If wedlock turns deadlock, grant divorce, HC says

If wedlock turns deadlock, grant divorce, HC says

As on Manish Raj, TNN | Jun 29, 2014, 04.49AM IST

CHENNAI: It is inhuman to compel two people to live together when their "wedlock has become a deadlock," the Madras high court has held. Allowing a divorce based on a man's complaint that he was being tortured by his wife who kept filing police complaints, the court recently said the sanctity of marriage cannot be left at the whims of one of the annoying spouses. Setting aside the order of a family court, the court granted divorce on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion by the wife. 

Arun Kumar Jain alias Bunty and Geeta got married in March 2001 and the couple had a male child. Disputes arose in the marriage after he found that his wife was elder to him. He moved the family court in 2004 seeking divorce. In his petition, he said Geeta insulted him often citing the educational qualification of his family members and threatened to book them under false charges of demanding dowry and attempt to murder. In November 2002, she lodged a police complaint saying her brother-in-law had tried to outrage her modesty and her in-laws had tried to kill her, Bunty said, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. 

Denying the allegations, Geeta said Bunty was jealous of her educational qualifications and he along with his family abused her in filthy language. In its verdict in December 2010, the family court denied divorce saying the charges of cruelty and desertion were not proved. The next year, Bunty moved the Madras high court. In its order, the bench of Justice S Rajeswaran and Justice S Vaidyanathan pointed to the events after the family court quashed the divorce petition. It said Bunty had subsequently sent a letter and a telegram asking Geeta to come back. Also, after Bunty's family was acquitted in the dowry harassment case, Geeta filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act following which Bunty and his family were arrested, the bench said. 

Instead of solving the disputes amicably, Geeta had continuously initiated criminal proceedings against Bunty which meant she made all attempts to ensure he could not live in peace, the bench said. The fact that she was living apart from her husband for more than nine years showed that Geeta had subjected her husband to mental cruelty and deserted him, the bench said, granting divorce.

Source - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/If-wedlock-turns-deadlock-grant-divorce-HC-says/articleshow/37425302.cms

Pre-marital sex equals marriage, says Madras HC. Swaroop Sarkar Debate on Zee News 19 June 2013

Pre-marital sex equals marriage, says Madras HC.

Swaroop Sarkar Debate on Zee News 19 June 2013

Video

Pre-marital sex equals marriage, says Madras HC. 

June 18, 2013

An unmarried adult couple will be considered married and can be termed husband and wife if they have sex, the Madras high court has said in a judgment with far-reaching consequences, especially for those in live-in relationships. 

Such a couple could not separate or "marry" a second time without a decree of divorce if it was proved that they shared a sexual relationship, said the court, whose order has been described as regressive and confused.

The judgment has created a furore online, with social media buzzing with angry messages. (click here  to read the operative part of the verdict)

"If any couple, subject to their attaining the mandatory age of freedom,...indulges in sexual gratification, then that would be considered as valid marriage and they would be termed as 'husband and wife', as a result of their choice of freedom," justice CS Karnan said while deciding a maintenance claim in favour of a woman who had two children with a man she was not married to.

The court said if the woman gets pregnant, she would be treated as the 'wife' and the man as the 'husband'.

"The judgment seems to be based on the established rule regarding presumption of marriage but the court has stretched it too far. There was no need for equating sexual relationship with marriage, which undermines the sanctity of marriage," former law commission member Tahir Mahmood said.

"Putting so much emphasis on sex is rather obnoxious. To say that without divorce the parties cannot separate is legally untenable."

The court said marriage formalities of tying a mangalsutra and exchanging rings were only for the satisfaction of society, adding legal aspects should get precedence over customs.

The court reversed a Coimbatore family court's finding that the duo could not be considered a couple as there was no documentary proof of the wedding. The family court had asked the man to pay R500 maintenance a month to his two children but not to the woman.

In signing the birth certificate of his second child and giving consent to a caesarean section, the man had officially admitted that the woman was his wife, the HC said, ordering the man to pay the woman a maintenance of Rs. 500 a month since September 2000, when she filed petition.

The Supreme Court has all along held that if a man and a woman live together for a long period as husband and wife, there is a presumption of valid marriage between them and children born of such relationship have inheritance rights.

But the HC verdict appears to have confused sex with marriage as it describes consummation or sexual interaction as "the main legal aspect for a valid marriage".

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Chennai/Pre-marital-sex-equals-marriage-says-Madras-HC/Article1-1078226.aspx

-----

Madras HC clarifies pre-marital sex verdict, objects to criticism

PTI Chennai, June 19, 2013

The Madras High Court on Monday took strong objection to criticism of its verdict holding sexual relations between a woman and man of marriageable age, prior to tying the knot, as "a valid wedding" and stoutly defended the order saying it "protected Indian culture and welfare of women."

Two days after he delivered the judgement, which has evoked disapproval and criticisms from various quarters, including on social media, justice CS Karnan said comments should not be made without fully understanding the verdict.

In a clarificatory order, which would be part of the judgement, the judge 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." (click here to read the operative part of the verdict)

Justice Karnan further said "this court has given the legal relief to the affected woman. Without fully understanding the court's judgment, adverse comments shall not be passed."

"If a bachelor aged 21 years or above and a spinster aged 18 years or above had premarital sex with the 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," he reiterated.

Justice Karnan had given the judgement on June 18 while modifying an April 2006 judgement of a family court in a maintenance case.

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.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/TamilNadu/Madras-HC-clarifies-pre-marital-sex-verdict-objects-to-criticism/Article1-1079206.aspx?hts0021

Woman unable to choose between parents, husband

Woman unable to choose between parents, husband

CHENNAI: Caught between her husband and her parents, a 25-year-old M Phil degree-holder expressed contrasting views — one inside the court and another as she was coming out of it — on Monday, and ended up in a Government Home in Mylapore.

It was high drama on the Madras High Court premises when Deepa, who was produced before a division bench comprising Justice M Chocka­lingam and Justice M Sathya­nara­yanan, following a habeas corpus writ petition by her husband Manimaran, told the court that she wanted to go with her parents but changed her mind when she came out.

When her father, Sakthivel, and some relatives tried to drag Deepa towards a car despite her protests and cries, advocates on the premises intervened. Deepa was again produ­ced bef­ore the judges in their chambers, where Advocate R C Paul Kana­karaj told them she wanted to join her husband but was being prevented by her father and his henchmen.

The bench, in its second brief order, said, “In appraisement of the situation and in view of the safety of the detenue”, Deepa will stay at the government home “until further orders” — and made it clear that neither Manimaran nor Sakthivel should disturb her.

According to Manimaran’s advocate Y Deva Arul Prakash, the couple got married on October 10, 2008, but started living together only this June as they had been pursuing their studies –– Manimaran was doing his BL. On August 13, Sakthivel took his daughter away by force, prompting the habeas corpus petition seeking that she be produced in court. Both Deepa and Manimaran are Dalits but he is a Christian, whereas she is a Hindu.

 

http://expressbuzz.com/cities/chennai/woman-unable-to-choose-between-parents-husband/208671.html