poor guy new patient

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

ankit111

@ankit111

Rocker

Posted: 13 years ago

#91

Originally posted by: woman11
<font color="#0000FF">seriously ankit, zabardasti Jagya aur Gauri ki shaadi legalize kiya ja raha hai. Arrey agar unki shaadi legal hoti toh the court marriage would have sufficed na? The court document is a stronger proof of marriage than any proof of live in. But even the court marriage is illegal in this case, live in relationship right to dur ki baat hai?
</font>

this is nothing in comparison of other logics and interpretation of law and even constitution, which we hv witnessed. Thanx God in this forum no one is supporting such interpretation, otherwise we hv seen worst 😉 😉

Quote

Khusi

@khusi_*

Stunner

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#92

hmm...so according to this j has two legal wives!!😆 amezing...!!🤣 hmm...may be there is the rule...by staying apart from each other for 5 years(in long distance relationship) marriage can be turned illegal...!!😆

Edited by khusi_* - 13 years ago

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

lakshmi

@lakshmim_84

Inactive

Posted: 13 years ago

#93

@ muktha,

You have misunderstood the law here. Here is a case of dispute over maintenance between one D Velusamy and D Patchaiammal in Oct 21 2010. It was first heard in family court, then High Court of Tamilnadu and finally by Supreme Court.

Before going into the ruling, i'll give you a brief history about the case.

Mr Velusamy was legally wedded to Lakshmi in 1980. Patchaiammal had stayed with Velusamy for about three years after their alleged marriage in 1986. (Similar to Jagya-Gauri here).

The court made it clear that if the man has a live-in arrangement with a woman only for sexual reasons, neither partner can claim benefits of a legal marriage. The relation can be legal, only if the following conditions are satisfied :

1)the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses

2) they must be of legal age to marry

3) they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried

4)they must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time

The judges said (to quote their words -) if a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship "in the nature of marriage".

As mentioned by woman11, the Supreme Court judgement of Jan 2008 makes a Live-in Relation legal. This was also discussed in the hearing, where the judges said that - The parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'live-in relationship'. .

Edited by lakshmim_84 - 13 years ago

Quote

lakshmi

@lakshmim_84

Inactive

Posted: 13 years ago

#94

Also about right of the child from illegal relationship, The Supreme court ruling of April 2011 states that Children born of unmarried couples are entitled to the property their parents inherit, not just the property the parents acquire on their own.

However, it also states that the children can exercise this right after the death of their parents. So that means, Jagya-Gauri's kid cannot ask for his rights till Jagya is alive.

Plus, acccording to "Will and Section 8 of The Hindu Succession Act" : If a father dies leaving self acquired property, his son will inherit it absolutely. The grandson cannot claim the same as ancestral because it was inherited under Section 8 of The Hindu Succession Act. So if the haveli and other property is a self acquired property of dadisa, then if she dies, without writing any will, Bhairon will inherit it, but Jagya cannot claim it as the ancestral property, and so his illegitimate kid also cannot claim any rights to that property.

So even if gauri thinks that her child has rights to property, it will only be the ones that jagya earns himself and will not include the Haveli and its property, irrespective of whether dadisa writes a will or not.

Also, the child can fight for his inheritance rights only, ie if jagya dies without writing any will, the child can fight for his inheritance rights.

Edited by lakshmim_84 - 13 years ago

Quote

dolly

@tiny15

Stunner

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#95

@lakshmim_84 thanx 4 the "Correct Info" and i m happy that atleast here ppl don't've half-baked knowledge nor they advocate it & its true 4 even G-supporters except for 1 or 2prsns!!

@mukta_cute i know u r educated & i'd just seen ur vast knowledge's proof in this thread only and responses 4 that knowledge also!!!😆😆

Quote

Anmol Jain

@intruderfast

Trailblazer

+ 4

Posted: 13 years ago

#96

😆😆😆iss argument kaa koi ant nahin😛

Quote

gagarulez

@gagarulez

Explorer

Posted: 13 years ago

#97

Legal, Illegal...Illegitimate, Legitimate...etc etc etc gyaan, articles, links...whatever it is...will NOT change one thing...which we tend to forget...

People who support Jagya and Gauri WILL support them (like I do ) and

People who support Anandi will do that...

So why waste time in counter attacks and research 🤣🤣

and like I said earlier...NO ONE has the right to say the other party's "pov" is wrong

Quote

dolly

@tiny15

Stunner

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#98

Originally posted by: intruderfast
😆😆😆iss argument kaa koi ant nahin😛

anmol yeh toh theek baat kahi par tumhe toh pata hi naa misinterpretations of law & constitution!!😉

Quote

dolly

@tiny15

Stunner

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#99

Originally posted by: gagarulez
Legal, Illegal...Illegitimate, Legitimate...etc etc etc gyaan, articles, links...whatever it is...will NOT change one thing...which we tend to forget...

People who support Jagya and Gauri WILL support them (like I do ) and

People who support Anandi will do that...

So why waste time in counter attacks and research 🤣🤣

and like I said earlier...NO ONE has the right to say the other party's "pov" is wrong

i agree on ur pts even that no1 has rt 2 say wrong 2 oder's POV but still there r sum things which r said 2 b rite or wrong but leave it as it won't make a diff like u said JG supporters support them & oders support A!!

but here the discussion was abt the true info of law regarding legality of such cases which was misinterpretated & that half-baked info was s upplied in the name of sum1s POV. and that was the reason 4 whole debate!!and sum ppl like u've seen always made half-baked info as true & it send wrong msg abt our country's law & constitution!!😊😊

Quote

Suchi-

@Suchi-

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 13 years ago

#100

Thanks Antara !!! and Lakshmi!!

I am glad that India still holds marriages as sacred.

There is no way a person can make something correct just to fulfill his whims and desires.

====

Personally I have no problem with Jag and Gauri relationship in and of itself. Just the way it was done.

Because not until recently ( mid 1900's) the law of monogamy was established. Before that many men had many wives and it was a common thing back then.

So what jagya is doing is not something that was totally un-natural.

But there is a thin line here:

1. Jagya wanted to get married to Gauri and not have her as a second in hand thing.

2. Jagya and Gauri married ( to what ever knowledge) they had and then had the physical relationship in other words no adultery going on in THEIR eyes.

Now here is where usually people split:

is second marriage ok?

for those it is , what jagya did is normal

and for those who think its not?

then its adultery

===

So in reality its not what Jagya DID is bothering many of us, its just the way he did it.

So again :

If he had respectfully ended his first relationship and then started another one. No one would have issue rather many would support him.

And if he be from those who think second marriages are allowed then what he is doing is not wrong.