'Muslim man's marriage to 2 sisters not illegal'

NEW DELHI: Settling a longstanding
debate in Moslem Personal Law concerning the position of two ses marrying a
man, the Supreme Court have ruled that the latter's matrimony to his wife's
sister, during the subsistence of the earlier marriage, was merely irregular
though not illegal. This judgement would set a halt to the pattern by
certain people who get married ses of their wives and then decline maintenance,
citing the Moslem usage that termed the 2nd matrimony to the wife's sister as
void. A Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and Joule Meter Panchal,
after tracing the development of law as well as at odds opinions of HCs right
from 1895, came to the decision that such as matrimonies are merely irregular and
not void, so the right to acquire care was not extinguished by law. Justice
Kabir started with the question: "Whether a matrimony performed by a person
professing Moslem religion with his wife's sister, while his earlier matrimony with
the other sister was still subsisting, would be nothingness in law or merely irregular
or voidable even though the subsequent matrimony may have got been
consummated?" On the footing of a request by one Bismillah Begum,
Justice Kabir said: "The reply is that the barroom of unlawful conjunction (jama bain-al-mahramain) renders a
marriage irregular and not void." "Consequently, under the Hanafi
law, as far as Muslims in Republic Of India are concerned, an irregular matrimony continues
to subsist till terminated in conformity with law and the married woman and children
would be entitled to care under Section 125 of CrPC," he said. One Chand Patel was married to Mustaq Bee. With the consent of his
wife, he married her sister, Bismillah Begum, and had a girl from her. Later, he started neglecting Bismillah Begum, who had no agency to support
herself and child. She moved the trial tribunal seeking care for
each of them. The trial tribunal granted the petition and this order was upheld both
by the territory tribunal and the high court. Ambitious HC order, Patel
argued that the matrimony was prohibited under the law, which disentitles her
from any maintenance. Rejecting the argument, the Bench said matrimony to the
wife's sister, during the subsistence of the earlier marriage, was only
irregular (fasid) and not invalidate (batil). The tribunal ordered Chand Patel to pay all
arrears.

6 Steps To Enforce A Non-Indiana Judgment In Indiana

If you throw a judgement entered in a state other than Indiana, and if you believe the judgement debtor have assets in Hoosier State that could fulfill the judgment, then maintain reading. The hoops through which you must leap to attain those assets are outlined in Hoosier State Code § 34-54-11 "Enforcement of Foreign Judgments."

I.C. § 34-54-11. Enacted in 2003, this Hoosier State legislative act states you just about everything you necessitate to know. Here are the six major steps:

Wait at least twenty-one years after the entry of the judgement in the original (non-Indiana) court.

File a certified and exemplified transcript of the foreign judgement in the clerk's business office of the Hoosier State county where the debtor dwells or have property.

File an affidavit, signed by the judgement creditor, that states:

• the name/address of the judgement debtor; and


• the name/address of the judgement creditor.

In conformity with Trial Rules 4 through 4.17, serve upon the judgement debtor a notice of the filing of the foreign judgement (like you're serving a bidding and complaint). This notice must contain:

• the name/address of the judgement creditor;


• the name/address of the judgement creditor's attorney, if any; and


• the nature/amount of the claim under the foreign judgment.

Pay a filing fee, which is $133.00 currently.

Wait at least twenty-one years after the day of the month the judgement debtor is served with the notice. (See below).

Once the filing and service demands have got got been met, and twenty-one days have passed with no action by the judgement debtor, the judgement creditor is free to continue as if it throws an Hoosier State judgment. In other words, you may get to implement the judgement by executing or other process.

21-day saving grace period. My apprehension always have been that, in lawsuits of domesticating foreign judgements in Indiana, the judgement debtor's (the defendant's) only defence associates to jurisdiction. In other words, the judgement debtor only can assail the cogency of the judgement (halt enforcement) by establishing that the original tribunal did not have got the powerfulness to come in the judgement in the first topographic point - an improbable scenario. Otherwise, the judgement essentially is presumed to be valid, and the implicit in lawsuit will not be re-litigated in Indiana. The other potentiality barrier is if the suspect data files an entreaty in the original case. An entreaty generally will remain the enforcement of the foreign judgement in Hoosier State until the implicit in lawsuit concludes.

