Unelected S C: Divorce of Unmarried couples

Divorce of TRS and threat to divorce by alliances and Leftists are western culture where divorces of unmarried couples, creates problems. 9th schedule is a play ground of legislature and Supreme Court

Dog bites boy: no news. Boy bites dog: good news.
Why did not secualar media make news of front page, if there is repeatation of divorce and cohabiting? Divorce: no news. I heard about divorce by telephone. But the same unmarried politician and their parties make alliances and take divorce and again make alliances for divorcing again in near future. Is this not news for front page? Is this not suitable title for the editorial? What you say about unmarried alliance of communist parties and samajwadi party with Congress. They live as a married couple to govern Union government but take divorce for fighting in W B, Kerala, U P and Bihar etc. Are the people voted them for doing this immoral corrupt undemocratic role? There should not be call girls in politics.

Unmarried couples’s means
Cohabiting couples and cohabitation means a living arrangement in which an unmarried couple live together in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage. In 1976, the California Supreme Court decided in ‘Marvin v. Marvin, case that agreements between cohabiting couples to share income received during the time they live together can be legally binding and enforceable.

New 'divorce' rights for unmarried couples in U K
Yesterday I read news: Unmarried couples will be able to make divorce-style financial claims against each other after they have split up under under legislation planned by the government, the Guardian has learned.

The most expensive celebrity divorces
As reported in sify: Divorces are ugly affairs. But they can be downright gruesome when the parties involved are celebrities.
Take the current uncoupling of former Beatle Paul McCartney with his second wife, former model Heather Mills, after four years of marriage.

Indeed, celebrity divorces are often rife with clever legal manoeuvring. Sexy James Bond actress Denise Richards (Dr Christmas Jones in ‘The world is not enough’) eschewed the traditional "irreconcilable differences" claim many celebrities use on their divorce petitions to maintain privacy. Instead, in her April divorce filing from ‘Two and a half men star’ Charlie Sheen, she said he was abusive and addicted to porn and prostitutes during their marriage. (Sheen has denied these claims.)
But in addition to child support and custody of their two children, Richards is seeking a piece of Sheen's Screen Actors Guild Pension, monies the 40-year-old actor wouldn't see for at least another 15 years.

Gandhigiri: ‘majboori kaa naam Mahatma Gandhi’
Half mad is more dangerous than the full mad. There was a lesson on this subject in my school book. Call girls are more dangerous than the prostitutes. Criminals have place to live in the prison. But criminal minded tainted persons are able to be elected by hook and cook. There after these tainted elected leaders become ministers to rule law binded citizens.
This problem should be solved ASAP. On this subject PM adopts gandhigiri to say that ‘majboori kaa naam Mahatma Gandhi hai’.

Why not law for divorcing political alliances
To day on Nov 1, 2006 alleging deliberate neglect of the Telangana region by successive governments, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has called for a shutdown today in Andhra Pradesh to coincide with the state`s formation day.

TRS and Congress lived like an unmarried couple. Electorates neither elect Chandra Shekhar Rao of TRS nor Congress to share partnership in the Union Government. They had no democratic or any type of leagal right to make unholy partnership. But they said that sharing of power was holy and democratic as terrorists say that their fighting is a holy war.

Voters of Congress, Samajwadi Party, BSP, Communist parties and other parties of alliance even to day unable to know these parties are democratically and legally married or not. This is the ugly face of Indian democracy. These parties are not resticting themselves in a prescribed definite area. So this disease is spreading smoothly as dengue and chikungunya.

Disputed UPA house and Domestic Vilolence
Present Government itself is a victim of domestic violence but it makes domestic violence act for others. Leaders of society makes rules against dowary and social diseases but they themselves do not follow those. India is also a home for us. Terrorists attack. Few members who live in the house are helping them. Instead of breaking and crushing this nexus our vote bank politicians are shielding them.

Tears for Afzal but not for Santosh Singh: Why?
Some viewers say why I write against such and such. Please let me know where human activists, human right commission, Arundhati Roy, Medha Patkar, Gulam of Afzal, Farooq Abdulla, Saeed and so many visible and non-visible culprits are? Why do not they agitate now in favor of Santosh Singh? Afzal is their relative and Santosh is enemy. Dhanjay Chatterjee of W.B. was hanged but CPM and other communists parties had become at that time Jain Muni’s’ maunvrati. They also weep for Afzal.

Don’t divide people in secular and non-seculars
Yesterday on Oct 31, 2006 a Sikh group awarded the title of ‘Great Martyr’ to Beant Singh, an assassin of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, at a function organised to commemorate the 22nd anniversary of the ‘martyrdom’. Most comments on this incident are similar to “I am not a SIKH , but I agree with the sikhs on this issue, Indira created Bhindranwale, armed him, then when he is of no use attacked him, who is at fault here not sikh's it'sIndira, ”

So we should learn a lesson to turn the leaves of history. Before teaching others, we should keep our house safe from the evils. If, Congress and other seculars weep for Afzal then why they should be happy on hanging order of Santosh Singh. Afzal is human and Dhanjay Chatterjee was inhuman? Leaders are only for seeking votes to divide police, sucrity forces, army, judiciary, educational institutions and the people by the line of secular and not secular.

Elected Legislature vs unelected judiciary
The open defiance shown by political parties to the Supreme Court’s verdict on the creamy layer issue is a classic example how the political class reacts to orders that go against their interest. Are sons and daughters of the families of Mayavati, Ram Vilas Paswan, Lalu, Mulayam, Ajit Jogi and other bhogis should be liable for reservation?Why do not they surrender their reservation for other poor need sons and daughters of their community. Cunnigly shamelessly Minoster Paswan said that seats reserved for their costes are vacant so their children should occupy them. What nonsense argument is given by a cabinet minister? In fact we are fools so they are intelligent ministers.

Openly in day light we are being made fools. OoP bill is another example. What a beautiful is Italian Renounce for returning from the backdoor? Even the dared to dihonr the President on this issue.

Leaders are keeping garlands on their necks by themselves are their few paid men. Even they raise their salaries by themselves. Please give me another example which is greater than this decoity. They could not feel necessity to appoint a judicial commission for this purpose to save their skin.

Space is limited, so please allow me to end the blackish lives of thsee elected leaders.

Unelected Supreme Court
"Unelected" as a term of abuse is often applied to our judges, even, disgracefully, by government ministers who have lost a case in the Supreme Court. Those who would wish judges to be elected should take a trip to certain constituencies of the elected parliamentarians and legislators. Even the people can’t see their elected representative for a whole year. Elected members keep themselves making money and to take care fo their criminal corrupt elements for the next election. They are only for seeking votes for others by making false promises again and again.

The moment judges have to make promises to persuade an electorate to vote for them is the moment disappearance of independent justice. The rule of law - and, and democracy itself - relies on the independence of those who carry out judicial functions. The adjudicators in Livingstone's case may have been wrong in their decision - which bolstered democracy, not denied it.

TN act on reservation under 9th schedule illegal
Amid the ongoing debate on reservation, on Oct 31, 2006 the Supreme Court was today told that the inclusion of Tamil Nadu law enabling 69 percent quota in educational institutions and government jobs in ninth schedule of the Constitution was illegal and unconstitutional. Referring to the Indra Sawhney judgement (Mandal Case) of the apex court which put a ceiling of 50 percent reservation, the counsel told the bench headed by Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal that "the state has no legislative competence to provide or make special provision for reservation over and above 50 percent".
By Premendra Agrawal