This is not USA-HC tells married man in live-in relationship

Hear, hear, well said Anonymous! I really have no sympathy for the plaintiffs and hope the girl's father takes his belt to her. But why drag USA into the picture? At least it has laws and courts that work. When I see all these corrupt judges, I really wish this was America, especially in the wild west days when such corrupt judges can be easily lynched.

I think now supreme cour  has realised and atleast made this law in favour of Men.

hellow mr manoj,

you are absolutely wrong,

because, where a live in relationship established, not only a man but also a woman also get benifitted.

THIS is not law made by SC , but by parliament of india.

many say "SC has allowed live in relationships."i agree.

now i want to ask, "has SC specifically said that married partner can also dump his existing spouse and have live ins,as he enjoys constitutional rights?"

if yes,please post that judgement.i wonder how the HC went against such an SC judgement!

@ manoj

no where i favour women who false false cases.i oppose them.becoz of them genuine women's cases take a backseat and they get delayed justice.or they are forced to settle down with a meagre alimony,after losing all hope in the unending battle for rights.so if u read anywhr in LCI that i support liar women,kindly reproduce my post.also i have clarified this statement in the past many times,when some other males like u also said that i am a feminist supporting liars.so dont force me to repeat the same thing again and again.

also,this thread is diccussing abt live ins.please dont keep dragging false cases all the time in each thread,else LCI's name will change to www.falsecases.com.

we are here to present our views on different topics,not to crib over same issues repeatedly

SC has specifically termed it as immoral but not illegal as per LAW.
 

we are here to present our views on different topics,not to crib over same issues repeatedly - absolutely, 

now then, when some one present their views why make hue & cry..... it's their opinijon they've put it here....

Avnish,

It's unwise to follow everything allowed under constitutional rights or law.One has to use his wisdom too,and weigh the pros & cons of his decisions.

Law has given a green signal to homos*xual relations,without thinking it'll increase chances of AIDS,STDs,etc.So,if you want to get your sister married for example and she's a lesbian,will you arrane her marriage with a lesbian girl,becuase it's allowed by law?(Now don't say yes,just to be straighforwars.Answer it,after taking the name of WAHE GURU)

Please don't mind this question.It's not any personal attack on you.It's to know how you judge law and practicality.

Also,will you get her married in full public,after inviting her side and your side of people?

After all it's lawful now,as per SC.Right?

Why the HC judges and people here confusing things? In this case there are two things. (1) The couple viz. a married man, whose wife is alive, and his sister-in-law, who is in live-in-relationship with the man are asking for protection. (2) They are in live-in-relationship, which may or may not be illegal.

As regards (1) it is the right of every citizen of this country, including criminals, to get protection of the State. The Court has only to examine whether their apprehension is real and if so give them protection. The Court cannot impose conditions for the protection.

As regards (2) if what the couple were doing was a cognizable offence the Court can order the police to initiate action against the couple and the State to prosecute them. If it were a non-cognizable offence, the Court can do nothing, unless they receive a complaint from the aggrieved party in the appropriate manner.

Just because what the couple was doing was hurting the moral conscience of the Judges, they cannot allow the aggrieved people to take law into their own hands and allow the father to beat his daughter with belt or anything else.

@Madam Roshni

“many say "SC has allowed live in relationships."i agree.

now i want to ask, "has SC specifically said that married partner can also dump his existing spouse and have live ins,as he enjoys constitutional rights?"

if yes,please post that judgement.i wonder how the HC went against such an SC judgement!”

 Madam:

The question before judges was “whether the dangers to their lives was real and if so order the Police to give protection. The legality and morality of the live-in-relationship is not the question here.

What a comparasion to push your point!!

Medical Science has proved that HOMOS*XUALITY IS A WAY OF S*XUAL PREFERENCE, ITS NOT A DISEASE AT ALL. By birth & by development, ppl may be hetero s*xual as well as homos*xual.

Yes, I think its not morally correct if u know that ur sis is lesbian & still u try to marry her off to a man. Why to ruin her life as well as of innocent man too?

Why one shud force such a person to have heteros*xual relationship?? Who told that such persons are to be married. Doing marriage & having s*xual pleasure are 2 different things. If lesbians do their jobs well, behave like a resonsible citizens, no need to coax them into MARRIAGE-RELATIONSHIP. They too be allowed to have s*xual pleasure the way they like.

