How to prove married without registration

Ms. Kamakshi, Even I also agree with you. But the begining sentence of Mr. Ramoji is like attacking to other Advocates. Actually he has given his legal point of view in a very broad manner which would have been appreciated if the tounting to other Advocates does not exists in the begining of his write up. But his introduction creates an irk and less interest in the mind of some people.

We may agree or we may disagree but directly attacking to other Advocates lacks ettiquettes which we should not any way support. I believe you sopport Mr. Ramiji's legal point of view but not that attack on other's legal opinion. Because there are several gentle ways to criticize others without harming or hurting them. 

 

Still I'm not convinced. There's no advice for the Questioner what he should do to prove the marriage. We can't assume the marriage didn't take place at all. We can't say the wife denies. We should mention the records by which he can prove his marriage.

No it is basically on the probability they are talking of, though not a direct answer on the question.

I regret I posted my previous re

I regret I'm having much difficulty to post my reply.      I posted my previous reply without finishing it.      There's been pwer failure.and have been some problems with the software.

We can suggest various ways of proving the marriage which was not registered.

It's up to the Questioner to choose any of the ways.

It's not enough if we state the state of affairs.     This won't take the Questioner anywhere.

She might have deposed in a court of law or elsewhere with her husband's name.

She might have signed so many papers with her husband's surname.

The priest is a witness.

The onlookers are witnesses.

It's not my way to taunt, jeer, giggle etc.       In my personal life also I avoid them.        I'm a little more prinvipled.

I'm habituated to being called IDIOT.      One member wrote that she'd slap my face with her chappal.      

To all the repliers:

 

Proving that marriage happned or did not happen is advocates job.  What most people fail to understand is what Ms Kamakshi has told in her replies.  I see that many repliers even advocates simply suggest something written in law books not thinking of how it will affect the parties involved in matrimonial dispute.  In matrimonial disputes answers should always help people unite than separate.

 

In the instant case, the boy does not understand simple fact just like Mr Reddi that the marriage is over.  It is pitiful if one has to prove a relationship in court through advocate.  What use in staying in such relationship by forcibly making one accept that they were married?  It is nothing but rape of relationship of marriage.

I think he's not an idiot who doesn't endorse a reply.     On the other hand, he's not an idiot who commits a mistake.       The use of such words proves how bankrupt of reason the person is.         The person thinks the best defence is offence.

The Questioner wants to live with an unwilling wife.       I too don't like this.      

I think divorce has to be granted without any ground whatever.       It's not my opinion that counts.

If the Questioner wants to marry another woman?       Can he marry?        f he marries, his wife may shamelessly prosecute him.

It's in the interest of the wife also to get divorce for marrying again.      But she won't marry and won't allow him to remarry.

So a spouse must approach a court for divorce.      There the  marriage.has to be proved.

We Repliers needn't go so deep.       The Questioner wanted to know the procedure of proving the marriage.      The Repliers gave some suggestions.      It's remarked that the replies are illegal.       There's one like.     To cover them up, the atmosphere is being spoiled.      

Members may advise the Questioner not to live with her.        But answer to the point can't be evaded.      Members must show the way how to prove the unregistered marriage.

 

i typed above f he marries.      I wanted to correct the error.      I edited.      I clicked Modify.      The reply hasn't been midified.  This happened twice.  

Originally posted by : TGK REDDI
	I think he's not an idiot who doesn't endorse a reply.     On the other hand, he's not an idiot who commits a mistake.       The use of such words proves how bankrupt of reason the person is.         The person thinks the best defence is offence. The Questioner wants to live with an unwilling wife.       I too don't like this.       I think divorce has to be granted without any ground whatever.       It's not my opinion that counts. If the Questioner wants to marry another woman?       Can he marry?        f he marries, his wife may shamelessly prosecute him. It's in the interest of the wife also to get divorce for marrying again.      But she won't marry and won't allow him to remarry. So a spouse must approach a court for divorce.      There the  marriage.has to be proved. We Repliers needn't go so deep.       The Questioner wanted to know the procedure of proving the marriage.      The Repliers gave some suggestions.      It's remarked that the replies are illegal.       There's one like.     To cover them up, the atmosphere is being spoiled.       Members may advise the Questioner not to live with her.        But answer to the point can't be evaded.      Members must show the way how to prove the unregistered marriage.

You are mixing your story with this one.

Wherever I go people are in revolt with my peculiar ideology.     Owing to the same ideology I'm world famous.

I expected many members to be in revolt.      Only a couple of members are in revolt.     It's a pleasant surprise.        On the contrary, I could obtain a solitary Like.