|
|
|
|
| The Legal Needs Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts |
| [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | Views: 2472 |
| Oct 10, 2008 5:20 am | | [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Vijay Nair | |
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/livein-partner-can-get-wife-status-in-maharashtra/371189/
MUMBAI: In a pathbreaking step towards “legalising” live-in relationships, the Maharashtra Cabinet on Wednesday approved a proposal suggesting a woman involved in such a relationship for a “reasonable period” should get the status of a wife. The proposal is based on the recommendations of the Justice Malimath Committee which said that if a man and a woman are living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period, the man shall be deemed to have married the woman according to customary rights of either party.
The committee had also mooted that the definition of the word ‘wife’ under Section 125 of the CrPc be amended to include a woman living with the man like his wife for a reasonably long period.
The proposal was passed at a meeting of the State Cabinet. As per Section 125 of the CrPc, the woman would even be entitled to alimony, an official said. As CrPC is in the concurrent list of the Constitution, the Cabinet proposal would be sent to the Centre for obtaining President’s assent, the official said.
Private Reply to Vijay Nair |
| Oct 10, 2008 5:50 am | | re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Arrrgh...this definitely is making me scream
1. It's very sexist..rights of a 'wife'...definition of a 'wife';
2. I guess people choose to live in cos they don't want the law to interefere in their relationship in the first place...this will kind of frustrate the very 'essence' of live in...here I would like to quote Osho
'You are in love with a woman or a man and immediately you start thinking of getting married. Make it a legal contract. Why? How does the law come into love? The law comes into love because love is not there. It is only a fantasy, and you know the fantasy will disappear. Before it disappears settle down, before it disappears do something so it becomes impossible to separate.
In a better world, people will love, love immensely, but their love will remain a relating not a relationship. And I am not saying that their love will be only momentary. There is every possibility their love may go deeper than your love, may have a higher quality of intimacy, may have something more of poetry and more of godliness in it. And there is every possibility their love may last longer than your so-called relationship ever lasts. But it will not be guaranteed by the law, by the court, by the policeman. The guarantee will be inner. It will be a commitment from the heart, it will be a silent communion. '
Okay this is indeed the mother of all digressions buit just couldn't resist posting on this topic (though you explicitly mentioned 'Info'..n I sincerely appreciate the info).
Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 10, 2008 9:37 am | | re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Jayant Tewari, OutSourced CFO | | The crux of the legislation will lie in two definitions:
1. Living Together - the male who has a wife and a mistress, will escape scot free because he would be able to prove that they were not "living together".
2. "Reasonable Length of Time" - the test for reasonable would always to so vague as to prevent any woman actually getting the benefit of such a legislation.
Further, I think the terminology is sufficiently sexist as it stands and I'd be much happier if it had talked of "spouse" and rendered the legislation asexual in its intent.
Further comments on hold ....Private Reply to Jayant Tewari, OutSourced CFO |
| Oct 10, 2008 10:02 am | | re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | "Living Together - the male who has a wife and a mistress, will escape scot free because he would be able to prove that they were not "living together".
I guess this legislation intends to 'protect the rights' of a female living in with a male as in monogamous relationship...when one is involved in adultery, can one demand any rights by way of alimony or otherwise??
Having said that I personally don't believe in the concept of alimony itself...whether it be the end of a marriage/live in......there should be a law abolishing alimony!!
Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 10, 2008 10:23 am | | re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Vijay Nair | | I may take this opportunity to reproduce the relevant extracts from Justice Maliamath Committee's report: "16. OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN There are several shortcomings or aberrations in dealing with the offences against women which need to be addressed. The Committee feels that a man who marries a second wife during the subsistence of the first wife should not escape his liability to maintain his second wife under Section 125 of the Code on the grounds that the second marriage is neither lawful nor valid. The Supreme Court has held that, for proving bigamy, it is to be established that the second marriage was performed in accordance with the customary rites of either parties under the personal laws which is not easy to prove. Therefore the Committee feels that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period should be sufficient to draw the presumption that the marriage was performed according to the customary rites of the parties. 16.1 MAINTENANCE OF WIVES, CHILDREN AND PARENTS: SECTION 125 CR.P.C 16.1.1 Section 125 of the Code provides for giving maintenance to the neglected wife, child etc. The object is to prevent starvation and vagrancy by compelling the person to perform the obligation which he owes in respect of his wife, child, father or mother who are unable to support themselves. 16.1.2 A woman in a second marriage is not entitled to claim maintenance as in law a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is not legal and valid. Such a woman though she is de facto the wife of the man in law she is not his wife. Quite often the man marries the second wife suppressing the earlier marriage. In such a situation the second wife can’t claim the benefit of Section 125 for no fault of hers. The husband is absolved of his responsibility of maintaining his second wife. This is manifestly unfair and unreasonable. The man should not be allowed to take advantage of his own illegal acts. Law should not be insensitive to the suffering of such women. Therefore the Committee suggests that the definition of the word ‘wife’ in Section 125 should be amended so as to include a woman who was living with the man as his wife for a reasonably long period, during the subsistence of the first marriage. 16.2 MARRYING AGAIN DURING LIFE TIME OF HUSBAND OR WIFE- SECTION 494 IPC 16.2.1 Bigamy is made an offence under Section 494 IPC. The second marriage is void by reason of it taking place during the subsistence of the first marriage. In other words it would be bigamy only when the marriage is otherwise valid. In AIR 1965 S.C. 1564 Bhan Rao Shankar Lokhande vs. State of Maharashtra and AIR 1966 S.C. 619 Kunwal Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court has held that in order to attract Section 494 IPC the prosecution has to prove that the second marriage was validly performed as per the customary rights of either party under their personal laws. If there is any lapse in following the customary rules, the second marriage would be regarded as void. It is not always easy to prove long after the marriage that all the rituals were duly performed. Thus the second wife will be denied the right to receive maintenance. To overcome these practical difficulties a suitable provision be incorporated to the effect that if the man and the wife were living as husband and wife for a reasonably long period they shall be deemed to have married in accordance with customary rites of either party thereto. This shall be rebuttable presumption and the finding shall not be binding in civil proceedings."
While I agree with Jayant on the subjectiveness of "reasonable period" and the exploitation of the ambiguity that may surround the phrase. Legalising "Living in" as sought by Justice Maliamath is to include a woman who was living with the man as his wife for a reasonably long period, during the subsistence of the first marriage in the definition of wife, for the purposes of "maintenance". In my honest opinion, even if there is no consistent "physical" living-in period, the very fact that they represent themselves to the Society at large as husband and wife would be sufficient to draw the presumption. And, this was merely a press-report I posted. For the correct legal definitions, one has to refer to the amended Act, whenever it comes out. Private Reply to Vijay Nair |
| Oct 10, 2008 10:25 am | | re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Amit Karia | | I totally agree, there should not be a law at all legalising live-ins, Love needs no laws and no amount of laws can guarantee Love - the law only helps to spoil what could otherwise have been a perfectly healthy relationship.
It is my personal opinion and sorry if it hurt anyones sentiments.
Private Reply to Amit Karia |
| Oct 10, 2008 10:56 am | | re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | It's heartening to note that law cares so much to protect the rights of a woman...but when a person chooses live in in a way they are saying we care two hoots about yr laws on marriage ...then what rights do they have to come running to the courts the moment something goes wrong???...I've seen women shouting rape when they slept with a man 'cos he promised to marry her'!! Seriously!! Hello!!
What are they coming up with next?? Rights of a woman in a one night stand??!!!Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 10, 2008 11:10 am | | re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Vijay Nair | | Rights are for those who need to exercise such rights. The need arises when one is at the receiving end and is wronged. There have always been laws, loopholes and exploiters of such loopholes. They are surely in a minority as compared to those who are protected by the law.
Even in this case, if a woman does not wish to exercise her rights, law shall not interfere with her choice. Even if she does exercise this option, the presumption here is rebuttable. Private Reply to Vijay Nair |
| Oct 10, 2008 11:29 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Amit Karia | | A true life experience.
I was at a Police station on some personal matters and was waiting for the Sr. inspector with whom I had an appointment. While waiting one sees all kinds of people come and go. One such incident was as under:-
A young lady walks in huffing and puffing in toe with a young working class male. She first speaks to the Constable and narrates the incident which I was able to listen onto. She was waiting on the bus stop and just as she was about to climb up her Chunni/Drape got entangled onto this mans Bag and it tore, she thought the man was deliberately trying to harrass her and brought him to the cops.
The Man was seriously apologetic, explained the design of his bag which had the shoulder strap with hooks, common in most shoulder bags and it was in the mileu of climbing the bus that the hooks must have got into the ladies drape which was a netted drape so the chances of this happening are even more.
The constable tried to explain to the lady that the man was innocent and she should not think too much about it and forget about the incidence and asked the man to apologise and even asked if he would pay her some money to which the poor man agreed but the lady would have no reasoning. She waited to speak to the sub-inspector about it.
What happened next is not shocking for me but might be shocking for most. The minute the lady narrated her side of the story, the sub-inspector, who was handling some other matter prior to this and had got frustrated, slapped this man without even hearing his side, I could see him hitting him 4 to five times only because the lady could see no reason.
