How is RK illegitimate?

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

Amy

@Amy-

Explorer

Posted: 12 years ago

#21

Originally posted by: ilovedhanjanird
@innocent

If the marriage was done legally (Mohan and Meera) wouldn't they have records of it ! So how could he proceed with another marriage ?
And if the wedding was done religiously and in front of society , where is the acknowledgment?
I'm not saying Sultan's dad leaving him makes him illegitimate , but isn't illegitimate kids the ones who were born out of wedlock? The one who society doesn't acknowledge. So Mohan betrayed meera along with his witnesses and never looked back. No one knew anything about it.
If the wedding of Mohan and Meera is true then the wedding of Mohan and Radha is true too.
Radha didn't know of his other relationship, in front of the world RK is the son of MK and Radha. So at the end of the day, illegitimate is Sultan not RK

hi..
i think according to old laws a marriage that happened with all the rites is valid. ( Don't know if my undestanding is wrong, but i have heard an official at the passport office saying that if you cannot provide the marriage certificate, the marriage photograph of you with your husband is sufficient proof to show you are his spouse. this was something that happened a few years back, now i think the rules have changed and like birth and death needing to be registered marriages too need to be registered legally... this too i know coz my friend whose marriage was solemnised in a church 7 years back registered it recently once the rule came into existance. ) in the past marrriage with signing the document in the register of the temple or church was considered legal. COnsidering that MK and Meera was married long back in the past, the temple marriage is supposed to be legal. the proof that MK did marry Meera is there with the photograph, and radhaji herself says she knew of it from the servants and may be from MK himself.
A second marriage accordng to indian laws is a bigamy and not legal, the children from a second marriage is entitled to the father's earnings but is illegitimate considering that the second marriage, even if it happened with all the guests present, is illegal.

please check these links to realise that how the second marriage is illegal

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/pratigya/1556018/bigamy-a-request-guys-please-read-this

https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091028165747AAdXxOp

Edited by Amy- - 12 years ago

Quote

Charu

@Krinya

Trailblazer

+ 8

Posted: 12 years ago

#22

Originally posted by: Amy-

COnsidering that MK and Meera was married long back in the past, the temple marriage is supposed to be legal. the proof that MK did marry Meera is there with the photograph, and radhaji herself says she knew of it from the servants and may be from MK himself.
A second marriage accordng to indian laws is a bigamy and not legal, the children from a second marriage is entitled to the father's earnings but is illegitimate considering that the second marriage, even if it happened with all the guests present, is illegal.

please check these links to realise that how the second marriage is illegal

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/pratigya/1556018/bigamy-a-request-guys-please-read-this

in legal terms (n i'm talking strictly about the legality here)

Special Marriage Act, 1954

26. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages

(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under section 24, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.

(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 25, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it has been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity.

and this law was amended as follows...

"The provision was amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act in 1976 to declare that children of void marriages (whether declared void or not) are legitimate children. The judgment in the present case, relying on the amended proviso, points out that Section 16 (1) of the Act lays down that even though a marriage is null and void, any child of such a marriage, who would have been legitimate had the marriage been valid, shall be deemed legitimate. This legal fiction of legitimacy has been created so that children of void and voidable marriages do not suffer for no fault of theirs. However, children of void and voidable marriages are entitled to a right in the property of only their parents, not other relatives. And they do not enjoy an interest in coparcenary property."

Quote

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

Amy

@Amy-

Explorer

Posted: 12 years ago

#23

@ charu thanks for the info

Quote

Nandini Swarna

@nandinidavid96

Rocker

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

#24

CV's lost brains. RK WAS, IS and WILL be MK's LEGAL HEIR born to his legally wedded socially accepted wife. Though Meera was married to MK, her marriage is legally INVALID and more like a pre-marital affair. Meera can file cheating and sexual abuse case on MK within specific time But can never claim her as HIS wife as the marriage never existed neither socially nor legally except wearing"Ritual Accessories", that are not enough for law. CV's are too busy with sultan to show logic & law

Quote

Charu

@Krinya

Trailblazer

+ 8

Posted: 12 years ago

#25

Originally posted by: nandininandu
CV's lost brains. RK WAS, IS and WILL be MK's LEGAL HEIR born to his legally wedded socially accepted wife. Though Meera was married to MK, her marriage is legally INVALID and more like a pre-marital affair. Meera can file cheating and sexual abuse case on MK within specific time But can never claim her as HIS wife as the marriage never existed neither socially nor legally except wearing"Ritual Accessories", that are not enough for law. CV's are too busy with sultan to show logic & law

that's not true nandu..RK IS the legal owner of all his properties which nobody can take away from him..if the land on which RK mansion was built belonged to MK, then the rights of property must have been transferred long back..to term it as "disputed", Sultan will again has to take a legal route, prove his legitimacy and after that, he's entitled to get only a share of it..since RK and his family own the place and have been living there for so long, koi mai ka laal unko wahan se nikal nahi sakta 😆 However, if the land belongs to Radha, kissa hi khatam..

MK Meera's marriage, if performed with Hindu rituals is legally valid and the photograph as a proof is enough...(if one wants to fight a case , there r many loopholes in the story) and MK's marriage to Radha automatically stands void without the decree of annulment , incase MK did not get a divorce from Meera before marrying Radha..However, RK is their legitimate son (as per Sec. 16 of Hindu marriage Act), bec. Mk and Radha's marriage was acc. to the rituals and socially acceptable..RK has the right over Kundra surname and Sultan too (if he proves his legitimacy)

Sultan is making a fool of himself..at least he shouldn't be talking about kanooni and gair kanooni 😆

Quote

Winzy

@nicegirl_good

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 12 years ago

#26

Guys, MK was an actor and to invalid the marriage just the mere argument that it must have been a photograph taken in different circumstances hence shooting then sultan would again be illegitimate !