| |
Legal Needs
| [This Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts] | | Topics |
|
| |
Nov 11, 2008 6:01 am |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins |
RVIyengar
| |
One of the legally accepted definitions of live-in relationship is as follows:
{QUOTE]
“A living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage.”
“Couples cohabit, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility before they commit to a legal union. They may want to maintain their single status for financial reasons. In some cases, such as those involving gay or lesbian couples, or individuals already married to another person, the law does not allow them to marry. In other cases, the partners may feel that marriage is unnecessary. Whatever the reasons, between 1970 and 1990, the number of couples living together outside of marriage quadrupled, from 523,000 to nearly 3 million. These couples face some of the same legal issues as married couples, as well as some issues that their married friends need never consider.”
[UNQUOTE]
--
In fact what we call “live-in” could be a convenient sexual affair, sharing of bed, accommodation, etc., if not for the long-term (possible) nature of the relationship.
Also, the arrangement involves sexual relationship and possible birth of children (in case of heterosexual relationships), and possible resultant disputes with regard to custody of children, etc. in case of a split after years of living together.
Hence it is important that the legal system has some sort of mechanism to sort out such disputes. It is wrong to think that everyone would be cool enough to sort out their muck.
Once a child comes into the picture, there is a third person involved. In matters such as these, if there is no legal recourse, it is the women who will suffer the most.
In other words, there is an immense possibility for disputes of legal nature to arise in live-in relationships, and hence the legal system should not be caught unawares.
--
Another thought: Though the legal provisions related to Hindu marriage do not recognize the second or third (etc.) marriage of the Hindu man, the Apex court has already ruled that even in the case of an illegal second marriage, the wife is entitled to maintenance if the husband deserts her.
In a sense, the second wife of the Hindu man is cohabiting or living-in with the man.
--
Would like to draw the attention of eminent minds here to the case of tennis star Martina Navratilova. Navratilova had a long-term lesbian relationship with one Judy Nelson from 1984 to 1991. Their split in 1991 led to a legal battle, with Judy Nelson filing a 'palimony' (Pal + alimony) suit against Navratilova.
Private Reply to RVIyengar (new win) |
|
| |
|