Any Law to be adopted as daughter-in-law

I am not sure of Arup ji's marital status. If he has already obtained a divorce, he can have live in relation with someone who also is not already married....

Though it is Arup ji's personal matter, I think many people may get into the false beleif that having live in relationship is OK while divorce matter is still pending in the court, or after one has deserted one's spouse. Hence in my opinion, such misleading advice should be avoided in a forum which dedicates itself to lawyers.

 " @ Arup ji It is not legally permissible for a married man/woman  to have a live in relationship."

--- what i said is legally permissible. live in between a married man and a unmarried woman / widow permissible. live in between man and a married woman  not permissible.

" Who's this silly girl who wants to be adopted like a bahu?"

---    this girl might be a blosming rose, blosoming in a lion's heart.

"man may be guilty of offence of adultery and it would amount to an offence under section 497 IPC".

---   yes, man will be guilty of offence of adultery and it would amount to an offence under section 497 IPC when he will do s*x with a married woman without consent to her husband.

---   if husband's consent is there then sec 497 not applicable.

" I am not sure of Arup ji's marital status"

---   they are right.  by posting i told them

" Arup jee aap dadi maa ke saath live-in karte hai..wo aapki marzi hai.*

---     kon kahata hai ki hum dusre ke marzi se chalta hu?

" Jab dada dadi raaji,to kya karegi gharwali"

-------      gharwali ko dv, 498a karne ke pahele ye baat soch, samah lena chahiea.

gharwali dadi to gaya, lekin hum apna har natin ko ahi advice karunga ki pati ko bhalehi parameswar na mano,kam se kam insan to mana karo. aagar maoka hain to aabhi bhi aapas lot jao.

no late is too late.

@ Arup Ji

Then what is the meaning of the following sentence:

The Supreme court, held that Live-in relationship is permissible only in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous s*x. 

Ambika / Meenal / Bhartiya are right in legal interpretation post of the Author if re. Hon’ble SC Law is taken and I differ Arup's interpretation to this post which is totally bald (read as mischief yah legal meaning I mean) / bad in Laws and financially suicidal under current ambit of all Crl. as well even under any existing Family Laws structures. It is a wrong precedent in public forums. I am not touching a persons personal beliefs though as it is immaterial here.


However in @ Author’s case the current DIL and proposed lady seems to have come to some kind of (surrogacy) understanding (short lived though this que. status is) and or PIL’s medical conditions (may) also is not ruled out necessiting a second women in family and / or further their SON’s special bedroom arrangements with present wife and desire to have second lady simultaneously away from legal marital rights ambit in joint family structures is also not ruled out further r/w finally even Meenal’s short punch line to this post is also not ruled out.



BTW, public forums have limitations to know the delicate facts of any authors but valid legal assumptions are always element of intra-personal debates. Hence I close my so called value addition to this post with generic above two paras which is neither personal nor comment to any great writers here just generic.


ta ra rum pum………


PS.: @ Arup if you may like to rebut above take then post in one reply all and or any one of the above paras instead of multiple posts picking one line here and another line there of abv reply. I am always short of time to read multiple replies of my sentence chopped into bits and pieces; well Sir I miss the continuity is my main suggestions please hoping it may be considered if any accordingly....... J   

it is only possible when a person not having any male child and he adopts such would be DIL's husband as son...

it is only possible when a person not having any male child and he adopts such "would be DIL's" husband as son.

So the riddle finally solved!!

even so she would be called not adopted DIL but wife of the adopted son.....

Clause (iii) of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 prohibits adoption of a married person.

WHY Not adopt her as a daughter?

The Supreme court, held that Live-in relationship is permissible only in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous s*x. 

-----         you may ask cji ref the line.

what i told is perfect and as per law.