關於 india shopping ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

LỊCH TRÌNH ẤN ĐỘ 10 NGÀY 9 ĐÊM TỰ TÚC

Ấn Độ là một đất nước mà Cơ luôn hằng mong đặt chân đến một lần trong đời. Nhưng hết năm này đến năm khác, mình lại cứ delay chuyến đi này. Cuối cùng, mình cũng thực hiện chuyến đi vào cuối 2019 đầu 2020. Và Ấn Độ cho mình muôn vàn trải nghiệm có tốt, có chưa tốt, nếm trải những hương vị mới và đặc biệt chính là văn hoá Ấn Độ muôn màu.

XIN E-VISA ẤN ĐỘ

1. Một Số Lưu Ý Về E-visa Ấn Độ

* Thời gian tối thiểu bạn cần xin e-visa là trước 5 ngày đi Ấn: vì LSQ họ cần 3 ngày để xét duyệt hồ sơ. Tốt nhất, bạn nên xin từ 7 – 10 ngày trước chuyến đi.
* Link của LSQ chính xác là indianvisaonline.gov.in/evisa/tvoa.html: lúc Cơ search Google thì thấy rất nhiều link lừa dùng dịch vụ kinh dị và giá làm e-visa mắc hơn gấp 3 lần phí tự làm, nên nhớ vào đúng link này.
* E-visa có nhiều thời hạn khác nhau: thông thường nếu chỉ đi du lịch thì bạn chọn đi 30 ngày, nhưng e-visa của Ấn dạo này đã cho nhiều lựa chọn hơn lên đến 1 năm, 5 năm luôn, rất tiện cho các bạn trót yêu Ấn Độ.

2. Chuẩn Bị Gì Trước Khi Xin E-visa Ấn Độ?

Trước khi xin e-visa, bạn cần chuẩn bị vài thứ sau là những yêu cầu tối thiểu của LSQ:
* Bản scan trang đầu tiên của passport (dung lượng dưới 300KB) và còn hạn tối thiểu 6 tháng tính từ ngày nhập cảnh.
* Ảnh 2 inch x 2 inch: file JPEG có dung lượng dưới 1MB.
* Thẻ thanh toán quốc tế

DI CHUYỂN GIỮA CÁC THÀNH PHỐ

Có 3 phương tiện chính mà bạn có thể di chuyển giữa các thành phố:

1. Xe Lửa: phương tiện này phải nói ngoài yếu tố di chuyển, bạn còn được ngắm nhìn văn hoá độc đáo của Ấn Độ suốt chặng đi với những tầng lớp người khác nhau. Ngắm những người bán trà trên toa tàu và ngắm cảnh dọc đường. Ngoài ra, chi phí của phương tiện này rất rẻ.
2. Xe Đò: mình đề cao phương tiện này về độ thoải mái và tiện nghi, khi qua đó bạn nên chọn xe Jain travels là tốt nhất. Giá vé của các hãng bus xe đò thì đắt hơn xe lửa, nhưng bù lại có sự tiện nghi cho bạn.
3. Taxi: ngày di chuyển New Delhi - Agra vì không mua được vé tàu, mình buộc dùng taxi, chi phí này đi từ Delhi đến Agra là 5,500 rupees cho xe 4 chỗ. Nếu chia ra cho 4 người thì đắt hơn xe đò 30%. Đây là phương tiện mình thấy là trong trường hợp bất khả kháng thì mới dùng, chứ bình thường hãy chọn xe lửa hoặc xe đò cho tiết kiệm. Khi đi taxi, hãy nhớ trả giá với người cho thuê xe.

DI CHUYỂN TRONG THÀNH PHỐ

Trong thành phố có 4 phương tiện di chuyển chính bạn có thể trải nghiệm, sau đây là những kinh nghiệm của mình với từng phương tiện:

1. Tuk tuk: rất phổ biến và cứ giơ tay là có xe chạy lại. Thường thì bạn đi tầm 1 km thì nhớ trả giá 50 - 70 rupee thôi. Họ sẽ hét giá gấp đôi không, nhớ trả giá. Đây là lựa chọn mình dùng nhiều nhất vì tiện.
2. Uber/Ola Cabs: khi đến Ấn Độ, nếu ghét trả giá, bạn hãy dùng ứng dụng. Tại Ấn có Uber và Ola Cabs, tuy nhiên, để dùng chúng bạn phải có số điện thoại ở Ấn, điều này có thể giải quyết bằng cách mua sim ngay tại sân bay. Nếu bạn không có sim ở Ấn thì có thể nhờ nhân viên khách sạn book dùm. Bọn mình luôn nhờ nhân viên đi bằng Ola Cabs (vì giá rẻ hơn Uber), sau đó lúc về lại thì quắt tuk tuk mà đi do cả 4 đứa đều quên mua sim.
3. Taxi: phương tiện này hơi ít, thường di chuyển từ sân bay mới thấy nhiều, cũng không recommend bạn dùng vì họ chém ghê lắm, tốt nhất tránh ra.
4. Đi Bộ: đối với New Delhi, đi bộ hơi đừ chân vì các điểm tham quan cách xa nhau, nhưng với Jaipur, Jodhpur, bạn cứ tự tin đi bộ thoải mái vì các điểm khá gần nhau.

