Friday, April 7, 2017

Supreme Court says not Married lived like husband and wife Children born are legitimate

Children born of live-in relationships are legitimate, Supreme Court says

The Supreme Court has said that if a man and woman “lived like husband and wife” for a long period and had children, the judiciary would presume that the two were married.

It’s OK to want a better life an a life patner

Giving an important clarification on live-in relationships, the Supreme Court has said that if a man and woman “lived like husband and wife” for a long period and had children, the judiciary would presume that the two were married.
A bench of Justices B S Chauhan and J Chelameswar on Monday issued the clarification on a petition filed by advocate Uday Gupta, who had questioned certain sweeping observations made by the Madras high court while dealing with the issue of live-in relationships. Importantly, the SC said children born out of prolonged live-in relationships could not be termed illegitimate.
We’ve often heard “you have to kiss some frogs before you find your handsome prince”. But it seems that women today are not interested in plunging into holy matrimony even if the prince were to pop up. Good bye child marriages and good bye arranged marriages! It’s now the era of career-driven individuals. Women no longer want to be born, brought up, and become just an extension of men
.
Someone’s daughter, someone’s sister, someone’s wife and someone’s mother is no longer the desired identity. Women want to explore their potential, establish themselves and rise to great heights professionally; they enjoy their economic independence and the fact that their lives are a masterpiece coloured by their own choices. As a result, marriages are a “later in life” agenda for most. Instead of being married off in their teens, women are waiting till as late as 40 and consequently premarital sex and live-in relationships seem the obvious options to keep life and hormones in balance.
I’m not going to moralise or sermonise the obvious merits and demerits of such options, to each his or her own, but there’s a certain ruthlessness I see in the fervour for self-gratification which is honestly quite off putting. Random sex, one-night stands and flings with multiple strangers (sometimes in 100’s), just because you can, or just for the fun of it, seems actually purposeless, rather than purposeful. Fact is, it’s a very personal space you’re sharing, and there are bound to be major emotional and physical repercussions to such indiscriminate actions. I can understand enjoying and exploring sex with no strings attached as an experience and not wanting to jump into commitment, but I just can’t understand the desire to be a public toilet. It’s not just about the numbers; it’s also the mechanical ruthlessness of it.
Gupta had challenged the HC’s observation that “a valid marriage does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnized”.
His counsel, M R Calla, sought deletion of the HC’s observations terming them as untenable in law. He apprehended that these remarks could demolish the very institution of marriage.
The bench went through the judgment and said the HC’s observations could not be construed as a precedent for other cases and would be confined to the case in which these were made.
he Supreme Court has said that if a man and woman “lived like husband and wife” for a long period and had children, the judiciary would presume that the two were married. It’s OK to want a better life an a life patner Giving an important clarification on live-in relationships, the Supreme Court has said…

No comments:

Post a Comment