Thesavalamai Marriage Case
Acknowledgement
First and foremost, I would like to thank my lecturer for Family Law, Mr. Piumal Fernando (Attorney At Law) who has shown the attitude and the substance of a genius: he continually and persuasively conveyed a spirit of adventure in regard to research and scholarship, and an excitement in regard to teaching. Without his supervision and constant help this dissertation would not have been possible. He inspired me greatly to work in this assignment. I also would like to thank my parents and friends who gave me tremendous support through this assignment. Besides, I would like to thank the staff members of British College and Applied Studies for providing me with a good environment and facilities to complete this assignment. …show more content…
From the aforementioned facts, it states that “after a short period of marriage couple started quarreling each other” and as a consequence of the quarrel the husband, Karunanidhi had vacated the house rented by him and further it says that the wife, Jayalalitha does not intend to dissolute the marriage. The facts of the case does not reveal anything about a divorce between Jayalalitha and Karunanidhi, so according to the facts of the case, the analysis can derive to a conclusion that the marriage bond between the husband and wife is still there. However, the husband has dismissed the common household of marriage and left the house. It is necessary to identify the relevant provisions and laws with regards to the above …show more content…
Which is a basic element to live. Therefore, the husband should comply with all the necessary principals. But under Roman Dutch law there is a concept called “pro semisse”. It creates an obligation which accepted that the contracting wife was liable to the trader for half of the debt. This concept was brought forward to protect the creditors who are giving away goods on credit. But the point is that Karunanidhi is obliged to pay for what his wife buys, which is simply the legal obligation that is bound by the both
First and foremost, I would like to thank my lecturer for Family Law, Mr. Piumal Fernando (Attorney At Law) who has shown the attitude and the substance of a genius: he continually and persuasively conveyed a spirit of adventure in regard to research and scholarship, and an excitement in regard to teaching. Without his supervision and constant help this dissertation would not have been possible. He inspired me greatly to work in this assignment. I also would like to thank my parents and friends who gave me tremendous support through this assignment. Besides, I would like to thank the staff members of British College and Applied Studies for providing me with a good environment and facilities to complete this assignment. …show more content…
From the aforementioned facts, it states that “after a short period of marriage couple started quarreling each other” and as a consequence of the quarrel the husband, Karunanidhi had vacated the house rented by him and further it says that the wife, Jayalalitha does not intend to dissolute the marriage. The facts of the case does not reveal anything about a divorce between Jayalalitha and Karunanidhi, so according to the facts of the case, the analysis can derive to a conclusion that the marriage bond between the husband and wife is still there. However, the husband has dismissed the common household of marriage and left the house. It is necessary to identify the relevant provisions and laws with regards to the above …show more content…
Which is a basic element to live. Therefore, the husband should comply with all the necessary principals. But under Roman Dutch law there is a concept called “pro semisse”. It creates an obligation which accepted that the contracting wife was liable to the trader for half of the debt. This concept was brought forward to protect the creditors who are giving away goods on credit. But the point is that Karunanidhi is obliged to pay for what his wife buys, which is simply the legal obligation that is bound by the both