Can you feel the humiliation of those slaps only because a woman is always made out to the be the victim in all circumstances and how a woman can use it to her advantage to make life miserable for the man? Where is the justice?
Pray you are not a male on the receiving side of such injustice. I am sure there are more stories of woman undergoing more severe injustice but the law should not be one sided and gender biased.
Pre-nuptial agreements should also be allowed to safe guard the mans rights - any comments?
RegardsPrivate Reply to Amit Karia |
| Oct 10, 2008 11:49 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Amit it was you who said, 'I totally agree, there should not be a law at all legalising live-ins, Love needs no laws and no amount of laws can guarantee Love - the law only helps to spoil what could otherwise have been a perfectly healthy relationship.'
That was a very good statement...now by bringing in men's right would be taking a U turn.
For me pre nups would never work...thats like showing no trust in the relationship to begin with...nipping the relationship in the bud before it has the chance to blossom! But then I'm a die hard romantic n speak from my own perspective & experience...I've already walked my talk by not claiming any maintenance/alimony in my own divorce...'cos when a relationship end the only respectable thing to do in my not so humble opinion is to cut yr losses n move on...but perhaps there are women out their who need alimony after a breakup & may law be there to protect their rights!!!
Oh n BTW the incident you narrated is interesting.
Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 10, 2008 1:58 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Amit Karia | | I think I have been mis-understood - I for one believe exactly as you say it - Romance has no rules and hence no laws should apply.
I am saying in a world where rules and laws are being applied - if they are applied - than a woman should not have the sole rights - men too need protection.
Alimony-not every lady is in position to support herself especially in India so it is acceptable to have the law take care of such a situation. so you are right on that too.
Pre-nup - a more realistic approach towards being able to cut losses if the relation sours - just like one forms a partnership or a joint venture and has an agreement in place in the event of a fall out.
All to their own views though. I can relate to your views very easily.
Private Reply to Amit Karia |
| Oct 10, 2008 2:31 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | |
Ritu is a qualified lawyer and so is Vijay. I do not think Amit is. You may not believe me if I say that Hon. Justice Maliamat was my class mate in law and he went on to study international law in UK. He opened the bowling for my law college team in 1950. Without the brilliance of my brother-in-law who was the attorney general of India or my brother who is known as Indias world actor this Hon. Maliamat had tried to help law. Again he is as old as `yours truly that he may not understand the injustice done to women by the law made only by men.
I have greater respect for the health Minister Mr. Anbumani who thinks only of health and not your outdated morals. I have respect for madam Nalayni who transported her husband to a brothel as living together does not include his right to sex. I have lived together with my father, mother, brothers and sister without having sex with them. I have lived together with Mrs. Charuhasan, an intellectual superior, just for my sex.
Now ..tell me!What is this `living together?
Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Oct 10, 2008 3:29 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
7 Th Thinking Hat | | I don't see how this new law will benefit women. Like many other male-centric laws made by males it will only benefit males.
1) Even a legally wedded wife has tough time in securing her alimony. How Mrs. No 2 will establish that she was 'living-in' and that too for what can be interpreted as a 'reasonably long' time? Young single men men share a room and expenses. If a man does the same with a women does it give her special rights?
2) What if the relation is not for a reasonobly long time but the burden of relation ship- like a child born out of wedlock or the society knows about the relationship and the lade can nomore find a man?
3)Till now legally wedded wife has hope that law against double marraige will protect her from the other women. With this new law such protection has become illusory. If Mrs no 2 is enterprising, she gets what she needs without really marrying.
4) Even if Mrs no 1 asserts her rights and re-gains her man, albeit after a money draining legal battle, her husband's wealth is already reduced substantially by the maintainance demand.
5) Rights of the children born through Mrs no 2 will add another dimension of complication. Her children's rights will be logical corroloray of Mrs No 2 's rights.
6) In a society which is still male dominated, this law will make it easier for men to procure another women and desert his first wife,she left with no legal defense until she proves the living-in.
This is typical of several backword laws we have which instead of letting poeple live an orderly life, hands them a legal baggage they never intend to deal with.
In a lighter vein other immediate threat is that Ekta Kapoor will inflict a modified version of her soaps- Saas and livin-in Bahu mega serials are going to hit you.
Private Reply to 7 Th Thinking Hat |
| Oct 10, 2008 3:32 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Charu...i liked the part where you said 'Ritu is a qualified lawyer'...yeahhhh...yipeeeeee...i already feel like a real lawyer!!! Perhaps Amit ain't no lawyer but he can definitely relate to the topix cos these laws affect common people more than it affects lawyers!!!!
n as Soeb would put it...back to basics...you want a definition of live in first??!! Reasonable also before one can define a 'wife'...one should be able to define live in also!!!Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 10, 2008 3:51 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | 'What if the relation is not for a reasonobly long time but the burden of relation ship- like a child born out of wedlock or the society knows about the relationship and the lade can nomore find a man?'
