Live in relation is no sin- rules apex Court

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

It is a live in relationship since the marriage itself is not valid or legal, the same case with Hema Malini since Dharmendra has a wife who he has not divorced..It was the same with Gemini Ganeshan who had three wives including Savitri who which were are all live in relationships except his legally wedded wife all else including Pushpavalli who was Rekhas mother were his mistresses..

In case of Dharmender he accepted Islam first then married Hema Malini. I don't know much about Ganeshan but certainly its not good to have a relations he had with other women. :evil:

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

It is a live in relationship since the marriage itself is not valid or legal, the same case with Hema Malini since Dharmendra has a wife who he has not divorced..It was the same with Gemini Ganeshan who had three wives including Savitri who which were are all live in relationships except his legally wedded wife all else including Pushpavalli who was Rekhas mother were his mistresses..

In case of Dharmender he accepted Islam first then married Hema Malini. I don't know much about Ganeshan but certainly its not good to have a relations he had with other women. :evil:

I think thconversion news were just rumors because from what I know they were married in Madras in a Iyengar hindu ceremony..

{CJATTACHMENT ["id": 10899]}

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

It is a live in relationship since the marriage itself is not valid or legal, the same case with Hema Malini since Dharmendra has a wife who he has not divorced..It was the same with Gemini Ganeshan who had three wives including Savitri who which were are all live in relationships except his legally wedded wife all else including Pushpavalli who was Rekhas mother were his mistresses..

In case of Dharmender he accepted Islam first then married Hema Malini. I don't know much about Ganeshan but certainly its not good to have a relations he had with other women. :evil:

I think thconversion news were just rumors because from what I know they were married in Madras in a Iyengar hindu ceremony..

{CJATTACHMENT ["id": 10899]}

I heard it that he accepted Islam first before marrying Hema Malini may be it was rumor.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

Actually live in relation is not socially acceped. It is unthinkable in small towns and villages. But in metropolitan cities, nobody cares about marital status of couples. Similarly, when a couple moves to any mplace other than the home place, nobody is going to enauiry about their marital status. Any man and woman moving together are presumed to be husband and wife.. The wedding rites are only one day event that mpbody will bother. It has never been unlawful for any couple to live together whether wedded or not. But there are problems of compensation, alimony, inheritance. The supreme court judgment answers some of these issues only.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

Actually live in relation is not socially acceped. It is unthinkable in small towns and villages. But in metropolitan cities, nobody cares about marital status of couples. Similarly, when a couple moves to any mplace other than the home place, nobody is going to enauiry about their marital status. Any man and woman moving together are presumed to be husband and wife.. The wedding rites are only one day event that mpbody will bother. It has never been unlawful for any couple to live together whether wedded or not. But there are problems of compensation, alimony, inheritance. The supreme court judgment answers some of these issues only.

Even though such relations go unnoticed in big cities, problems arise after children are born. Surname of the child is one of the problems faced. Though Apex court addressed some problems and offered some clarifications, it remains to be seen how this creates an impression in the remotest villages.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

Actually live in relation is not socially acceped. It is unthinkable in small towns and villages. But in metropolitan cities, nobody cares about marital status of couples. Similarly, when a couple moves to any mplace other than the home place, nobody is going to enauiry about their marital status. Any man and woman moving together are presumed to be husband and wife.. The wedding rites are only one day event that mpbody will bother. It has never been unlawful for any couple to live together whether wedded or not. But there are problems of compensation, alimony, inheritance. The supreme court judgment answers some of these issues only.

Even though such relations go unnoticed in big cities, problems arise after children are born. Surname of the child is one of the problems faced. Though Apex court addressed some problems and offered some clarifications, it remains to be seen how this creates an impression in the remotest villages.

The child can takle surname of father or mother according to custom even if the aprents are in live-in relation. If you live in remote village which is not your native place, it is no use announcing that you are in live-in relation. No body sees marriage certificate. marriage is just presumed. .