Regarding HIV point, no developed country ever try to motovate/force ppl that they shud shun homos*xuality. It shud be a SAFE S*X, thats all.

'Medical science has proven that homos*xuality is a preference and not a disease". Can someone explain to me how did medical science prove it? Did some medical scientist do some experiment? If so what exactly was the experiment? Or is it a theory like Enstin's Theory of Relativity?

I shall be grateful if the person, who said it, could enlighten me and also enlighten other ignorant members

@Dr MPS!

The American Psychiatric Association in 1973, and the World Health Organisation in 1992, officially accepted it as a normal variant of human s*xuality. There is no dearth of literature in medical science to endorse my point. Though I respect ur knowledge of law & the help u r providing here to the needy, but as far as this particular topic of s*x is concerned, I seek some review artical which says that HOMOS*XUALITY is a disease or disorder to counter me.

Here I go with my few:

https://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homos*xuality/

https://www.hindu.com/2009/07/25/stories/2009072555940800.htm

https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863496,00.html

No offences....!

In the first place I am not a lawyer. What little of law I know, I learnt from this Forum only.  I doubt if anybody has been benefited from my “knowledge of law”

But I am a scientist and I know how scientific investigations are carried out and how conclusions are arrived at. One should be very cautious to use the word “proven” in scientific matters. Also in science one does not quote from scripttures nor does one rely on the authority of, say, a body of professionals. True scientists do not aspire for positions in professional bodies. Mr. Rajiv_lodha relies, among others, on the American Psychiatric Association to claim proof.  Let us see how the Association “proved” that homos*xuality was not a disease. I am quoting the same source as Mr. Rajiv_lodha.

“In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homos*xuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Some psychiatrists who fiercely opposed their action subsequently circulated a petition calling for a vote on the issue by the Association's membership. That vote was held in 1974, and the Board's decision was ratified”

There were pressures behind the decision. Even then finally it had to be “proven” by voting. In science things are not decided by vote. If there was a dispute, as to how many teeth a donkey has, we do not decide it by voting. We just catch a donkey and count the number of teeth, he has.

Other researches were statistical studies. And what did they prove? Homos*xuals except for their homos*xuality are normal human beings. Dr. Stephen Hawkins is completely paralyzed due to disease. But he is a genius and a celebrated astrophysicist. Does it mean that he did not suffer from the disease?  

There are homos*xual celebrities, who misbehaved with hotel staff. Some may retort are there no heteros*xuals who misbehave. But if it is a heteros*xual male (as most are) only females have to be cautious in dealing with them. Among a group of males or females one would not know who is a homos*xual and who is not.

Many homos*xuals are pedophiles. There are people who rape month old baby girls. Should we call them perverts or should we say that in all other matters, they are normal and so they should be condoned for all they did with the baby?

Supreme Court had said, "consensual s*x between two adults is not illegal"...but that is subject to marital laws.  Two unmarried adults can be in livein relationship and consensual s*x between them is not illegal.  If one of them is married then all marital laws in IPC, HMA are applicable to them.

Interesting feature to notice in our marital laws is that a man can be punished for adultery with the wife of another man, but a woman cannot be punished for adultery with the husband of another woman.  Section 497 and 498 of IPC only talk about punishment to a man, but not to a woman.  Even HMA can only obstruct a husband or wife to remarry without obtaining divorce from court, but it cannot punish if anyone of them starts living with another person.  The only recourse for anyone indulging in Adultery is Indian Penal Code wherein punishment is only there for man, not for woman.  In this case, Court could not have said more than that to that man and woman viz., THIS IS NOT AMERICA.

May be Macaulay who is the author of IPC had soft corner for Indian women and he did not believe that they are capable of Adultery so he did not define any punishment for a woman enticing a married man into a s*xual relationship.  But what happened in these 150 years after 1860?  India got freedom.  We have our own parliament.  We know women are not so innocent as they used to be in 19th century.  Why the parliament could not make a law for women indulging in Adultery?

Our courts need teeth to bite.  If laws are not made, they will be forced to play the role of village panchayats, scolding people like this.