~~If a child is born out of relationship not for a reasonably long time...she ain't so much a 'lady' in the first place....n I honestly believe only such type of 'ladies' go to courts demanding alimonies...real ladies take their own responsibility.
'Rights of the children born through Mrs no 2 will add another dimension of complication. Her children's rights will be logical corroloray of Mrs No 2 's rights.'....
~~Rights of a child born out of wedlock have been recognised is some SC decision. Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 10, 2008 6:13 pm | | re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Rajat Ghosh | | da , thats called marraige , dear honarable judges ;)))
live - in says it all :)
so much for development of mankind :))
RPrivate Reply to Rajat Ghosh |
| Oct 11, 2008 3:42 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Vijay Nair | | I don't see how this new law will benefit women. Like many other male-centric laws made by males it will only benefit males.
- This is an amendment to the existing law. I suppose, this law as it existed and as it is sought to be amended is only making the society less male-centric. What if this law of maintenance wasnt there in the first place?
1) Even a legally wedded wife has tough time in securing her alimony. How Mrs. No 2 will establish that she was 'living-in' and that too for what can be interpreted as a 'reasonably long' time? Young single men men share a room and expenses. If a man does the same with a women does it give her special rights?
- There are many factors that go into delay or difficulty in securing alimony. For every one case that gets battled out in courts for years, there are two which gets decided in two hearing. Of course, those who read newspapers for their daily dose of law do not get to know about it. If Mrs. No. 1 has a hard time securing alimony, it doesnt mean that Mrs. No. 2 should be kept off her rights. The words "reasonable", "reasonably", and the like appear in umpteen number of statutes. In almost all of them, the Courts have held that there could be no strait-jacket formula to prescribe a definite period to "reasonable". In this particular instance, reasonability would have to be deciphered from circumstances and I am sure as this law would evolve, the norms would stand prescribed. We are looking at a "man-woman" "married-like" relationship here. It is far removed from "two-young-men-sharing-a-room-expenses" situation. Therein lie the "special rights".
2) What if the relation is not for a reasonobly long time but the burden of relation ship- like a child born out of wedlock or the society knows about the relationship and the lade can nomore find a man?
- This "what-if" is dealt with elsewhere in law. Delving upon it would be digressing from the main issue being dealt here. Fow every law and situation, there is a "what-if". That way, the list becomes endless.
3)Till now legally wedded wife has hope that law against double marraige will protect her from the other women. With this new law such protection has become illusory. If Mrs no 2 is enterprising, she gets what she needs without really marrying.
- The protection you talk about is actually a deterrent. The deterrent remains. Read sections 493 to 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In a changing and evolving society the legislature has to keep pace so as to tackle new evils and new cons. IMHO, this amendment is a step in the right direction. What is Mrs. No. 1 is more enterprising ?
4) Even if Mrs no 1 asserts her rights and re-gains her man, albeit after a money draining legal battle, her husband's wealth is already reduced substantially by the maintainance demand.
- "asserting her right and regaining her man" is not a provision available in law. The possible remedies available are maintenance and divorce. If it ends in a settlement, it is the wisdom of the parties involved.
5) Rights of the children born through Mrs no 2 will add another dimension of complication. Her children's rights will be logical corroloray of Mrs No 2 's rights.
- As Ritu says, their rights are already recognised.
6) In a society which is still male dominated, this law will make it easier for men to procure another women and desert his first wife,she left with no legal defense until she proves the living-in.
- This is too hypothetical a presumption to answer objectively.
This is typical of several backword laws we have which instead of letting poeple live an orderly life, hands them a legal baggage they never intend to deal with.
- This is not being imposed. Its an option being provided, which one can avail of. Would society be a good place to live in if this werent there?
In a lighter vein other immediate threat is that Ekta Kapoor will inflict a modified version of her soaps- Saas and livin-in Bahu mega serials are going to hit you.