TIPS BẢO VỆ AN TOÀN KHI ĐI ẤN

Ấn Độ bị khá nhiều tai tiếng trên truyền thông, mình không cần nhắc thì bạn cũng biết rồi. Tuy vậy, có đi thực tế mới thấy Ấn Độ cũng thoải mái và an toàn lắm. Duy chỉ có tình trạng "làm tiền" khách du lịch xảy ra như cơm bữa mà chúng ta nên đề phòng. Sau đây mình có vài tips để tránh scam (lừa đảo) và bảo vệ an toàn cho bản thân khi đi Ấn Độ:
* Không nghe lời người local dẫn ra Tourist Information Center vì những nơi đó họ tự dựng ra rồi lấy danh nghĩa là của chính quyền và cố gắng bán tour cho bạn với giá đắt đỏ.
* Tại các ga tàu, bạn sẽ bị chèo kéo đi mua vé tàu cũng tại các trung tâm bán vé mạo danh, hãy cẩn thận nhé.
* Lúc đi taxi, tuk tuk, khi bạn đưa địa chỉ ga tàu, họ sẽ bảo hôm nay tàu không mở cửa đâu. Rồi sẽ báo bạn dùng taxi mà đi. Đừng tin họ. Hãy tới tận ga tàu để hỏi nhân viên bán vé.
* Cũng đi taxi, tuk tuk, có một chiêu nữa là họ bảo mình khách sạn chỗ mình đặt rất ghê, đừng đi mà hãy để tài xế dẫn bạn đến khách sạn tốt hơn. Hãy thẳng thắn từ chối.
* Khi bị chèo kéo, hãy cứ phớt lờ và lắc đầu, họ sẽ tự bỏ đi.
* Khi đi tuk tuk, luôn đi cùng nhau nhé, và nhớ mở Google Maps để xem họ có chở đúng đường không nếu như họ nói mình bật meter.
* Buổi tối theo cá nhân Cơ thấy đi chơi an toàn, không bị gì cả, thấy chỗ vắng quá cứ né ra thôi, không việc gì phải sợ, miễn đi chung 1 nhóm là ổn.

TIỀN TỆ

Ấn Độ sử dụng đồng rupees (INR), 100 INR = 32,000 VNĐ. Với 100 USD bạn sẽ đổi được 7,000 - 7,100 INR. Thông thường, Cơ hay đổi tiền khi ở Việt Nam. Tuy nhiên, từ Việt Nam đổi VNĐ ra INR khá mất giá. Cơ khuyên bạn nên đổi USD ở Việt Nam rồi qua Ấn Độ đổi ra rupees để sử dụng. Theo Cơ đi 10 ngày cứ xài hết rồi đổi 100 USD chứ không muốn đổi 1 cục luôn. Kinh nghiệm là tỷ giá New Delhi 100 USD đổi được 7,000 - 7,050 INR. Qua bên Jaipur đổi bị lỗ nhất chỉ được 6,700 INR, lúc đó xót lắm luôn. Qua Jodhpur lại được giá tốt 100 USD = 7,100 INR.

THỜI GIAN NÊN ĐẾN ẤN ĐỘ

Các mùa khác nhau tại Ấn Độ luôn có những điều thú vị riêng, một số lễ hội lớn mà bạn nên chú ý:
* Holi Festival (9 - 10 tháng Ba) chỉ diễn ra vào đúng 2 ngày tại nhiều thành phố New Delhi, Barsana, Jaipur. Đây là lễ hội thảy màu độc đáo để xua đuổi ma quỷ.
* Diwali: The Grand Festival Of Lights (14 tháng Mười Một) lễ hội ánh sáng tuyệt đẹp này sẽ thắp sáng ở khắp nơi trên Ấn Độ, sẽ có rước đèn, diễu hành và trình diễn ánh sáng trên các toà nhà.
* Dussehra (25 tháng Mười) được tổ chức theo các hình thức khác nhau tại Ấn. ỉnh điểm khi hoàng tử Ravan Dahan, đốt cháy những hình nộm khổng lồ của Ravana, Meghnath và Kumbhkaran, một cảnh tượng thực sự đáng xem.
Về khung thời gian nên đến Ấn mình nghĩ đẹp nhất là mùa xuân (tháng 3 - 5) và mùa thu (10 - 11) không phải vì có hoa lá gì đâu, nhưng chủ yếu là trời mát mẻ hơn. Mình đi vào mùa đông tháng 12 và tháng 1 thì thấy khá ổn vì sẽ bớt được muỗi, bớt được mùi cơ thể và đi xe lửa không cần ngồi khoang có máy lạnh.

