Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
RUnless he agrees by way of settlement, you won’t get 100% of the home. At best, 90%.
It is unlikely that you will get any alimony, since you earn almost the same, unless you are unable to make ends meet (does not include luxuries) by yourself.
Meet a lawyer and proceed with the case. In case of infidelity, do not proceed without any evidence that your lawyer says is enough.
RShe’s in your school, right? The school must have records. Involve someone in the records department.RSend an anonymous text to her dad informing that she’s hanging out with a 26 year old guy known to be a philanderer. He’ll take it from there.R>I wanted to know wether personal remarks are appropriate like these during judicial hearing by the office holders ? Or is it a common practice ?In 8 years of practice, I have never heard a single judge in my local court say anything like this. Have they said insulting comments? Yes. Have they mentioned political opinions? Yes. Talking as if they’re superior to everyone around them? Yes. Voicing some of the most ignorant and regressive opinions? Yes. But open threats to people? No.
No, it is not at all appropriate. Judges are supposed to have a higher standard and act as if they are above all this. This Judge’s comments have eroded the image of the judiciary in the eyes of men.
RYou offered a hand, she spat on it, and you are offering a hand again. Don’t. Save that money for when you have to contest the case she will file against you.R>Also DNA test of kid is not allowed by court.There is another SC judgment which states that non-access can be proven by DNA test. Don’t look at one judgment and generalize.
Whether DNA tests are allowed or not depends on the circumstances of the case. Interpreting this judgment in the light of the earlier judgment, which was not at all referred to in this judgment, will lead one to the conclusion that DNA tests are not allowed in circumstances which are similar to that particular case.
RFirst statement is incorrect. DNA is allowed from time to time, depending on circumstances. Second statement is correct. Am lawyer.RDNA is allowed from time to time, depending on the case, but the other thing he says is correct. Am lawyer.RNo, we are not ethically bound to give personal advice. We may, but are not required to, and when we do give personal advice, we are ethically bound to state that. This is because a lot of lawyers would be happy to give the personal advice of filing a case under the guise of legal advice. Granted that you are doing the exact opposite in this case, but you are still giving personal advice under the guise of legal advice.RThis is not legal advice. You are exceeding the scope of legal advise and are giving personal advice.RIf this is true, and you reside within the territorial limits of my practice, I will be happy to take your case for free. This is how much I despise women like your mother.