- I guess its the other way round. It is her serials that are now inspiring life.Private Reply to Vijay Nair |
| Oct 11, 2008 5:14 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Anuradha Sarup | | I find this debate most funny.. if the law proposed had been 'live-ins will 'not' have same rights as married partner' we would have had equal amount of arguments saying how unfair that is!!!
carry on guys lol
Private Reply to Anuradha Sarup |
| Oct 11, 2008 8:15 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | I find your saying 'I find this debate funny' is more funny/silly...in my not so humble opinion the discussion is earnest & everyone has a very valid poit of view...when a discussion come up, it helps people who choose to participate in it, clarify their own viewpoint/notion/stand on a particular issue...& if someone happens to think women should have more 'rights' & I happen to think that relationships should be egalitarian with no place for rights & duties...I don't see anything funny about it. :-)
& I guess the guys here would carry on irrespective of whether you say 'carry on guys lol' or not. :-pPrivate Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 11, 2008 8:36 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Vijay:'Rights are for those who need to exercise such rights. The need arises when one is at the receiving end and is wronged. There have always been laws, loopholes and exploiters of such loopholes. They are surely in a minority as compared to those who are protected by the law.
Even in this case, if a woman does not wish to exercise her rights, law shall not interfere with her choice. Even if she does exercise this option, the presumption here is rebuttable. '
Unfortunately this is what very rarely happens in real life though this is the idealistic view to take...what happens is just the opposite...cunning/shrewd people get away with using law for their own ulterior motives by twisting the laws & the system....here is the story of 3 divorces & alimonies...
At the time I was going through my divorce..one of students who also became a dear friend too was going through hers( she was seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty)...& she chose to push for alimony while i decided i'd forgo mine cos I don't believe in demanding money when the relationship fails ( like ive said 1000 times before too)...now her case dragged on for years...& then the Judge awarded her a hansome alimony of Rs 1200 a month...by this time having moved on & focussing my energies on my studies & career I was making atleast 20 times more than her (not a very large sum by any means but the difference is too drastic)...
& during the same time a friend was seeking a divorce from his wife on grounds of physical & mental cruelty...even as his case was pending the Judge ordered him to pay 60% of his salary as interim maintenance to her even when his son stays with him ..the wife got the money & no responsibilities.
So the gal who was tortured din't get any significant alimony...the woman who tortured got a handsome alimony.
Now coming to the main topic if live in by their very definitions are for ppl who pooh pooh marriage laws but that doesn't stop a woman from running to law whn she feels wronged...
Ergo I hate alimonies.Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 11, 2008 9:07 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | However my main contention appropos this topic is (without even going into the merits of alimony or no alimony)..
there are ppl who show defiance to marriage laws in a show of false bravado but come running to the law (demanding it help them get alimony)the moment they feel things are no longer in their control...how does law allow one to blow hot n cold in the same breath???
(this is the main issue all the other arguments are secondary)
Private Reply to Ritu |
| Oct 13, 2008 11:33 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | Ritu If have read Sir John Salmond on Jurisprudence, He says
Duties and rights are correlative. There can be no duty without a right and no right without a duty as there can be no husband without a wife and `no father without a son.
For him these are the three important limbs of a family. The terms mother and daughter seem to have skipped his mind.
In another part on international law of governance he says,
A herd of wolves would be more at one than as many men unless they have one power in them or one reason in them.
I understood `one power as dictatorship and one reason as democracy. Those were the rules a learnt 60 years back
Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Oct 30, 2008 3:43 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | A study of law spoils both men and women. Men want to use it to control women. Women want to control men continuing as the men's slaves. Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Oct 30, 2008 5:36 pm | | re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Mohan Viswanathan | | if a person already married have such a livein relationship with another lady/girl and statute confirms wife status to such person, what would be the legal status of that person for inheritance . Private Reply to Mohan Viswanathan |
| Oct 31, 2008 2:44 am | | re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Rajat Ghosh | | the one gains either way are the layers
u are born u need a lawer
u die u need a lawer.
in between anything u do ---
u married, need a lawer
want to div , need a lawer
buy a house , need lawer
sell house , u need lawer
darn !Private Reply to Rajat Ghosh |
| Oct 31, 2008 4:53 pm | | re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | If you kill a lawyer you have to pay another to defend you! What a shame? Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Oct 31, 2008 6:19 pm | | re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Vijay Nair | | Rajat,
The same applies to doctors as well and in this money based economy also on chartered accountants. If only there were no ailments, the doctors would die starving and if all in this world were scrupulous, lawyers would have begged for two square meals.
Prevention is better than cure and professionals help in just that. Black sheep are everywhere. It's just that the wise get better doctors and lawyers and the foolish crib.
Vijay Nair, Partner
KNM & Partners, Law Offices
http://www.knm.in/Private Reply to Vijay Nair |
| Nov 01, 2008 2:52 am | | re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Rajat Ghosh | | no vijay,
its not, and thats the reason the lawers make the most , and sometimes go awol, as they can get away with it :)
incidentally , if I was not so lazy, I might study law and practise law, with the good intention of helping others :)
RPrivate Reply to Rajat Ghosh |
| Nov 01, 2008 5:01 am | | re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Mohan has asked the million dollar dollar question in 'if a person already married have such a livein relationship with another lady/girl and statute confirms wife status to such person, what would be the legal status of that person for inheritance . ' I'd too definitely like to know the answer .
