A name can stink quite a lot, of duplicity, if not backed by proof

The case of the London-based Indian investment banker who tried to wriggle out of paying alimony to his ex-wife on the grounds that she had married another man with the same name rather than him on the date specified in their marriage certificate, has highlighted a hitherto unforeseen danger in tying the knot these days — not from impostors but namesakes.

Even in this era of multiple and competing identity cards, the fact is that people are really only recognised and distinguished by their names most of the time, as has been amply demonstrated by this incident. So if the monikers happen to be common, the possibilities arising out of mistaken identities — deliberate or otherwise — are manifest. It was clever, therefore, of Amit Goyal to bank on the very currency of his cognomen to prevent his wife from cashing in on their split.

The British judge did not buy it, but there is every likelihood of other people attempting to test this homographous argument in courts elsewhere. To be on the safe side, prospective matrimonial aspirants of both sexes may now want to choose life partners with suitably unique names. Of course, this incident can also be cited as yet another sphere of life where the biometrically-fortified unique identity cards can be utilised to guard against being duped.