Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says Chennai High Court

The Hindu 18/06/13

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.

-----------
Times of India 20 June 2013

CHENNAI: Two days after his sensationaljudgment on sexual relations between adults,Justice C S Karnan has further elaborated on the order which accords the status of marriage to all such relationships, and said his ruling would help maintain the "cultural integrity of India" and "protect the welfare of women".


On Wednesday, issuing an unusual addendum in reaction to the heated debates it has generated in social media and other platforms, he said: "This court's order does not in any way run against any religion and is not intended to wound any Indian. The order had not in any way degraded the system of marriage performed as per the various religious and customs and rites among the various communities." 

Reiterating his conclusion that sexual ties between a man and woman of marriageable age would raise the affair to the status of a marital union, Justice Karnan said: "If a bachelor aged 21 years or above and a spinster aged 18 years or above had premarital sex with intention to marry and subsequent to this the man deserts the woman, the victim woman can approach a civil forum for remedy after producing necessary substantial evidence to grant her social status as wife. This remedy is not only for the purpose of giving relief to the victim woman but also to maintain the cultural integrity of India." 

Cautioning critics of the judgment, Justice Karnan said: "Law permits the affected woman to initiate criminal proceedings against her paramour for cheating her and deserting her after making a promise of marriage, but there is no provision to approach the civil forum for her remedy. The high court is the apex court of this state and constitutional authority. Therefore, this court has given the legal relief to the affected woman. Without fully understanding the court's judgment, adverse comments shall not be passed." 

But legal experts have questioned the judge's decision to further elaborate on the order and go beyond the scope of the subject to address issues relating to culture. While the order has been broadly accepted to be in keeping with Supreme Court judgments on live-in relationships and maintenance, a senior sitting judge of the same high court said Wednesday's addition ought not to have referred to the issue of 'cultural integrity' and the welfare of women. "The issue pertains to maintenance, and to justify the award he had discussed sexual interaction and status of marriage. But linking it to a larger and intangible issue of culture is unwarranted," he said. There is also the view that such a view of the man-woman relation was liable to be misinterpreted in the subordinate courts.

Atheism 2.0

Freemasons launch recruitment drive for young women

Charlotte Philby in The Independent

Nikki Roberts is someone a teacher might call a good “all-rounder”: smart, pretty, lots of friends. Aged 31, she is also a far cry from your typical Freemason. But that, if the Federation of the International Order of Co-Freemasonry has its way, is about to change.

Forget secretive circles of white-haired men locking fingers in strange handshakes, they say. A British branch is in the throes of a thoroughly modern recruitment drive. It is using Facebook and Twitter to sign up new members, particularly young women, to its society.

“A lot of people have misconceptions about what Masonry is,” Ms Roberts says. Not surprising, given that for centuries members of this traditionally male club have refused to divulge what goes on behind closed doors in meetings and ceremonies. “I can say that it [the Freemasons] is an association, a fellowship if you like, dictated by a system of morals, with lot of symbols and philosophy...” Roberts explains. She compares it to an “occult”: “You need to believe in a divine intelligence or supreme being.”

Since joining the Freemasons five years ago, Roberts says her life has been transformed. “I gave up a lucrative job in the City and now I work in health and social care, something more rewarding,” she says. While cohorts at her lodge (one of the only mixed gender orders in the world, the British Federation) range from party-planners to nurses – many of them female – there are other common elements among members, she says. “The kind of people it draws are interested in being good people; we have respect for laws, we like giving to charity... we live by certain morals.” It is a “life-long commitment”, she adds.

The biggest misconception, Roberts says, is that women are not suited to joining the club. “People choose the Masons in order to become more aware and to awaken areas of their mind to their true nature; women, being naturally nurturing and intuitive, are particularly responsive to that.” That, however, is a matter of opinion. Ask Ken Kirk, 86, a former policeman and a member of the strictly-male United Grand Lodge of England and the answer is clear: “Mixed gender orders? Absurd.”

At first glance, Hexagon House, the British Federation’s Masonic headquarters in Surrey, does little to shift the fusty image. Inside this Surbiton base-camp, the 21st century seems a world away. The hallway is stuffed full of archaic artefacts, such as one might expect from a fraternal system dating back 500 years (the first clubs were recorded in Scotland in the late 16th century): ceremonial firing glasses, brass etchings and silk wall-hangings adorned with obscure symbols.