Wrt Rajat & Vijay's discussion, incidentally I've always had good experience with lawyers professionally speaking...they have been quite helpful & I guess they handled my divorce very skillfully which resulted in minimum trauma for me...I preferred to speak through my lawyers rather than open my big mouth n make things complicated for me...but its the judges who i hold a serious grouse against...without understanding the nuances of the case they kept seremonising me that divorces are increasing in india 'cos girls can't 'adjust'& similar inane things ( & they are hell bent on not granting a divorce..i guess they fancy themselves as saviors of Indian society by not granting divorces even in situations which just scream for it) but my lawyers had advised me 'let them say whatever...you just nod your head n things will be fine for you'...so better lawyers are indeed a blessing.Private Reply to Ritu |
| Nov 01, 2008 11:20 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | Rithu........ All marriages are mistakes. There is only one act worse than a marriage. It is a divorce.... for it is preparation to make another mistake Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Nov 01, 2008 6:33 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Charu...maybe all marriages are mistakes...but singles still envy all you married folks
 Private Reply to Ritu |
| Nov 01, 2008 6:38 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | But make no mistake about Divorce being a mistake
 Private Reply to Ritu |
| Nov 02, 2008 3:11 pm | | re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | There is no law that prohibits the living in that is considered in this post. What seems to be the object is to regulate the rights and liabilities relating this practice. That could be regulated by just common sense. Any attempt to make rules would amount to creating superior and subordinate status like a legal marriage. Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Nov 02, 2008 4:48 pm | | re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
7 Th Thinking Hat | | I don't understand the need for a law on live-in arrangements. If a man and woman do not want to follow any custom of any religion and still expect the world to treat them as husband and wife, they can declare their husband-wife status before a registrar of marriage and get their relationship legalised. If they did not care/bother to do so why at all the state should bother to 'regulate' their rights and liabilities?. Why perform such unsolicited services when there are so many other issues crying for attention? That reminds me of the barber in Tamil proverb who is so idle that he started shaving cats of their fur.
In any case the law grants marriage status for live-in arrangements only after a 'reasonable' tenure of the relationship. If all along this 'reasoanble' tenure they did not bother/want to register their marriage then they do not need a law to 'regulate' their affairs.
So long as no third party rights are involved the state has no business to enact such law. If the idea is to protect children born of such relationship or simillar such purpose, it is best accomplished by compeling registration of married status rather than legitimising live-in relationships. Existing law provides a direct and straight forward path. Making an alternate route is uncalled for.
Yes, there is no, law prohibiting live in relationships. This respects the freedom of individuals. But there should not be any law to 'regulate' live-in arrangements too. It is lack of respect ro people who follow law /custom.Private Reply to 7 Th Thinking Hat |
| Nov 05, 2008 7:21 am | | re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
RVIyengar | |
A live-in relationship is another form of 'marriage', i.e, without the usual rituals associated with a marriage.
Live-in involves commitment, just as marriage does. It also involves all the pitfalls associated with a married relationship.
Hence legalizing live-in relationships helps in bringing some sort order and providing means of redressal to this evolving trend.
Private Reply to RVIyengar |
| Nov 05, 2008 2:12 pm | | re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | If I use clean unbiased language, uncontrolled by religious Shruthis, Hadis, commandments or biblical verses or any other cavemans rules, a night in a brothel a nikkha or wedding in a church and a live in arrangement are all for physical sex, temporary, semi permanent or permanent cohabitation. Why not get rid of the compulsory system? Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Nov 06, 2008 1:54 pm | | re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
7 Th Thinking Hat | | Reg: Why not get rid of the compulsory system?
Surprised to hear this comment from a senior citizen.
System of marriage and family is a social institution that had evolved in a natural way in almost all religions and races and cultures long before laws of marriage and divorce were spewn from english-frothing mouths. Given that perspective questioning the institution of marraige is like reviewing use of legs as an organ for walking or, thinking why we cannot use hands in addition to or in lieu of legs.
For all that bad things said about marriage and crude and lewd jokes on marriage, most people are settled with it and accept it, with all its warts and irritants.
Eradicating an institution of marriage will hand over to you a new problem, a vacuam without traditional family boundaries that we know understand and observe. It also resolves the problem of responsibility for raising children and inheritance.
