferer has rightly guided you in this thread and earlier threads.

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Does-police-has-right--88429.asp

@hard_truth

 

Neither you have read my comments nor have you understood them. Just because you and your fellow friend couldn't understand my comments doesnt reflect anything on my capabilities.

 

 

You have shown reference for this case which you "copied & pasted" from media report? Is this you call citation? Anyways! Media nowadays is for people like you who do not bother about the law but just start jumping by reading the headlines. In this case, HC was pleased to equate such relationship with marriage wherein the man kept the woman like a wife under one roof, only for the purpose of Maintenance Rights and Right of Residence. But such relation was nowhere declared as marriage. In every HC and SC judgment there us "Ratio Decendi" & "Orbiter Dicta". Only a law professional could understand the difference. Wish you could have understood these two terms before 'copy & paste' of the above HC judgment.

 

I don't think there is any use by elaborating any further to you or your fellow friend. It was my mistake that I made subsequent comment after having attended this query once. You guys neither have any knowledge of law nor you have any respect for Ld. Members of the Bar. You should be left at your own which your best fate.

 

All the best!

 

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stupid advocates, I had a BIG laugh reading ur posts here. Point of Samir that if u allow this marriage cause some registration, ceremony performed but the husband was married then it is bigamy is 100% correct. Y u disagree with this? His Bakra guidance is very good. Considers all possibilities.

@hardtruth

Saurabh's comment on transfer petition is correct. Intra state transfer petitions will be considered in HC and inter-state(different states) transfer petitions should be filed in SC. His earlier comment was for with-in the state transfer(city) I guess.

 I am not advocate .i have passed this process................   you are not  leagly married  but in relationship. you can brok relation . settle  with some responsible persons. and take in writing........  you can call me 8427291521( baljit Singh, Ludhiana)