divorce without marriage

If no legal marriage no question of dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce, that's common sense, you're free person to do anything you want. Rest her onus to prove she's your legal wife in court, let her prove it and unless she prove it her criminal charges under section 498a IPC will fail but may not for charges under section 406 IPC etc.

You have adequatly enjoyed live-in, which is not a marriage.

No divorce is required - just say "good-bye" !!!

U live with her in live in relation then it is considered as married couples. Even though no marraige took place.as u have child u cannot escape.

if no marriage then 498A would not be attracted but other charges would be sustained unless acquitted by court. you have no authority to ascertain as to whether the complaint is correct or not. let the court to decide. No divorce is required since there is no marriage. As per law if a man and woman living together then presumption us that they are married couple unless and until rebutted by either party.

Intersting prob.

There have been many posts by many postors advicing men/women facing matrimonial disputes to (mis) adventure into such relationships.

Would you like to share who adviced you and which portal and was any FEE was collected from your?

Was the advice in writing?

Couple living together will be presumed married ,supreme court rulesAmit anandchoudary/tnnapril13-2015 The supreme court since 2010consistently ruled by n favour of couples living together ashusband &wife giving the right of a wife. As u have child u cannot escape.

Having children from such relationship may be a strong indicator/pointer for relationship being ‘in the nature of marriage’. IT may support contentions of OP to claim compensation/damages from male.IT may also prompt the court to decide the matter placed before court e.g; compensation/damages.

 

The female in live in relationship may not be able to file for 498a.

The counsel of female in live in relationship may press that you made her believe that you were unmarried. Since you are posting that you have evidences to defend you may be able to refute the allegations.

The evidences that you chose…

…OR female in live in relationship may chose may prompt the court to believe that you have admitted such relationship and complaints against you can be admitted.

The child may not be necessarily born out of; as pointed out by courts ‘Walk in Walk out Relationship’.   

 

If there is NO possibility ( at any time in any matter ) of amicable settlement of issues and otherwise also you may focus on getting clean chit in inquiry and to get acquitted from court of law. Get acquitted and stay away from partener in such relationship. If some (new/more) cases are slapped in near future, get acquitted and stay away…….OR  If some (new/more) cases are slapped in near future, you may have a cause to agitate and succeed.

Utilize the time to build irrefutable evidences, to defend your long term interest.  

 

You are expecting relief from courts of law.

In lower court also there are Presiding officers/ Judges that are well read, sharp, properly informed, brilliantly intelligent and vested with powers to decide the matter, and you may realize that ‘career concious’….

The court may frown upon anything and may decide to disregard the façade the pierce the veil.     

Courts of law have delivered path breaking, trensetting judgments and have unparralled power.

Your case may succeed or fail or in other words may become another path breaking, trensetting judgment for you or OP. 

 

If you think that you have irrefutable evidences that can establish merits on your side and you are properly informed of legalities, provisons of law, court procedures and can handle the matter on your own; GO ahead.

 

Or attempt and find out a very able LOCAL counsel specializing in Family/Civil/Criminal matters, to help you.

Preferably proceed further under expert guidance of a very able LOCAL counsel as already suggested so as to mind your long term interest(s).

In the meantime you may go thru;

‘Legal niceties would destroy the purpose of the provisions’;

 

Supreme Court of India

Koppisetti Subbharao @ ... vs State Of A.P on 29 April, 2009

Author: . A Pasayat

Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Asok Kumar Ganguly

                                                                       REPORTABLE

 

                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 867              OF 2009

                 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4496 of 2006)

A case was registered against three accused persons including the present appellant for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). Initially, the presence of A-1 could not be secured and therefore court separated the case against A-1 and proceeded the trial against A-2 and A-3. In the said case A-2 and A-3 were acquitted. Thereafter, the present application was filed before the High Court taking the stand that the complainant was not be the legally wedded wife of the appellant as he was already married and, therefore, Section 498-A has no application to the facts of the case. The High Court dismissed the application on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved.