Many cases of divorce that are seen these days could be tackled by proper pre and post marriage councelling. I believe that in domestic matters, people need to adopt in a conscious way management principles that are taught in B schools. Communication, work sharing, priveleges and rights, crisis handling, team spirit, conflict resolution are all concepts that are as appropriate to corporates as to even a neuclear family. Court is not the solution for all marital problems; in any case not always.
Charu Sir, your idea is nothing new.
The west had already experimented with free style living by way of Hippie culture that was such a phenomenon in the early/ mid seventies. The hippie movement failed and died a natural death without even any society or law working against it. People had reverted to marraige, conevntional style.
Even OSHO, who propounded a theory of living in a commune -a fluid relationship style- threw a caveat for his experiment; that only highly meditative people are fit for such living. It will be a pitfall for ordinary people. I suppose, considering your age you are not at risk.
There is no use in re-inventing a re-invented wheel.Private Reply to 7 Th Thinking Hat |
| Nov 10, 2008 8:17 am | | re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
RVIyengar | |
Let me elaborate.
Not all live-in relationships are going to have a smooth ride throughout.
And, not all live-in partners are going to settle things amicably between themselves when they choose to end the arrangement.
In other words, a live-in relationship poses challenges only it comes apart.
In such an eventuality, matters involving money (if any) and custody of children (if any) assume importance.
Suppose, a dispute arises regarding the sharing of money they had pooled together (when they were living in) or taking custody of the child(ren) born to them.
If there is no legally accepted mechanism in place, how to redress the grievances of the parties concerned?
In other words, provisions regarding divorce are there, because the law recognizes the possibility of a marriage going awry.
In the same way, there should be some sort of legal mechanism in the case of live-in arrangements, because such an arrangement may lead to disputes which only a court can settle.
Private Reply to RVIyengar |
| Nov 10, 2008 10:17 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | I've said this here before & I'll say it again...if one is so concerned with rights n duties n court intervention when the relationship breaks why not get married in the first plac??e...its stupid not to get married n then cry for legal intervention later...option of marriage is very much available to those who want it...live-ins exist as an alternative to that arrangement ...now making that the same as marriage is redundancy on top of stupidity in my not so humble opinion. Legalised livein is the biggest oxymoron I've come across recently...it simply reeks of hypocrisy...too cool to get married, huh?? but not cool enuff to sort out yr(generic) muck on your own?? Private Reply to Ritu |
| Nov 10, 2008 5:46 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
7 Th Thinking Hat | | Well Said Ritu. Thanks for reinforcing my view point.
But what is left undiscussed so far is the injustice done to a married person,the wife in most cases.
Till Now, if man wanted to marry another women, he needed to obtain a divorce first, which gives the wife an oppertunity to fight her case. With the live-in arrangement, he can simply ignore his wife and have affairs with another women; It may be pretty difficult to prove the live in relationship, or even to identify who the man is living with. How the legitimately married wife is going to defend her situation. And when things have become too late Mrs No 2 will appear from no where to claim maintainance, a share in the property of husband or simply leave her children with the man; and the legitimate Mrs No 1 will take the burden.
It can happen to men also. Think of a women who refuses to agree for divorce but lives with another man.
Some of the dirtiest law makers in Maharastra have come up with a concubine-centric law not caring how it will tear the society.Private Reply to 7 Th Thinking Hat |
| 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 |
| Nov 11, 2008 7:16 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | Here I found a peculiar mathematical result from the increase in divorces. If two humans get a divorce, which is usually to find a better life partner, the divorced two marry two others. Now we have four humans and three marriages. Thus marriages increase by another fifty percent in a society where divorce is common. Another issue under Islamic law is that a remarriage after a Talak is not allowed except when they are remarried to two others and divorced. Thus for a remarriage by the same pair it takes entries of three divorces and four marriages in the Nikkanama. Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Nov 11, 2008 9:04 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Thanks for the appreciation 7th thinking hat...but whatever gave you the impression that I'm reinforcing your point of view?? well we both are against legalising liveins but for entirely different reasons...you seem to be opposing it cos you consider marriage a pillar of society & legalising liveins would harm the society...I'm opposing it cos I don't care for laws in personal relationships at any stage including the breakup, if any...I firmly believe that nobody who doesn't want to stay in a relationship should be forced to do so (legally or otherwise)...if love has gone its time to say good bye without claiming each other's money & assets.
Also you said 'Till Now, if man wanted to marry another women, he needed to obtain a divorce first, which gives the wife an oppertunity to fight her case. With the live-in arrangement, he can simply ignore his wife and have affairs with another women; It may be pretty difficult to prove the live in relationship, or even to identify who the man is living with. How the legitimately married wife is going to defend her situation. And when things have become too late Mrs No 2 will appear from no where to claim maintainance, a share in the property of husband or simply leave her children with the man; and the legitimate Mrs No 1 will take the burden.'