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

Actually live in relation is not socially acceped. It is unthinkable in small towns and villages. But in metropolitan cities, nobody cares about marital status of couples. Similarly, when a couple moves to any mplace other than the home place, nobody is going to enauiry about their marital status. Any man and woman moving together are presumed to be husband and wife.. The wedding rites are only one day event that mpbody will bother. It has never been unlawful for any couple to live together whether wedded or not. But there are problems of compensation, alimony, inheritance. The supreme court judgment answers some of these issues only.

Even though such relations go unnoticed in big cities, problems arise after children are born. Surname of the child is one of the problems faced. Though Apex court addressed some problems and offered some clarifications, it remains to be seen how this creates an impression in the remotest villages.

The child can takle surname of father or mother according to custom even if the aprents are in live-in relation. If you live in remote village which is not your native place, it is no use announcing that you are in live-in relation. No body sees marriage certificate. marriage is just presumed. .

Exactly! Couple is presumed to be husband and wife if they live together. But its not a good culture in my opinion one has to make it legal before being in any such relation. This is what people do in western countries where people hardly get married before they have a child and many times still they don't even though they have a child. :evil:

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

Actually live in relation is not socially acceped. It is unthinkable in small towns and villages. But in metropolitan cities, nobody cares about marital status of couples. Similarly, when a couple moves to any mplace other than the home place, nobody is going to enauiry about their marital status. Any man and woman moving together are presumed to be husband and wife.. The wedding rites are only one day event that mpbody will bother. It has never been unlawful for any couple to live together whether wedded or not. But there are problems of compensation, alimony, inheritance. The supreme court judgment answers some of these issues only.

Even though such relations go unnoticed in big cities, problems arise after children are born. Surname of the child is one of the problems faced. Though Apex court addressed some problems and offered some clarifications, it remains to be seen how this creates an impression in the remotest villages.

The child can takle surname of father or mother according to custom even if the aprents are in live-in relation. If you live in remote village which is not your native place, it is no use announcing that you are in live-in relation. No body sees marriage certificate. marriage is just presumed. .

Exactly! Couple is presumed to be husband and wife if they live together. But its not a good culture in my opinion one has to make it legal before being in any such relation. This is what people do in western countries where people hardly get married before they have a child and many times still they don't even though they have a child. :evil:

Wedding ceremony is just a formality. If a couple just live in and remain loyal to each other, all is okay. Hoever, it is best to perform a simple wedding ceremony. Many couples are not loyal even though lawfully wedded.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Then, the cases of all these film stars are in discussion does not arise here. Thanks. :whistle: :whistle:

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Either way unless the already wedded legal wife complains there is no fear for those who are in a live in relationship with a married man....And more than anything I doubt if they care about what the society or anyone for that has to say about their relationships ...

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Either way unless the already wedded legal wife complains there is no fear for those who are in a live in relationship with a married man....And more than anything I doubt if they care about what the society or anyone for that has to say about their relationships ...

Rich and affluent can do anything as they do not depend upon society but in the case of middle and poor classes, certainly at many sphere, society does play hurdles, but there is always the west wind.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Either way unless the already wedded legal wife complains there is no fear for those who are in a live in relationship with a married man....And more than anything I doubt if they care about what the society or anyone for that has to say about their relationships ...

Rich and affluent can do anything as they do not depend upon society but in the case of middle and poor classes, certainly at many sphere, society does play hurdles, but there is always the west wind.

Rich and affluent may do as they like. But they cannot escape from law forever. One day law will catch them. See Tarun Tejpal's riches could not save him from counting the bars. And the same applies to live in relationships. Law will not act on its own. Someone has to complain. Exception is suo motu cases.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Either way unless the already wedded legal wife complains there is no fear for those who are in a live in relationship with a married man....And more than anything I doubt if they care about what the society or anyone for that has to say about their relationships ...

Rich and affluent can do anything as they do not depend upon society but in the case of middle and poor classes, certainly at many sphere, society does play hurdles, but there is always the west wind.

