Expert advice

Mr. Rajeev,

I disagree to your ignorance text book reply.

1. In the year 2008 Kolkatta HC stayed Lok Adalat mutual consent divorce Order on grounds of fraud / misrepresentation in case of ref.: Dipika Das Vs. Sanjib Das.

2. In the year 2010 Hon'ble Apex Court reviewed Lok Adalat mutual consent divorce Order on grounds of contempt jurisdiction in case of ref.: Dr. Ashish Ranjan Vs. Dr. Anupama Tandon & Anr.

So what are you guiding here and there are many more such case laws where a superintending Court has reviewed Lok Adalat mutual Consent awards in reference to Family Law leave on grounds of fraud / misrepresentation besides I am not touching other Codes / Acts where Lok Adalat decisions where successfully re-opened to completely disagree to you here.

@ Stalker,

Next time you thumb down me here at least aspire to come anywhere near my shadow and atleast don't reply to legal postings if you donot know law / procedures and this rebuttal is in ref. to your comment to me about bigamy advice in a thread.

Hi Tajob Sir,

I read all your replies to different issues. You are just awesome. Can you please help me as well as i am stuck badly. I have posted on Forum my issues under Forced Marriage. I will be very thankful to you for your advise.

@ Stalker - Sorry for sending my message to Tajob through your post. I cant send them message directly so used this. I hope you wont mind.

@Tajob

Bro,

Thanks for the prompt, accurate reply and for the concern on my query :-) It only increased my admiration to you and to your legal knowledge on the subject. Kudos to you.

@Other thread

Bro,

If you have not watched "karate kid" movie, please do watch it. You are the jackie chan of the movie, a D4(Directive leadership) and I am just the kid a mere "D1". I neither wanted to challenge you or your knowledge. I didnt see any law, justice or procedure in an advice motivating to fake. With all honesty, I dont encourage faking as the spirit itself is lost when someone does it. Now please dont take it as "gyan" or something. I am only conveying to you that you should leave people to convey be it either appreciate or condemn!!

I am not here to belittle someone and most importantly not the legal experts here and I appologise if I have sounded like one.

Now then this is going to be trouble I guess :-(

If the MOU says the other party should not raise concerns over pre,post marriage things and get it agreed by them. Are we good?

@ stalker, please do minimum reasearch to the referenced context and only you can raise your doubts and not a challenging mode, i know you started following family laws recently, though I am not expert, you should  see the merit of the posts and your knowledge on that . This, I fail to see in your postings

At one instance  you intervened with two liner on the subject where I discussed with bigamy prospectous for future live-in relationship, with simple "period " statement ,without even minimum research on the topic.  And you dont even know, there is SC judgement which says FIR  shoulde be filed for bigamy, even if wife does not have  convincing proof submitted to PS  for second marriage to initiate bigamy  charge and it is purely dicretion of court to see the validity of second marriage.

@Mani

You are mixing up all the contexts and coming up with your own understanding on my posts. You have to see that I am clearly not interested in the debate of these issues.

Please understand filing an FIR and counting relationship with GF  as a bigamy offence are two different things and If you cant see the difference, its not my mistake.

If you still want to argue on the topic, please provide me the SC judgement and/or otherwise dont jump-in, I never asked you for any kind of gyan. It would be wise for both us to leave the topic here and move on.

@ Stalker, it is you who jumped at my response to someone post, and that thread was for a man who was live in relationship and bearing child out of that, not for GF... ok.. and my response was to possiblity for bigamy for live-in bearing child out of relationship. 

When you say you never asked gyan, why in first place you came with rebuttal to my response to someone and too without full response, better move on if you dont connect at all points. Period.

See I am quoting your own statements and hope that you understand that you are making wrong statements.

>   there is SC judgement which says FIR  shoulde be filed for bigamy, even if wife does not have  convincing proof submitted to PS  for second marriage to initiate bigamy  charge and it is purely dicretion of court to see the validity of second marriage.

>   that thread was for a man who was live in relationship and bearing child out of that, not for GF... ok.. and my response was to possiblity for bigamy for live-in bearing child out of relationship.

It is not BIGAMY boss, not at all. BIGAMY is all about two legal marriages. If a child is born out of a relationship then also it doesnt count under BIGAMY. The guy will be in trouble only on a double fault( like both ladies colloborate to screw the guy)

Ciao.