~~You seem to subscribe to theory X of management which translated to this situation implies that men (yr words I'd prefer spouse to make it genger neutral) stay in relationships & don't go out n live with other womaen only cos of fear of laws?? I happen to think that they stay cos they want to out of love, affection, trust, commitment ( n no not the legal commitment but the commitment of heart)perhaps & if these are not resons enuff to stay then there aren't any as far as i think. & not all Mrs no 1 are paragons of virtues whose rights need to be protected...I've seen enuff calculating Mrs no 1s who have abused the 'rights' given to them by law to extract huge alimonies & prolonging divorces.
Venkatesan examine the quote you've quoted carefully 'Couples cohabit, rather than marry, for a variety of reasons. They may want to test their compatibility before they commit to a legal union.' it looks contradictory to your support of legalisation of live in when you yrself claim that it is testing before legal union??
Right said Charu, marriage is the number one reason for divorce.
Private Reply to Ritu |
| Nov 11, 2008 10:34 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
RVIyengar | |
Ritu,
Re:
"They may want to test their compatibility before they commit to a legal union."
I'm afraid that your view regarding the statement amounts to nit-picking.
Youve conveniently forgotten the rest of the points Ive raised in the same post.
Well, the man and woman in live-in relationship can test their compatibility as long as they want.
But what if (that is one big WHAT IF) their relationship leads to the birth of child(ren) and after testing for years their compatibility they decide to walk out of each others life and then get into a custody battle for the child(ren) and money matters (if any).
Who can play the role of arbiter in such an eventuality?
Can the civil society close its eyes to the travails of the child(ren) and the woman (the one most likely to be at the receiving end) in such cases?
--
I believe that the key term in the definition that Ive cited is long-term.
Any relationship that has the inherent capacity to last long-term between a man and a woman is bound to bring problems and disputes unforeseen at the time of their deciding to live together.
Again, two people do not marry thinking of divorce. In the same way, two people do not decide to try out living-in thinking of splitting one day. They hope for the best.
How many of us know about the provisions of divorce law? However, we know it is there and we can take recourse to it when the need arises.
In other words, the presence of a legal safeguard serves as a last resort if things go wrong.
And things, you know, are bound to go wrong in such a relationship. One of the partners might have taken advantage of the other, without the other or both realising it, and so on and so forth.
Not all marriages are made in heaven.
And not all live-ins are going to have a smooth ride.
Hence the need for some sort of legal redress in this case.
Private Reply to RVIyengar |
| Nov 11, 2008 11:21 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
Ritu | | Venkatesan...I'm never interested in nitpicking, i mean what would i gain out of nitpicking??...to me that statement looked contradictory n so said that n thats that.
I'm not the kind who tests compatabilty...my relationships are based purely on love n nothing but love...if love is there I'm willing to fight out any incompatibility that might exist n if its not there then I cease to call it a relationship...n I'm capable of understanding any issue only from my point of view as it applies to my life n lifestyle n having decided early in life that i don't want to have any children of my own I just can't fathom the impact on them as you are talking...from this discussion i've come to understand I don't really care whether they legalise liveins or not cos in my life i'm dead sure law has no place whatsoever in my personal relationships...n i'm sure i won't assert any rights irrespective of whether i'm entitled to them or not n am very sure i'll have a partner who thinks the same...so good luck to people who want rights etc n fight legal battles over relationship issues.Private Reply to Ritu |
| Nov 11, 2008 1:05 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
charuhasan | | Ritu........ But for marriage adultery could never be called a crime or sin. Private Reply to charuhasan |
| Nov 12, 2008 1:46 am | | re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: re: [Info] On legalising Live-Ins | # |
7 Th Thinking Hat | | I think I have not got responses for the issues I raised. Summary of what I wanted to say was:
1) If live-in partners wanted any kind of legal backing there is already a system of marriage according to custom or registration of their marriage. New law for live-in will be superflous.
2)Not only it is superflous, it has potential to infringe/endanger the rights of legitimately married persons as I have detailed in my arguments. Enacting a law for those who choose not to marry will be like making a law for protection of jay walking pedestrians; clarly it is an insult to law abiding people who use foot path and zebra crossings.
I furthur want to say:
As to the issue of gays/lesbians or other deviants, the existing law of contracts provides ample scope for defining their individual rights and obligation of their relationships. I recall that some people in Gujrath had already set an example with their Maitri-Karar contract.
So why do we need a law that conflicts with custom/other existing laws?Private Reply to 7 Th Thinking Hat |
 |
|
|