At first blush, it would seem that these observations run counter to the long catena of decisions noted above. But on closer examination of the facts of those cases it is clear that this Court did not differ from the views expressed in the earlier cases

The question as to who would be covered by the expression `husband' for attracting Section 498A does present problems.

If the legality of the marriage itself is an issue further legalistic problems do arise. If the validity of the marriage itself is under legal scrutiny, the demand of dowry in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally not recognizable. Even then the purpose for which Sections 498A and 304B-IPC and Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the `Evidence Act') were introduced cannot be lost sight of.

The High Court was justified in holding that disputed questions of fact are involved and the application under Section 482 of Code has been rightly rejected. We do not find any scope for interference with the order of the High Court.

 

And;

 

Gujarat High Court

Babita Sumanprakash Soni Wife Of ... vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014

          R/CR.MA/7344/2014                                       ORDER

 

 

 

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 

      CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE

                          FIR/ORDER) NO. 7344 of 2014

 

it was specifically held that in  order   to   be   covered   under   Section   498A,   IPC   one   has   to   be   a  `relative'   of   the   husband   by   blood,   marriage   or   adoption.

the Court went on to hold that Section 498A,  IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction and  unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute,  the said statute has to be construed strictly.

Inter alia on the premise that the allegation made against the  appellant in the first information report, even  if it be  given face  value, does not disclose an offence under Section 498A of the Indian  Penal Code, an application for discharge was filed by her. The same  was  dismissed  on  25th  March,  2008.  A   revision  application  filed  thereagaisnt has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the  impugned judgment dated 1st August, 2008.

 

In   the   result,   this   application   is   allowed.   The   further  proceeding of the Criminal Case No.4636 of 2014 pending in the Court  of   the   learned   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Ahmedabad   (Rural)   arising  from the F.I.R. being C.R. No.I­64 of 2014 filed before the Sabarmati  Police   Station,   Ahmedabad   City,   so   far   as   the   petitioner   herein   is  concerned, are hereby ordered to be quashed.  Consequently, all further  proceedings pursuant to the FIR shall stand terminated. 

 

It goes without saying that any observations touching the  merits of the case are purely for the purpose of deciding the question  whether any case is made out against the petitioner and shall not be  construed as an expression of the final opinion in the main matter.  The  trial   Court   shall   not   be   influenced   in   any   manner   by   any   of   the  observations made in the order.

 

 

And;

Supreme Court of India

Dhannulal & Ors vs Ganeshram And Anr on 8 April, 2015

Author: M Y Eqbal

Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, Amitava Roy

                                                                              REPORTABLE

 

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

 

                        Civil Appeal No.3410 of 2007

WITH               Civil Appeal No.3411 of 2007

11. We are unable to accept the submissions made by Mr. Naveen Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant. Indisputably, the first wife of Chhatrapati died in the very early age and immediately thereafter the original defendant No.1 Phoolbasa Bai started living with Chhatrapati as his second wife. ……..The relationship of Chhatrapati and Phoolbasa Bai has not been denied. It has also not been denied that they had been living together as husband and wife in a joint family.

12. In the fact of the case there is strong presumption in favour of the validity of a marriage and the legitimacy of its child for the reason that the relationship of Chhatrapati and Phoolbasa Bai are recognized by all persons concerned.

14. In the case of Gokal Chand vs. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231, this Court observed that continuous co-habitation of woman as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be drawn from long co-habitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which weaken and destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them.

 

Delhi High Court

 

Anil Dutt Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 February, 2015

Author: G. Rohini

W.P.(C) 1045/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

 

These and many other citations (past/latest) that point to how such matters are addressed and decided by courts of law, your own wisdom, and expergtise of your own LOCAL counsel can help you to re-assess, re- examine the evidences that you have and approach that you have decided.

Anyone at any portal (other than you) have nothing to gain or nothing lose from your matter.

Your own stakes are high.

 

The matter that is placed before state and court is decided by state and court.

You can prepare well and attempt to succeed.

 

 

Learned Mr Kumar Doab ji has well dealt with the issue and I too endorse the same.