Monday, March 18, 2013

Madras High Court Decision on Pre-marital sex Viewed Though Vedic/ Hindu/ Indian Astrology

The following is a Vedic/ Hindu/ Indian astrology evaluation of the Madras High Court decision regarding granting the status of marriage to pre-marital sex which might cause a variety of legal imbroglios to ensue. Thee Hindu horoscope is cast and depicted later in the piece while the news report following the Judgment starts this article in the interests of background information and perspective.

A very surprising view apparently taken by the Madras High Court regarding pre-marital sex and living in, equating it to marriage at least in the given case, and probably extending it to all such situations. The news report which appeared in The Hindu is quoted below-

"Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC
     
If any unmarried couple of the right legal age “indulge in sexual gratification,” this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be termed “husband and wife,” the Madras High Court has ruled in a judgment that gives a new twist to the concept of premarital sex.
The court said that if a bachelor has completed 21 years of age and an unmarried woman 18 years, they have acquired the freedom of choice guaranteed by the Constitution. “Consequently, if any couple choose to consummate their sexual cravings, then that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except on certain exceptional considerations.”
The court said marriage formalities as per various religious customs such as the tying of a mangalsutra, the exchange of garlands and rings or the registering of a marriage were only to comply with religious customs for the satisfaction of society.
The court further said if necessary either party to a relationship could approach a Family Court for a declaration of marital status by supplying documentary proof for a sexual relationship. Once such a declaration was obtained, a woman could establish herself as the man’s wife in government records. “Legal rights applicable to normal wedded couples will also be applicable to couples who have had sexual relationships which are established."
The court also said if after having a sexual relationship, the couple decided to separate due to difference of opinion, the ‘husband’ could not marry without getting a decree of divorce from the ‘wife’.
Justice C.S. Karnan passed the order on Monday while modifying an April 2006 judgment of a Coimbatore family court in a maintenance case involving a couple. The lower court had ordered the man to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 500 to the couple’s two children and Rs. 1000 as litigation expenses. The lower court observed that the woman’s wedding with the man had not been proved by documentary evidence. Hence, she was not entitled to maintenance.
In her appeal to the High Court, the woman’s counsel contended that she was legally married and had two children in wedlock.
Justice Karnan said he was of the view that a valid marriage did not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnised. In the present case, the woman and her husband had no encumbrance or other disqualification for solemnising their wedding as per their customs. For solemnising a wedding, legal aspects should be placed on a higher scale than the customary aspects. In this case, the man had signed in the ‘live birth report’ of his second child and given his consent for a Caesarean section for its birth. As such, he had officially admitted that she was his wife.
“Without legal encumbrance or third party interference or without affecting third party rights, both the petitioner and the respondent lived together as spouses and begot two children.” Therefore, the question of an illegitimate relationship did not arise. Wedding solemnisation was only a customary right, but not a mandatory one. Hence, the judge said, he was treating the couple as spouses in normal life.
“It is not disputed that the petitioner has been a spinster before she gave birth and that the respondent was a bachelor before developing sexual relationship with the petitioner. Both of them led their marital life under the same shelter and begot two children. Therefore, the petitioner’s rank has been elevated as the `wife’ of the respondent and likewise, the respondent’s rank has been elevated as the `husband’ of the petitioner. Therefore, the children born to them are legitimate children and the petitioner is the legitimate wife of the respondent.”
The judge directed the woman’s husband to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs.500 from the date of petition, i.e. from September 2000. The arrears of maintenance up to May this year should be paid within a period of three months."

For one, the issue is tarred with a broad brush and it cannot be since there is no Uniform Civil Code in India and all major religious communities are free to follow their own customs and codified law. Two, this is for instance in utter contravention of the Hindu Marriage Act where marriage between Hindus is a sacrament. While justice may have been done in this case the applicability of the decision must necessarily be restricted to the facts of this case, and Judges usually expressly record in the Judgments in such cases that the decision would not be cited as a precedent in future cases. At the time of going to press, the Judgment itself had not been made available online and therefore there is an inevitable element of conjecture to all this.

The chart for the pronouncement is broadly as follows-


 
 
 
Now, we have seen the devastating impact of the affliction to Tulā Rāśi/ Tula Rashi by Śani and Rāhu (Shani and Rahu) [ See-http://planetarytransformation.blogspot.in/2013/05/gangrape-in-new-delhi-india-nirbhaya.html] but the remedy has to be in conformity with the existing law. Moon is placed in Kanyā Rāśi/Kanya Rashi (Lagna) and renders the Judgment or at least its journalistic interpretation (Mercury/ Budha) open to scrutiny. This is all the more important due to the awareness of these developments with the four Grahas placed in another Mercurial sign-Mithuna/ Gemini which in fact enables discussion while Kanyā dissects it logically being the exaltation sign of the rational Mercury.
 
Lawyers and astrologers and judges (Jupiter/ Gurū) are interested in this pronouncement and its ramifications as are journalists, writers, web-personnel, thinkers, bloggers, social networkers (Mercury/ Budha), women, women's organisations (Venus/ Śukra/ Shukra) as well as leaders and politicians (Ravi/ the Sun). 
 
To subscribe to this website through email and to receive latest articles and updates from this website directly in your Inbox go to- http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=VedicAstrologyConsultancyResearch


No comments:

Post a Comment

Loading...
Gadget by The Blog Doctor.