According to the Madras high court an unmarried couple of legally marriageable age is considered married once they have pre-marital sex, and the ‘husband’ in such marriage cannot marry someone else without getting a court decree of divorce from the ‘wife’, reports the Hindu.
Gems from justice Karnan’s order:
“[…] 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… Legal rights applicable to normal wedded couples will also be applicable to couples who have had sexual relationships which are established.”
“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 thehusband’ of the petitioner. Therefore, the children born to them are legitimate children and the petitioner is the legitimate wife of the respondent.”
He said that either party to a relationship could approach a family court for a declaration of marital status by supplying documentary proof for a sexual relationship. In this case, the man had officially admitted that the woman was his wife, by signing the ‘live birth report’ of his second child and giving his consent for a Caesarean section for the birth, according to the court. Furthermore, he ordered the ‘husband’ to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 500 to his ‘wife’. [The Hindu]
Update: Firstpost criticises The Hindu report of the judgment and headline (Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married’) as sensationalist, arguing that the judge, despite a number of obiter “incendiary statements”, “is clearly ruling on the issue of domestic partnership, awarding rights to couples who may not legally married but have lived together in every other way as spouses”.
Comments
Comparing that with the LI headline is pretty much like reading The Hindu vs. reading the Times of India. Throws a lot of light on the culture and style of each of these websites :-)
Comparing that with the LI headline is pretty much like reading The Hindu vs. reading the Times of India. Throws a lot of light on the culture and style of each of these websites :-)[/quote]
KIAN -- why so quiet?
(Hindu headline, ironically, was: "Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married’")
Kian, should have read the judgment before posting. The firstpost piece appears more accurate, and the "gems" quoted above seem to be, at best, in the nature of obiter dicta. Given that the directly contradict Justic Katju's notorious "keep" judgment, i don't see them forming any sort of law, so lets not panic.
Aside from that, the ratio of the judgment enunciates a sound legal principle that long term civil unions should provide the participants in such unions with the same rights and obligations as that of a married couple. While we can all moan and groan about this being abused by women we sleep with after meeting them at bars, it's pretty clear that such a position of law prevents more abuse than it causes.
I am 38. going on 39. Bachelor
But going by the ruling of the Mad HC, I have been married at least a dozen times already :)
I don't think you have had a dozen live-ins or a dozen children! Have you?
I had the same doubt....
An immature judgement, makes instability of the Hindu Law. . This judgement should be amended without damaging the Hindu law but the judge is in-competent to deliver such social living judgement while drafting/writing. The judge should be reverted from Judge and work as a social worker for a year.
awesome judgment....
gave me an excuse to get a leave:
me: sir i need a leave
boss: what happened, everything ok?
me: ya sir I need to go get a divorce
boss: what?? you're married?
me: sir even I dint know.... apparaently pre marital sex = marriage
boss: what???? really????? in that case wait, even i'll come with you
Clearly some of your observations are evidence of the fact that you have not read the context in which the statement was made and hence, you are criticizing the judgment based on statements which are clearly riddled with erroneous, out of context, cherry picked statements evidencing irresponsible journalism! And seriously?!!! now a lawyer is going to be judgmental after reading a piece written by a person who may not have the expertise to appreciate a judgment?
If I understood the case correctly, the views of the learned judge was made in connection to the issue of maintenance and whether an unmarried individual could claim maintenance without being legally married. That being the context, the judge analysed the facts to note that, although, not being legally married, the fact that two children were born outside of the wedlock and the fact that the said individual did acknowledge in the birth certificates that he was indeed the father of the children, was evidence enough that the couple were leading the life akin to a married couple although they were not married formally. It is in this context that the judge provides his observation. Maybe, some of the words used by him are not in the correct grammatical usage, but the intent is clear. That a live in partner will also be entitled to the same benefits as that of a wife if they have been cohabiting together...don't understand the cause of the furor and necessary flogging of a well thought out judgement.
That was just in jest.....I think this is a good judgement!
[quote]not only for the purpose of giving relief to the victim woman, but also to maintain the cultural integrity of India.”
If a bachelor aged 21 years or above and a spinster aged 18 years or above had pre-marital 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.”
[/quote]
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/ruling-offers-remedy-for-cheated-women-judge/article4829821.ece?homepage=true
Also, just in, the full text of the judgment:
http://www.legallyindia.com/201306193766/Bar-Bench-Litigation/read-full-madras-high-court-judgment-on-pre-marital-sex-marriage-more