LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     02 February 2011

This is not USA-HC tells married man in live-in relationship

'This is not America', court tells married man in live-in relationship
New Delhi, Jan 28 (IANS)


''This is not America'', is what the Delhi High Court Friday told a 22-year-old woman in a live-in relationship with her brother-in-law, who had deserted her sister and two children and sought the court protection on the ground that they faced a threat to their lives from her family members.

 

Justice Hema Kohli pulled up the woman and the 25-year-old married man, saying, "This is not America. You have no right under the Hindu Marriage Act to marry twice. Anyway, the boy has his wife and she is alive and with two kids to look after..."

The court asked Delhi Police to submit a status report by July 26. The court was hearing a petition of Puja (name changed) and Raj Kumar (name changed), who asked the court for protection as they feared a threat to their lives from her family members.

"We are citizens of India by birth, and therefore we have legal and constitutional rights to pray to this court to safeguard their lives," stated their petition to the Delhi High Court.

The two told the court that the woman's sister had no problems with her being in a live-in relationship with Kumar. However, the court frowned upon their argument: "I will not allow you for this."

Puja claimed to have been "friends" with her brother-in-law for the last six years.
On Jan 1 this year, she decided that she wanted to go and live with Raj Kumar. However, her parents objected.

Raj Kumar left his wife and two kids and both started living together in an unknown place in Delhi.

Meanwhile, the couple on Jan 4 entered into a "friendship agreement" for life, so that no legal action can be taken against them, stating that they are good friends for the last six years.

Puja's parents, who lodged a missing person report at a police station, one day came across the information that Puja was living with Kumar.

On the parents' complaint, the police on Jan 6 in civil uniform came to sector-3  of South Rohini and picked up Kumar's father as he refused to divulge information regarding the couple.

Kumar then contacted the police to rescue his father. Subsequently, Puja and Raj Kumar approached the court, seeking its protection
 
 
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/132768/this-not-america-court-tells.html
 
 


 37 Replies

Avnish Kaur (Consultant)     02 February 2011

very bad , VIOLATION of Right to Freedom under COI.

1 Like

Manoj Choudhary (Advocate)     02 February 2011

agree with Avnish Kaur

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     02 February 2011

"This is not America. You have no right under the Hindu Marriage Act to marry twice.'

IN AMERICA ALSO ONE CAN NOT MARRY TWICE.

THE PRESENT HMA IS MORE WESTERNIZED - THAN INDIANIZED.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     02 February 2011

YES IT IS NOT ONLY VIOLATION OF ART 21, COI, ALSO AGAINST THE PRESENT SC RULLING ON LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     02 February 2011

" who asked the court for protection as they feared a threat to their lives from her family members. "

THEY ARE FEARED OF HONOUR KILLING.

 

SUCH ILL ADVICES  ONLY ENCOURAGE THE HONOUR KILLERS.
 

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     02 February 2011

"I will not allow you for this."
 

- THOSE WHO ARE GOING ON LIVE IN, NEED NOT REQUIRE UNWANTED ADVICES.

THEY HAVE TO CHECK THAT THERE ACT DO NOT CROSS THE BORDERLINE OF LEGALITY.

I ALSO ADVICED THE SAME BY THE JUSTICE AND INFORMED THE COURT, THEN AND THERE, THAT, - I DON'T REQUIRE THIS ADVICE, AM MATURED ONE AND HAVE SUFFICIENT INTELEGENCE TO FACE THE THINGS. 

Deekshitulu.V.S.R (B.Sc, B.L)     02 February 2011

It is nothing but a gross violation of rights guaranteed under COI. The Supremecourt verdict on live in relationship is altogether different from what the parties calim in the present case. 

GOD where are U and where R U leading this country.

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     02 February 2011

I ALSO ADVICED THE SAME BY THE JUSTICE AND INFORMED THE COURT, THEN AND THERE, THAT, - I DON'T REQUIRE THIS ADVICE, AM MATURED ONE AND HAVE SUFFICIENT INTELEGENCE TO FACE THE THINGS. 

Arup jee,you are sounding very tensed here.dont worry.no one will harm you and her.enjoy life!

 

@Deeksh*tulu.V.S.R

 

I dont understand wot u mean sir

.are u in favour of live in relations when one or both lovers are married,or are u against it?

 

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     02 February 2011

you are sounding very tensed here

 

-  sorry, i am not tensd at that time and now also.

 

enjoy life!

- thanks.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     02 February 2011

life is for enjoyment and doing assigned duties.

everyone get enjoyment in his / her  life.


(Guest)

@author, nice post .

I am very much surprised how Courts say contractictory things.I read a post few days back in this forum where a 18 year old girl is protected by Court in live in relationship with a married man from her family members.How she got protection in doing a illegal thing??As per SC both parties should be unmarried in a valid live in relationship.

1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     02 February 2011

yes, what ms utpala says are my opinion also.

WHERE LIFE IS AT STAKE, THE FIRST JOB OF A COURT OR POLICE IS TO PROTECT THE LIFE & LIBERTY OR RESIST THE WICKED PERSONS.

As per SC both parties should be unmarried in a valid live in relationship

- NOT VERY PERFECT.

- iT IS TO BE SEEN THAT, THE FEMALE MUST NOT BE A WIFE OF A PERSON.

Manoj Choudhary (Advocate)     02 February 2011

This is the only thing which is in favour of men in the world of these biased laws. who has been desseerted by his wife just to fulfill the requirement of her parents and to complete the commitment which she had done with their b/fs before marriage.

 

@ Roshni

I think you r  living in the decade of 1990-2000

If you come in the society(2000-10) then you will realize what is the exact situation is right now.

What will u say about those girls/ladies who just desserted her husbands and file file 498A/DP act./125CRPS

Then Wait for husband to file divorce and wait for Huge Alimony.

As per Roshni, he still has to wait for her to come. Is it fare?

Everybody in india is aware of the facts that these laws are getting misused(Even supreme court.)

I think now supreme courd has realised and atleast made this law in favour of Men

Thanks to the Justice of SC

Anonymous1 (fjslfj;)     02 February 2011

I am wondering when the Judge says that  "This is not USA-HC tells married man in live-in relationship", doesnt he know that all the laws in India are not made by India but are copied (and customized) from Ancient Roman Law & English Common Law??


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

LCI Learning Hindu Laws


Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query