Indiana Code §§ 34-54-11-2(e)(i) and 4 computer address these two "defenses." The judgement debtor have twenty-one days to register a notice with the Hoosier State tribunal asserting grounds (jurisdiction/appeal) that would forbid the judgement creditor from enforcing the foreign judgment. If filed, the enforcement of the judgement is stayed pending a opinion by the Hoosier State court. (It should be noted, however, that a creditor filing a foreign judgement still is entitled to Hoosier State prejudgement redresses during the pendency of the stay, such as as prejudgement fond regard or garnishment.)

Old school. I.C. § 34-54-11-5 states that the legislative act "does not impair" the right to convey an action to implement a foreign judgement by other means. Before the passage of the statute, it was common to register a ailment to domesticate (certify) the non-Indiana judgement and to follow all the normal regulations and processes applicable to new lawsuits. I no longer see a benefit to this course of study of action. The new legislative act now lets the judgement creditor, initially, to short-circuit the justice because a separate Hoosier State tribunal order domesticating or certifying the foreign judgement is not required, unless the debtor data files a notice under Sections 2 or 4. The statutory expression should ensue in the enforcement of a foreign judgement more than quickly and, therefore, more inexpensively.

If as an out-of-state judgement creditor you necessitate to prosecute the assets of a judgment debtor that are located in Indiana, delight contact me or another Hoosier State lawyer to help with the process. I.C. § 34-54-11, the relatively new "Enforcement of Foreign Judgments" statute, is your ticket to an expeditious and cost-effective enforcement of your lien.

Obtaining an Award of Summary Judgment in Hawaii

In certain cases, clients can predominate in a lawsuit by filing a Movement for Summary Judgment. Under Rule 56(c) of the Aloha State Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgement is appropriate when there is no echt issue as to any stuff fact and the moving political party is entitled to judgement as a substance of law. Summary judgement can be defeated if a political party shows that a echt and stuff issue of fact is in dispute. State v. Midkiff, 49 Haw. 456, 421 P.2d 550 (1966).

[S]ummary judgement is only appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, replies to interrogatories, and admittances on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no echt issue as to any stuff fact and that the moving political party is entitled to a judgement as a substance of law. See Aloha State Rules of Civil Procedure ( HRCP) Rule 56(c) (1990). "A fact is stuff if cogent evidence of that fact would have got the consequence of establishing or refuting 1 of the indispensable elements of a cause of action or defence asserted by the parties." Hulsman v. Hemmeter Dev. Corp., 65 Haw. 58, 61, 647 P.2d 713, 716 (1982) (citations omitted). Konno v. County of Hawaii, 85 Hawaii, 61, 70, 937 P.2d 397, 406 (1997) (quoting Dunlea v. Dappen, 83 Aloha State 28, 36, 924 P.2d 196, 204 (1996)).

"The grounds must be viewed in the visible light most advantageous to the non-moving party." State ex rel. Bronster v. Yoshina, 84 Aloha State 179, 186, 932 P.2d 316, 323 (1997) (citing Maguire v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 79 Hawai'i 110, 112, 899 P.2d 393, 395 (1995)). "[W]e must see all of the grounds and the illations drawn therefrom in the visible light most advantageous to [the political party opposing the motion]." Maguire, 79 Aloha State at 112, 899 P.2d at 395 (citation omitted). See also United States Steel Corp., 82 Aloha State at 38-39, 919 P.2d at 300-01.

"The moving political party bears the ultimate load of persuasion. This load always stays with the moving political political political party and necessitates the moving party to convert the tribunal that no echt issue of stuff fact bes and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgement as a substance of law." Pioneer Factory Co., Ltd. v. Dow, 1999 WL 174460, 6 (Haw. 1999). "The moving party's load of cogent evidence is a rigorous one, since the illations to be drawn from the implicit in facts alleged in the relevant stuffs considered by the tribunal in deciding the movement must be viewed in the visible light most advantageous to the non-moving party." Id. astatine 7. "Summary judgement is a drastic remedy. To avoid improperly depriving a political party to a lawsuit of the right to a trial on moot factual issues, summary judgement must be "cautiously invoked." Id. astatine 6.

Although Courts grant summary judgement in lone the strongest cases, for obvious reasons, its an result that lawyers are always trying to achieve.