Skip to comments.Indian court rules that any couple who have sex are legally married…
Posted on 06/20/2013 6:36:05 AM PDT by Olog-hai
If an unmarried couple have sex, they are considered husband and wifeand would have to divorce if they split, an Indian court has ruled.
When two people of legal age, 18 for a woman and 21 for a man, indulge in sexual gratification, this should be seen as a an act of total commitment and marriage by law, a judge at Madras High Court said. The court said that the registering of a marriage as well as a wedding ceremony were only formalities to gain societys approval. It also said that once two people have sex, this becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, including needing a decree of divorce should they want to sleep with someone else.
The verdict came in a spousal maintenance case where a lower court had ruled that a woman was not entitled to maintenance from the father of her two children as there was no proof of their marriage. Justice C.S. Karnan ruled that legal documents proving the couples life as spouses were more important than proof of marriage.
Nothing about so-called gay marriage in this ruling.
Indian court rules that any couple who have sex are legally married and would need to divorce if they want to sleep with someone else
Oh doggy. Who or what would Obama be married too?
'Course, SOMEone is going to have to SAY something.
Instead of crying "RAPE" .. now the girl can scream "MARRIAGE/ALIMONY/CHILD-SUPPORT
I also saw this as a deterrent to societally destructive sexual practices...
it puts a legal consequence on the man.
And, yeah, I think the ruling makes sense from both a moral viewpoint and a legal viewpoint.
The government is also getting its cut because if it can't make money on the marriage license, it certainly will on the court fees for the divorce.
Wow, this is a fantastic ruling.
Not in any way different from what the prevailing opinion in this country was for about 150 years.
It’s actually Old Testament law, I believe.
It helped protect women from sexual predators.
Can you imagine if they tried this here? The Left would be so apoplectic they’d be exploding all across the country.
Can you imagine how many baby mamas would be in court filing for child support/alimony from these feckless turd men who are just “hittin’ it and quittin’ it?”
OMG, just thinking about this here makes me all warm and tingly inside.
Instead of crying “RAPE” .. now the girl can scream “MARRIAGE/ALIMONY/CHILD-SUPPORT
You DO have a point, and with a good divorce lawyer the “rapist” would have a lifetime of Indentured Servitude paying Alimony/Child Support/ College-University. Makes a GREAT argument for keeping ‘it’ in your pants doesn’t it?
Wilt Chamberlain was married 20,000 times.
1. So, if you are married and have an affair, are you an adulterer or a bigamist?
2. Don’t they still have temple prostitutes in India? What’s this do to that practice?
Temple prostitution still goes on even though it was banned three decades ago. Got no clue if this court ruling will actually give teeth to the ban.
“Wilt Chamberlain was married 20,000 times.”
So he says but personally I suspect that The Stilt flunked basic arithmetic.
So if a man cheats, he’s a bigamist.
It’s an exciting possibility.
Don’t kid yourself, though. So-called conservatives aren’t all pure themselves. And here on FR you’ll find them defending fornication and anything that can lead to it, too. Pretty obvious who’s guilty.
That was pretty much the Old Testament view. The wedding was just a formality.
This is a child support case. Apparently there is a difference with Indian law. Only married women can sue for support. Thus for purposes of child support, a marriage was established. In the USA, thanks to the ABA model family court law project, we essentially have uniform paternity law which is used to esblish child support obligations.
This article is more sensation than substance.
Right. At two women per day, it would take 27.4 years to rack up that total.
Not impossible, perhaps, but a damn demanding schedule.
Actually, in OT times they didn’t really have what we would call a wedding. It basically consisted of the father leading his daughter publicly through town and handing her over to the husband. Not much in way of ceremony.
So what they are saying is that Bill Clinton has been married to half the women in Arkansas..??..
Bad news, dude
There usually was a major party for weddings that lasted about a week. But it was not necessary, just a lot of fun. In fact after the betrothal the couple was considered married but they usually did not live together until after the wedding feast.
I have to disagree with people on this thread, absolutely insane backward ruling that far over steps proper government power.
Power of which government?
Its a completely impractical idea. it cant possibly work.
It does show that you can have extreme activist judges on opposite side of sexual/reproductive libertarianism (ie so-libs) that can create havoc.
Cool.....I now have 12 wives!
“...I now have 12 wives!...”
Brother, ONE is enough... good lord...
Just picture 12 - count ‘em, TWELVE(!!!!!) - rounds of PMS EVERY MONTH, brother... not to mention PRE-PMs, POST-PMS, and all points in between... Brrr....
That alone should clear up ANY fantasy images!!!
O U C H
You know I’m right.... :^)
I know! I know!
Cycles tend to synchronize with women living together, so it wouldn’t be 12 rounds, it would be 1, but with 12 times the intensity.
“...would be 1, but with 12 times the intensity...”
So it would be Psycho/Emo/Rage on Steroids...
I’ll stick with one... I can run to my Man Cave, blast the hell outta zombies for a week, have a few beers, and then it’s over for 20 or days.
Life is good when there’s somewhere to run to...
I'm completely in favor of marriage and hope to have one myself but way too many people around here seem to like the idea of making "fornication" a crime to be enforced by that incompetent government we all hate. Forget "impractical", that's just plain kookoo.
SOL: A better idea is to discourage opposite sex couples from pro-creation without marriage and vice versa. And no same sex parents.
Sometimes it's one too many.
I really don’t know much about precedent in Indian High Court rulings, but I suspect this would only apply in Tamil Nadu since it was a Madras High Court. Anyway, neither here nor there, most Indians consider TN to be very conservative.
Granted I probably fall in with at least the gov’t’s intention on this one, but it seems to me any gov’t who has this power could potentially say anyone who has sex are then divorced if they were already married, you just need the right nutso judge.
For sure you wouldn’t be married in the eyes of many faiths, no matter what the state claims.
“...one too many...”
“They” did a study once, a long time ago...
“They” found that men who jump off of bridges are single, because they KNOW there’s a chance that they’ll hit the water and still survive...
MARRIED men tend to jump off of buildings...because cement, asphalt, and concrete, well... you just KNOW it’s final!!
“They” said those guys were observed GRINNING all the way down... go figure...
That would stop many men dead in their tracks.
You don’t need to ‘splain that too me!
Yeah, it does kinda speak fer itself, don’t it? Hahah!
Now, now, any man married to me would not only not jump off of a building or a bridge, but definitely not smile as he did it!
Nully, you’d better not disagree!!!!! LOL
No ma’am, wouldn’t dream of it ma’am...
Hahah!!! I hear you, ma’am!!! And of course you know I’m kidding... I’ve been married (forever) for many years, and I wouldn’t change it... My wife is STILL “my girl” after many years.
Nully... I think I got you busted out here by your better half!!! Haha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.