Posted on 06/20/2013 9:22:07 AM PDT by James C. Bennett
On Monday, the Madras High Court weighed in on a spousal support case and inadvertently provoked a debate over what exactly defines a relationship between a man and a woman.
The court had heard an appeal from a woman who was seeking financial support from the father of her two children and live-in partner of five years. A lower court had previously ordered the man to pay child support but ruled that because the woman was not his legal wife, he did not need to pay her anything.
In overturning the lower court’s ruling, Madras High Court Judge C.S. Karnan revealed the reason he ordered the man to pay spousal support, saying, “If any couple chooses to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional considerations.”
Social media in India exploded with comments on the ruling, some humorous (“new euphemism for premarital sex: court marriage,” said one Twitter post), others expressing bewilderment at what was seen as an attempt to elevate the importance of sexual relations in deciding the legal status of a relationship.
Yet activists and experts caution against a narrow reading of the Madras High Court’s judgment, which they say seeks to establish rights and responsibilities in relationships that may not be recognized by law.
(Excerpt) Read more at india.blogs.nytimes.com ...
The reporting seems a bit sensationalist. On the contrary, a plain reading of the matter, and in my opinion as an attorney, it looks simply as if the the judge has attempted to mould the relief made available to the plaintiff in a manner such that a deadbeat dad doesnt get away without paying alimony, after siring two children with her. I dont know what Indian law says , but if there is no specific provision to hold common law marriage on the same footing as a registered marriage, then this would be the only way to prevent the dad from just walking off without shouldering any responsibility.
The court ruled he must pay CHILD support. She choose to live with him with out being married. If she is no longer willing to provide services why should he have to keep paying for those services. He is not a dead beat dad he is just walking away from the lease agreement. I guess she should have waited for a lifelong contract of marriage.
He’s wouldn’t be walking away without any responsibility, since the lower court already ordered him to pay child support. This is just a backdoor way to make him pay alimony to someone who he made no commitment to support. What is next? Go to a prostitute and you have to make monthly payments to her for the rest of your life?
This is similar to the Marvin case in the US which ruled that women shacked up with men have rights similar to that of wives when they break up. IMO that ruling essentially killed the incentive for marriage leading to a vast increase in couples living together. If women knew they could get squat after living with a man for years, they would insist on getting married to protect themselves.
>>then this would be the only way to prevent the dad from just walking off without shouldering any responsibility.<<
That should the point. Child support is a given. But if some lady wants to slut around without benefit of marriage there should be no benefit to her.
If she wants a legally binding contract that includes benefits, they call that “marriage.”
India look like it might be going down the “palimony” rabbit hole.
“He who unites himself with a prostitute is one with the prostitute. ;)”
Right because it’s the woman who’s a slut. ;)
If more women read FR and learned what men really think about them, they might make different choices in life.
No kidding! It’s a bit of an eyeopener.
Not particularly in a good way, either ... it can change the way you look at everyone in your real life. “He seems like an okay person, but what’s he saying in the privacy of the interwebs?”
Consider the number of men here that don’t post on the women hating threads.
Well, that’s a good point.
I ain’t no hater...
The guy in a shack-up is just as bad. Neither the guy nor the girl should benefit.
But you know the woman is subject to greater scrutiny since she can give birth, doing which outside of marriage is the much greater wrong.
IMHO.
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.