If you fool around you are married - Madras High Court

by indophile Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:21 am

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/couples-who-have-premarital-sex-to-be-considered-married-says-hc/article4824017.ece?homepage=true

by confuzzled dude Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:32 am

Hatha Vidhi! What would be the fate of modern Kuntis now! I guess they all will morph into modern Draupadis.

by southindian Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:35 am

So according to the law, a large number of Tamils are married multiple times?

Can you check if any of the judges is Hindian? Can't be a Tamil.

by indophile Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:01 am

southindian wrote:

So according to the law, a large number of Tamils are married multiple times?

Can you check if any of the judges is Hindian? Can't be a Tamil.

Only one judge's name is mentioned in the story, and he is Justice Karnan (I thought only in the northeastern part of India kids are given names like Duryodhana, Karna, Draupadi, etc.; obviously not so). May be the justice was trying to ordain respectability into even less than the so called 'Self-respect" marriages.

by southindian Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:06 am

indophile wrote:
southindian wrote:

So according to the law, a large number of Tamils are married multiple times?

Can you check if any of the judges is Hindian? Can't be a Tamil.

Only one judge's name is mentioned in the story, and he is Justice Karnan (I thought only in the northeastern part of India kids are given names like Duryodhana, Karna, Draupadi, etc.; obviously not so). May be the justice was trying to ordain respectability into even less than the so called 'Self-respect" marriages.

Ok. Then the judge must be from RSS, Hindu right-wing.

by indophile Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:21 am

I thought "self-respect" marriages are a DMK coinage.

by iTEDx Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:25 am

yeah, I JUST read that too. So guys, the age of polygamy and androgany is here :-)

by garam_kuta Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:41 am

iTEDx wrote:yeah, I JUST read that too. So guys, the age of polygamy and androgany is here :-)

how disappointing that you failed to include polyandry, which doubles the probabilities;)

by iTEDx Tue Jun 18, 2013 9:57 am

oh yeah I actually meant polyandry..lol

by Guest Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:00 am

Marriage : fooling around :: divorce : ?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:01 am

indophile wrote:
southindian wrote:

So according to the law, a large number of Tamils are married multiple times?

Can you check if any of the judges is Hindian? Can't be a Tamil.

Only one judge's name is mentioned in the story, and he is Justice Karnan (I thought only in the northeastern part of India kids are given names like Duryodhana, Karna, Draupadi, etc.; obviously not so). May be the justice was trying to ordain respectability into even less than the so called 'Self-respect" marriages.

The DKHeads like to have names like Karnan, Ravanan to show that they are anti-religion (actually anti-hindu), and all villains of the history (includes Stalin, Lenin, hitler, etc...).

As someone was saying....if this is meant to discourage "pre-marrying", it will have the counter effect - if at all. The concept of marriage itself is reduced to a word in the dictionary. No official marriage or divorce is needed now.

by indophile Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:14 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
indophile wrote:
southindian wrote:

"The court further said if necessary either party to a relationship could approach a Family Court for a declaration of marital status by supplying documentary proof for a sexual relationship."

Documentary proof of physical relationship! Has the court gone nuts? Are they looking for 8x10 glossies?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:03 am

indophile wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/couples-who-have-premarital-sex-to-be-considered-married-says-hc/article4824017.ece?homepage=true

My question to Judge Karnanvaal:

what happens when someone has an affair... will they be considered "married" without consent of the first spouse, and liable to be prosecuted?

What happens in the case of a Musalman-Kafir/infidel pair?

So many perguntas..

by Guest Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:06 am

The judge is out of his mind. Plain and simple!

by southindian Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:09 am

indophile wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
indophile wrote:
southindian wrote:

"The court further said if necessary either party to a relationship could approach a Family Court for a declaration of marital status by supplying documentary proof for a sexual relationship."

Documentary proof of physical relationship! Has the court gone nuts? Are they looking for 8x10 glossies?

There are many "Marriage documentary evidences" floating on the Internets.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:16 am

the asininity of this ruling notwithstanding, are you all reading comprehension impaired? the headline says, "Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC". it doesn't say anything about extramarital sex. so where does the question of multiple spouses as a result of this ruling arise?

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:17 am

kinnera wrote:The judge is out of his mind. Plain and simple!

agreed.

by Hellsangel Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:24 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the asininity of this ruling notwithstanding, are you all reading comprehension impaired? the headline says, "Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC". it doesn't say anything about extramarital sex. so where does the question of multiple spouses as a result of this ruling arise?

By law, polygamy is illegal.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:25 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the asininity of this ruling notwithstanding, are you all reading comprehension impaired? the headline says, "Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC". it doesn't say anything about extramarital sex. so where does the question of multiple spouses as a result of this ruling arise?

Well... let us parse this a little.

You have a married couple... They individually have affairs, and planning to dump their current spouses and remarry.

