Madurai family court stays scheduled marriage of ‘legal advisor to MPs’

MADURAI: A family court in Madurai has stayed the “scheduled marriage” of B Ramasamy, who is said to be a legal advisor to members of parliament. There were reports that Ramasamy was to marry Rajya Sabha member Sasikala Pushpa in New Delhi on March 26. However, this could not be confirmed with either Ramasamy or Sasikala.
T Sathyapriya of Villapuram filed a petition in the family court against Ramasamy seeking restitution of conjugal rights.She also moved an interim application seeking to restrain Ramasamy from contracting marriage with the MP.
The petition came up for hearing before family court judge (in-charge) N Venkadavaradan on Friday. The petitioner stated that the respondent (Ramasamy), by misrepresentation of his job, married her on December 10, 2014. She became pregnant and gave birth to a child on December 23, 2016.
She said she learnt from a news reports that her husband was going to marry another woman. She thus wanted the court to grant injunction against her husband from marrying another woman without getting a valid divorce.
The respondent alleged that the petitioner (Sathyapriya) had suppressed her earlier marriage that happened in 2012 with one Palanisamy and that the divorce petition filed by him (Palanisamy) before the Dindigul court was pending. Besides, she was “mentally affected.” Hence, she was not entitled to file the present petition, he said.
After hearing both sides, the judge said, “Though the respondent filed documents about the pendency of divorce petition wherein a marriage certificate of the year 2012 is filed, the petitioner’s counsel referred the date of registration of the marriage which is also in the year of 2017, and the petitioner has not connection with the said Palanisamy.”
The judge then said, “This court upon consideration of the circumstances finds that the petitioner has prima facie established the subsistence of a valid marriage and if at all the respondent wants to have another marriage, he has to seek a valid relief before the court of law and then contract another marriage. Hence, under these circumstances, the court feels that it would be just and reasonable to stay the contract of marriage, if any, by the respondent with any other lady till the disposal of the main petition.”