@ Stalker,

Where did in that post I said he will be punished for bigamy? I said only he can be charged for bigamy.. to initiate Bigamy just a minmum evidence that wife poses with credibilty is good enough. But punishment under section 17 of 494 or 495 is different.

I too know boss for bigamy either of the wife need to provide proof for both marriages. Marriages that are solemnized in nature, however live-in relationship are gaining legal status and in future one cannot discharge such possibilty.

so let us leave space and close this as neither you nor me evolved as professional with credible amount of experience.

( Last reply)

Hello,

The case that @ Mani is talking here is ref. K Neelavani Vs.State Rep.By Insp.Of Police & Ors. Criminal Appeal no.574 OF 2010 (of SC)

In criminal cases as reference to context under S. 494 (bigamy-second marriage of husband) / S. 406 (criminal- breach of trust) which I as well as Mani proposed to queriest in two seperate threads, therein courts won’t quash the charge sheet if the husband merely says that allegations are false (he is just having live-in or the child is definitely his but no marriage took place etc. as respective pleas).

“It has to be borne in mind that while considering the application for quashing the charge sheet, the allegations made in the first information report (FIR) and the material collected during the course of the investigation are required to be considered.”

“Truthfulness of the allegation made by the aggrieved wife is not fit to be gone into at this stage, as it is always a matter of trial. Whether essential ceremonies of the marriage were gone into or not is also a matter of trial,”

@ Stalker

Now care to take dig at above Apex Court judgment on bigamy motion :-)

I also want stalker to read few interesting judgements, since i accept his word bro and neglect me calling my talk "sh*t"

In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v Suruttayan Andalli Padayachi & Ors. The Supreme Court allowed presumption of marriage u/s 114 of Evidence Act out of live-in relations and presumed that their children were legitimate. Hence, they are rightfully entitled to receive a share in ancestral property. In the instance case, Mariammal claim her brothe Muthu Reddiars property who died unmarried and intestate. Rengammal lived-in with Muthu and had children from that bond. After his death, she claimed inheritance. Earlier Rengammal had married Alagarasami Reddiars (who was alive) but they didn't live together because of undissolved marriage between them. The trial Court did not accept her live-in claim. Her first appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court held the judgment in favour of live-in partner.

In the cases prior to independence like A Dinohamy v Blahamy the Privy Council laid down a broad rule postulating that, where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage

After independence the first case that can be reviewed is Badri Prasad v Dy. Director of Consolidation  wherein the Supreme Court recognized live-in relationship as valid marriage, putting a stop to questions raised by authorities on the 50 years of life in relationship of a couple.

In Radhika v. State of M.P. the SC observed that a man and woman are involved in live in relationship for a long period, they will treat as a married couple and their child would be called legitimate.

In Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and Other  on 16.09.2009, the SC also observed that it is not necessary for woman to strictly establish the marriage to claim maintenance under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. A woman living in relationship may also claim maintenance under Sec.125 Cr.P.C

The Maharashtra Government in Oct. 2008 approved a proposal suggesting a woman involved in such a relationship for a 'reasonable period' should get status of a wife. The Malimath committee had also suggested that the word 'wife' under Cr.P.C. be amended to include a 'woman living with the man like his wife' which means the woman would also be entitled to alimony.

Answers to these questions are changing on a regular basis. Recently Supreme Court of India laid down that, child born out of live-in relationship possess a right to inherent the properties left behind by one of the partners. Bench of Justice P Sathasivam and B S Chauhan said that "if a man as well as a lady are living under the same roof and living together for quite a few years, there will be presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate" 

After reading all this, stalker can live-in false paradise as though live-in relationship for long assumed to be marriage and gaining legal status, a wife also has possibilty to seek same ground to declare his husband live-in partner relationship as married ( example if child birth certificate shows his name as father name)

Thats why I referred "however live-in relationship are gaining legal status and in future one cannot discharge such possibilty" and insisted in other  thread as well possiblity for bigamy exists. But so far situations of similar nature were considered as " adultery" ,  in  future you cannot decide and it is again at discretion of courts.

Please recall in another post " the live-in is called as safe as legally no provision exists as of now, but bearing child with her is legally dangerous and your wife can go and proove it as bigamy

let me add word to it. ( in future at end)

And one legal mistake by my post there,

why even he cant a test tube baby when he has living wife who cannot consent it. Even for test tube baby it si considered as bigmay, then imagine for live-in... instead considered as bigmay it is adultery for test tube baby case.