Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
W and H participated in a Hindu marriage or 'prayer' ceremony at the home of W's family in Brooklyn. Lots of people were there. The parties were adorned in traditional Hindu wedding garments, prayers were articulated, W's parents symbolically gave her H, vows were made, and rings and flower garland were exchanged. The ceremony lasted approximately two hours. At trial, Mr. Persad testified that he is an ordained Hindu priest or 'pandit' sanctioned since February 21, 1993, to perform wedding ceremonies. Mr. Persad was not licensed in New York. A reception was held for 275 friends and family after the ceremony. H and W are depicted in photographs wearing Hindu marriage garments. It was not disputed that the parties lacked a valid marriage license. Three days prior to the ceremony, the parties met with an attorney, Stephanie Ressler, who drafted a 'prenuptial' agreement which W refused to sign. The parties have filed separate tax returns since the ceremony and W claimed herself to be single on her returns. W claimed herself as single when she obtained automobile insurance in 1998. H contends the marriage is invalid for two reasons: first, the religious ceremony did not comport with the formal legal requirements under the Domestic Relations Law; second, the religious ceremony was merely a custom conducted prior to the parties living together and the parties did not intend to be married until they participated in a civil ceremony.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co