Rich and affluent may do as they like. But they cannot escape from law forever. One day law will catch them. See Tarun Tejpal's riches could not save him from counting the bars. And the same applies to live in relationships. Law will not act on its own. Someone has to complain. Exception is suo motu cases.

It is not abt. law, but talking abt, societal acceptance of couples, rich and affluent does not care what society thinks abt, on the other hand, middle and poors have implications.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Either way unless the already wedded legal wife complains there is no fear for those who are in a live in relationship with a married man....And more than anything I doubt if they care about what the society or anyone for that has to say about their relationships ...

Rich and affluent can do anything as they do not depend upon society but in the case of middle and poor classes, certainly at many sphere, society does play hurdles, but there is always the west wind.

Rich and affluent may do as they like. But they cannot escape from law forever. One day law will catch them. See Tarun Tejpal's riches could not save him from counting the bars. And the same applies to live in relationships. Law will not act on its own. Someone has to complain. Exception is suo motu cases.

It is not abt. law, but talking abt, societal acceptance of couples, rich and affluent does not care what society thinks abt, on the other hand, middle and poors have implications.

Society also has its own law and a code.
If the rich and affluent do not care the society, what they are going to lose? And remember societal ways and beliefs need not be right always.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

because his legal wife not complaining, no one have any business to interfere other matters, his legal wife is ok with it.

I guess she had no choice in the amatter since this is still very much a man's world and a woman falls in with his wishes...

.

Laws protects a live in relation only between an unmarried woman and man. Somebody living in with a person already married will bet no status and no protection.

Either way unless the already wedded legal wife complains there is no fear for those who are in a live in relationship with a married man....And more than anything I doubt if they care about what the society or anyone for that has to say about their relationships ...

Rich and affluent can do anything as they do not depend upon society but in the case of middle and poor classes, certainly at many sphere, society does play hurdles, but there is always the west wind.

Rich and affluent may do as they like. But they cannot escape from law forever. One day law will catch them. See Tarun Tejpal's riches could not save him from counting the bars. And the same applies to live in relationships. Law will not act on its own. Someone has to complain. Exception is suo motu cases.

It is not abt. law, but talking abt, societal acceptance of couples, rich and affluent does not care what society thinks abt, on the other hand, middle and poors have implications.

On the other hand, the super rich and poor have their way. But the middle classes are in most pitiable condition. They are more tied to scial customs. One member has compared Tarun Tejpal 's sexual offence with live in relation. This is not fair comparison. Live in relation and even casual sex is not unlawful as is the case with rape and sexcual harassment.

[quote]Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:
On the other hand, the super rich and poor have their way. But the middle classes are in most pitiable condition. They are more tied to scial customs. One member has compared Tarun Tejpal 's sexual offence with live in relation. This is not fair comparison. Live in relation and even casual sex is not unlawful as is the case with rape and sexcual harassment. [/quote]

True..live-relationships cannot be compared with sexual harassment and rape cases. Live-in relationships arise form mutual consent of both the members involved whereas the other two are an act of outrage on a woman's modesty against her will! How can anyone see similarity in the two? :blink:

[quote]Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:
On the other hand, the super rich and poor have their way. But the middle classes are in most pitiable condition. They are more tied to scial customs. One member has compared Tarun Tejpal 's sexual offence with live in relation. This is not fair comparison. Live in relation and even casual sex is not unlawful as is the case with rape and sexcual harassment.

True..live-relationships cannot be compared with sexual harassment and rape cases. Live-in relationships arise form mutual consent of both the members involved whereas the other two are an act of outrage on a woman's modesty against her will! How can anyone see similarity in the two? :blink:[/quote]

Exactly ! some years back the film maker Madhur Bandarkar was accused of rape by an actress ( I forget her name ) and the court dismissed the case saying that the lady in question had been his mistress for more than 3 or 4 years and now she cannot say it is rape ...