Stay on wedding of controversial ‘legal adviser’

MADURAI: A family court in Madurai has stayed the “scheduled marriage” of B Ramasamy, said to be a legal adviser to some members of Parliament, to a

Rajya Sabha

member from Tamil Nadu in New Delhi on March 26. There had been media reports identifying the MP as

Sasikala Pushpa

. However, this could not be confirmed with either Ramasamy or Sasikala Pushpa.


The family court’s order came on a petition filed by T Sathyapriya of

Villapuram

against Ramasamy seeking restitution of her conjugal rights. She also moved an interlocutory application seeking to grant injunction restraining Ramasamy from going ahead with the marriage. She said she had learned from news reports that her husband was about to marry another woman without getting a valid divorce. Sathyapriya had also submitted a representation to the Madurai district collector on March 20 seeking to stop the marriage.

The petitioner said that Ramasamy, by misrepresentation of his job, had married her on December 10, 2014. She became pregnant and gave birth to their child on December 23, 2016. On his part, Ramasamy alleged that the petitioner had suppressed her earlier marriage in 2012 with a man named 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.

Family court judge (incharge) N Venkadavaradan, after hearing both sides, 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 (Ramasamy) 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.” The judge also said that the petitioner had denied having any connection with Palanisamy.