We realize most commoners like myself are not great thinkers and that is something the "esteemed" Judge should have thought through.

by Guest Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:26 am

What about premarital sex with multiple partners.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:30 am

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the asininity of this ruling notwithstanding, are you all reading comprehension impaired? the headline says, "Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC". it doesn't say anything about extramarital sex. so where does the question of multiple spouses as a result of this ruling arise?

By law, polygamy is illegal.

Only if the previous wives complain...

Half the movie stars and politicians would be in jail otherwise.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:32 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:What about premarital sex with multiple partners.

good point. this judge is an idiot. who made him a judge? and he is a high court judge. what a fall from the likes of chief justice m.m.ismail!

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 18, 2013 11:37 am

maybe the judge thinks this is not a problem. he himself has two spouses - his left hand and his right hand.

by iTEDx Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:30 pm

MaxEntropy_Manthe asininity of this ruling notwithstanding, are you all reading comprehension impaired? the headline says, "Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC". it doesn't say anything about extramarital sex. so where does the question of multiple spouses as a result of this ruling arise?

Come on...THAT is the asininity! Question of Multiple spouses arises, as people may be having multiple sexual partners pre- marriage, while dating multiple people, which is common and normal.

by Petrichor Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:47 pm

iTEDx wrote: as people may be having multiple sexual partners pre- marriage, while dating multiple people, which is common and normal.

in chennai?

by Guest Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:49 pm

I am just glad the judge is not from madhya pradesh or uttarakhand... you madrasis would have ripped this thread apart, lol.

by southindian Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:54 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:What about premarital sex with multiple partners.

good point. this judge is an idiot. who made him a judge? and he is a high court judge. what a fall from the likes of chief justice m.m.ismail!

Max, Is that it? That's too mild. Are you ok?

No cultural reference, region reference [Hint: NorthIndian/SouthIndian], religion reference?

I'm truly disappointed with you Max.

by indophile Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:58 pm

kinnera wrote:The judge is out of his mind. Plain and simple!

Assuming he has a mind.

by Petrichor Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:59 pm

I think Karnan's gesture is a big thumbs-up for women power and women's rights. If you ask her to make the bed, then you better lay/...sleep on it.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:01 pm

southindian wrote:
I'm truly disappointed with you Max.

you've been at this for a while, but it's not working for you, is it? you are definitely not toothseeker as some others have suggested. he was far too entertaining. but you do follow me around everywhere. in fact a great role model for my new dog.

by iTEDx Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:03 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:
iTEDx wrote: as people may be having multiple sexual partners pre- marriage, while dating multiple people, which is common and normal.

in chennai?

-- Why not? Anywhere.

by iTEDx Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:10 pm

...but i think this law will soon be overruled or something, this sounds like a joke

by goodcitizn Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:11 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe the judge thinks this is not a problem. he himself has two spouses - his left hand and his right hand.

Yes, in the sexual context, one with two is a threesome, one with one is a twosome, and one alone is handsome.

by iTEDx Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:23 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:maybe the judge thinks this is not a problem. he himself has two spouses - his left hand and his right hand.
Yes, in the sexual context, one with two is a threesome, one with one is a twosome, and one alone is handsome.

-- Hahahha hilarious!

by southindian Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:39 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
southindian wrote:
I'm truly disappointed with you Max.

you've been at this for a while, but it's not working for you, is it? you are definitely not toothseeker as some others have suggested. he was far too entertaining. but you do follow me around everywhere. in fact a great role model for my new dog.

Ha ha...

Angry? Upset Max? Smile

Why?

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:44 pm

So, the female lawyer who was on the video with Abhishek Manu Singvi is actually better off now. She went to him for a "recommendation" for a legal post. Now she can file for property rights. Similarly, the actress who was ding-dong-ing with swamy Nityananda maharaj ji can change her earlier position and claim to have had wild sex with him.

by Kris Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:35 am

indophile wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/couples-who-have-premarital-sex-to-be-considered-married-says-hc/article4824017.ece?homepage=true

>>>> The guy in the case cited co-habited with a woman and had a couple of kids with her and signed off on a caesarian procedure. There could be a case here for "common- law" marriage. It is difficult to believe that a sitting judge would extrapolate out of it a broader definition to include a roll in the hay in the same category. I wonder if something got lost in the re-telling of the story by the newspaper. On a tangential note, I am not sure why marriage would be a prerequisite for the woman to claim child support, as long as paternity is established. Of course that may be the law of the land, but if it is, I would be curious as to why that is the case..

by Captain Bhankas Wed Jun 19, 2013 2:46 am

let's all wait for mr katju to weigh in with his opinion, shall we?

If you fool around you are married - Madras High Court Katju_says_judg17361

by indophile Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:22 am

iTEDx wrote:...but i think this law will soon be overruled or something, this sounds like a joke

It may not be the law that's the problem, it's the interpretation by that judge. For example, if the law says - "saptapadi" is what constitutes Hindu marriage, this judge might interpret the couple walking together (i.e., taking steps together) to see a movie before ..... itself as saptapadi, and the people smoking cigarettes on the street as supplying fire for the ritual.

by Sponsored content