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..

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.

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 ?

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!!

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!!

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.