A recent judgement by Justice Karnan in Madras High Court was made controversial, that it was covered in international newspapers, including NYT (see the epilogue on what controversy was made). This is a story about it in my words.
Few years back, two lovers —a Muslim man and a Hindu woman (to be specific) were in espousal relationship between them, but the relationship wasn’t solemnized or documented. With all true intention, there is nothing wrong in that, after all the rituals are for societal recognition.
Eventually they had their first child. Couple of years later, the lady delivered another child—rather a difficult one—through cesarean.
Few years passed by. The relationship wasn’t going any easy between them. The man didn’t want it anymore. For whatever reason, he decided to drift apart. But a cunning person he is, claimed that he was never married to the lady and the children were not his.
The only recourse for the woman and the children is to take it to court of law and judgement come in her favour.
Proving whether he fathered the child or not can be as simple as a DNA test. But How do you prove whether he was married to the woman or not? Especially when it was not solemnized either by ritual or by law or by any paper evidence! And none could be taken as witness in the court of law when they took their vow.
As the case turned out and argued, the facts presented proved without doubt: that it is fact that they have lived-in together; and it was not an extramarital affair; and before their live-in relationship the lady was a spinster and the man was a bachelor; and the children born were his own, through her.
He has signed the birth certificate of her daughter where he was mentioned as the child’s Father. He has signed the no objection letter in the capacity of husband when the woman delivered her second child by cesarean (he should have been a stupid to contest!).
By law, for a muslim, the marriage should be registered in a Mosque. For a Hindu, she has to circumference the Holy Fire and take seven steps of oath. Neither was done. So, the only question that needs to be answered is whether the man and woman can be called as husband and wife or a live-in relationship.
Live-in relationship is noble not rouge.
The learned Justice, saw the merits of the case and pronounced that that there is nothing in law that would object if both were to be called as husband and wife. After all, marriage is nothing but a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other to share their life together and make a family. And that, the marriage rituals such as wedding or registering are only for the societal recognition.
When they have lived in together and have raised a family, the relationship should indeed to be construed as marriage. And the woman shall therefore derive the benefits a wife would otherwise derive in case of a marriage that was performed as per the rituals/ custom/law.
Marriage is not for recreation, it results in procreation!
Nevertheless, not having such ritual or not registering the marriage wouldn't be an excuse to absolve the man’s espousal responsibility as both intended and have had sexual relationship and procreated children.
This happened in Madras High Court- India, pronounced by Justice Karnan.
The rationale behind the judgement is terrific and is laudable.

Epilogue:

The wordings of Judgement was bit ambiguous at least for a layman like me, and the verdict arise lot of question like how to prove the intention behind etc., but instead of seeing the merit and spirit of the judgment, people started tweeting ridiculing the judgement. NYT also covered the story.
Supposedly a sensible Newspaper like The Hindu had their catchy heading “Couples who have premarital sex to be considered ‘married,’ says HC.”
And the twitter mafia punned it (#MadrasHC- around 20th of June) without even realizing the real facts! In the light of facts, they are nothing but a laughing stock.
Intend pun, but never become a laughing stock.