Follow the carved wooden staircase to the second floor, however, and there are small signs that that this particular order is trying to embrace the modern world.

On the shelves, alongside The Book of Mirdad and The House of the Temple (and a dark cloak hanging on the back of the door) is an A4 folder labelled “Website statistics” and a novelty mug with the logo “old masons never die / you’ll have to join to find out why”.

Worldwide, there are 6 million active Freemasons, with 2 million in the US and around 400,000 in Britain. At the moment the Federation of the International Order of Co-Freemasonry, founded by ideological polymath Annie Besant in 1902, has around 300 members (the majority of them women), and is one of the most progressive – and smaller – orders; many orders won’t let a young women through the door.

Conspiracy theories about what being a Freemason entails are rife. With famous alumni including Winston Churchill and Robbie Burns, the most common perception is that this is an elite club populated by powerful men. That is the dated image the Federation is seeking to change, explains Suzanne Jozefowicz, its secretary. “Masonic membership worldwide is dropping,” she says, and an image refresh is in order. “Freemasonry isn’t about the past, it is about the future, we need to reflect the world around us.”

Jozefowicz, who joined the British federation in 1984, is a suitably modern figurehead for the British Federation. Raised as a Catholic (“But I asked questions like ‘why isn’t God a woman?’ and never got an answer”), she worked as a school-teacher and then a rock musician before joining this, one of the few mixed-sex fellowships, in her twenties. “When confronted with challenges in life people invariably look for an explanation... [we] frequently turn to religion but more and more people are finding that doesn’t necessarily answer the sort of nagging ache within them to understand the purpose of life and what happens or not afterwards.”

So what does Freemasonry offer that is so different? “The natural processes of life come into play,” she says. “Masonry is experiential, it’s not something you can learn like you would for an exam... because Masonry is about your own personal search for truth.” Jozefowicz will confirm that there are various levels of membership, although not the existence of a supreme 33rd degree, which is one popular conspiracy.

“The most basic level is the apprentice, as found in the old building trades,” she says. “He would join with an expert craftsman and spend his time learning the basics; it was a very passive learning process...” Jozefowicz explains by way of analogy: “The apprentice then becomes a journeyman or, as we phrase it, a fellow of the craft, who is able to do work under the direction of the expert craftsman but isn’t yet able to go out of his own....”

At that point, he (or she) is given “some kind of broken token, half of which he would take, and the other half of which his mentor would keep; so the journeyman could go to different places but ultimately he was still bound to his teacher. “In the third and final degree, the secretary says, “the journeyman reaches his maturity and is able to go out as a recognised craftsman in his own right.” By which, she says, she also means “journeywoman”. “We have people of every background in our order,” she adds. “Now the majority are professionals, but we want to expand that out. We will open our door to anyone who knocks.”

Heading back downstairs to the library, past the loo (“It says Gentleman on the door but actually it is for women, too!”), Jozefowicz employs yet another analogy to explain what Freemasonry can bring to the contemporary citizen: “It is about gaining self-knowledge by way of practical instruments: there is the trowel, the gavel, the chisel, the ruler, the square... these are metaphorical instruments of measurement and calculation.”

Keeping their secrets secret is a Masonic priority. In order to ensure a low drop-out rate, candidates are thoroughly vetted; only once that has been done does the initiation begin.

At Hexagon House the magic happens in The Grand Temple room, replete with astrological symbols painted on the ceiling, there are wooden thrones surrounded by carved wooden objects and an organ. But what really goes on once the music starts and the incense has been lit?

“There is a handshake, yes,” Jozefowicz confirms. “But they are part of the things that are secret in each ceremony so [what they consist of] is one thing that I can’t disclose to you.” Even if she did, she says, the knowledge would be useless out of context: “It’s purely a means of recognition and generally speaking it’s only used within the lodge.”

What about the noose, which according to hearsay is placed around the inductee’s neck? “Let’s not call it a noose, let’s call it a cable-tow,” Jozefowicz says. “The significance is quite complex... [a similar rope] is used to moor a ship to its mooring, so it is a way of associating the person with the lodge, and also a symbol of something referred to as the silver cord... It is also is a reminder of the mortality of the individual because obviously if you get hung, you die.”

The rolled-up trouser leg? “For anything you go through in life there is always a specific preparation, and Masonry there is the same,” the secretary explains. “The practice varies, according to which obedience or which working or which lodge you go to... but always some of that is physical and some is mental. You will find in other orders that the rolled up trouser leg is part of that preparation. We tend not to get too distracted by things like that...”

“We open our arms to anybody, of any background, religion or gender,” Josefowicz concludes. “Other Masonic organisations have historically taken a lot more controlled approach to what they release in public. We have always advertised our presence, we’ve had numerous open days, people have been invited even to attend open ceremonies... We hide our answers in plain sight.”

You can't dance to atheism

Any doctrine that actually works to hold society together is indistinguishable from a religion. It needs its rituals and its myths

'In America the myth of a particular sort of extreme individualism is inseparable from the myths of a particular sort of America whose history has been invented in almost every detail.' Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

I finished the series of articles I wrote on Robert Bellah's Religion in Human Evolutionwith a definition – a religion is a philosophy that makes you dance. It pleased me because the book itself can be read as a history of how philosophy grew from dance. But is it any use?

The great difficulty of definitions like mine is that they leave the content of religions entirely to one side. We are still enough of the heirs of Christendom to feel that religions must involve doctrines, heresies, and a commitment to supernatural realism. The trouble is that a definition with doctrines, heresies, and supernaturalism fits many varieties of atheism just as well. You will object that atheism bans, by definition, any belief in the supernatural. Yet almost all sophisticated religions ban at an intellectual level all kinds of belief which sustain them in practice. Buddhists worship; Muslims have idols. "Theological incorrectness" is found wherever you look for it.

And atheism can be just as theologically incorrect: today's paper told me that: "our bodies are built and controlled by far fewer genes than scientists had expected". The metaphors of "building" and "controlling" have here taken a concrete form that makes them palpably untrue. Genes don't do either thing. It seems to me that a belief in tiny invisible all-controlling entities is precisely a belief in the supernatural, yet that is the form in which entirely naturalistic genetics is widely understood in our culture. Religion can't really be about doctrine and heresy either, because these concepts don't make sense in pre-literate cultures. You can even ask whether the concept of "supernaturalism" makes any sense in most of the world without a developed idea of scientific naturalism, and scientific laws, that would stand for its opposite.

The serious weakness of my definition is that philosophy itself is a very late development and not one that has really caught on. As Bertrand Russell observed, many people would rather die than think, and most do. So maybe it would be better to say that religion is a myth that you can dance to. This is useful because it suggests that atheism is not a religion as you can't dance to it. There's no shortage of atheist myths – in the sense of historically incorrect statements which are believed for their moral value and because it's thought that society will fall apart if they're abandoned. The comments here are full of them. But they are no longer danceable.

There aren't any overwhelming and inspiring collective atheist rituals. I don't mean that these can't exist. Olof Palme's funeral procession was one unforgettable example. But they don't exist today. Possibly, the London demonstration against Pope Benedict would qualify but in terms of numbers it was wholly insignificant compared with the crowds that he drew, or that flock to church every Sunday.

Against this point the committed atheist replies exactly as a liberal protestant would have done 20 years ago: bums on pews don't matter; he or she is in the business of truth, not numbers, and the truth must in the course of time prevail. I don't believe this. I don't believe it in either case. Individualism without some myth of the collective is quite powerless. This is clearly illustrated by the Tea Party in America where the myth of a particular sort of extreme individualism is inseparable from the myths of a particular sort of America whose history has been invented in almost every detail.

If I'm right, then liberal, individualistic atheism is impossible as an organising principle of society because any doctrine that actually works to hold society together is indistinguishable from a religion. It needs its rituals and it needs its myths. A philosophy will grow around it in due course. Now perhaps you can have, at least on a small scale, a society committed to the principles of rational and tolerant disagreement and the sovereignty of reason. But what you end up with then isn't some rational Athens of the mind. It's Glastonbury.