LỊCH TRÌNH CHI TIẾT 10 NGÀY

Ngày 1: Sài Gòn - New Delhi
Ngày hôm nay mình bay chuyến 19:00 đáp New Delhi là 23:50 giờ địa phương, các bạn lưu ý Ấn Độ đi trước Việt Nam 1 giờ 30 phút nhé. Lấy hành lý và làm thủ tục xong, mình lên đường về khách sạn để nghỉ ngơi. Các bạn lưu ý cách di chuyển từ sân bay về hãy dùng app như Uber hay Ola Cabs để không phải trả giá mất công nhé.
Khách sạn: Tashgent Palace (trung bình, bọn mình chọn ở vì rẻ vì ở lại chỉ vài tiếng rồi đi Agra)

Ngày 2: New Delhi - Agra
Ngày hôm nay là ngày đầy twist vì tụi mình không tìm được vé xe lửa đi New Delhi - Agra nên đành trả giá với taxi rất phiền phức. Cuối ngày bọn cũng đến được Agra sau vài tiếng đợi taxi lớn chứa được hành lý của cả nhóm.
Khách sạn: The Alpine (lựa chọn này do khách sạn gần đó của bọn mình huỷ booking, nhưng The Alpine có nhân viên tốt, nhiệt tình booking tuk tuk và deal được giá tốt)

Ngày 3: Agra (Taj Mahal - Agra Fort) - Jaipur
Sáng hôm sau, bọn mình dậy sớm đi thăm Taj Mahal mua vé 1,050 rupees, nếu bạn trả thẻ sẽ được giảm 50 rupees. Nhớ giữ lại vé vì khi qua Agra Fort bạn sẽ được giảm 50 rupees khi mua vé ở đó. Mình dành 2 tiếng để khám phá Taj Mahal và viếng mộ, vé 1,050 rupees đã bao gồm phí 200 rupees vào viếng mộ.
Sau đó, mình đến Agra Fort bằng tuk tuk và thăm Agra Fort. Tại đây có rất nhiều ngóc ngách thú vị, bạn có thể dành 2 đến 3 tiếng ở đây chụp ảnh và xem các thông tin về pháo đài.
Cuối cùng cả nhóm về khách sạn, lên xe đến ga tàu Agra Fort di chuyển về Jaipur. Tầm 7h30 tối tụi mình đến Jaipur dễ thương, gặp được anh chạy tuk tuk Raja và mua tour tuk tuk với giá 2,000 INR cho 4 người với 2 xe trọn 1 ngày hôm sau.
Khách sạn: The Hosteller cho tất cả các ngày ở Jaipur (sạch sẽ, nhân viên thân thiện, không gian hiện đại, mình khá hài lòng với chỗ này, highly recommend nha)

Ngày 4: Jaipur (Gaitor - Amber Fort - Wind Palace)
Ngày hôm này đi tuk tuk tour, bọn mình đến 3 điểm tham quan chính gồm:
* Gaitor: khu lăng mộ của vua và hoàng tử Jaipur, nơi đây mình cực kỳ thích và khuyên bạn nên đi, vì vắng vẻ và khác hẳn toàn bộ phần còn lại của Jaipur.
* Amber Fort: mình thấy Amber Fort đẹp hơn Agra Fort và hoành tráng hơn rất nhiều. Tuy nhiên, Amber Fort cũng rất đông, bạn cần mua vé 500 rupees để vào sâu bên trong. Nhưng mình thấy không cần vào cũng được, đứng bên ngoài cũng đã rất đẹp rồi. Gần Amber Fort có Cung Điện Nước, bạn nhớ nói tuk tuk ghé ngang qua chụp ảnh.
* Wind Palace: kiến trúc tuyệt đẹp này là biểu tượng của Jaipur, nằm ở trung tâm Pink City. Bạn nên ghé vào 2 quán cafe đối diện và leo lên chụp hình.
Các anh lái tuk tuk cũng muốn chèo kéo cả nhóm đi mua vải vóc, nữ trang, bọn mình vẫn để các anh đó chở đi và không mua gì cả, vì giá đắt lắm nhé.

Ngày 5: Jaipur
Ngày trọn vẹn cuối cùng ở Jaipur mình dành thời gian đi dạo trong Pink City vì có nhiều hơn chỉ Wind Palace của ngày hôm qua. Mình đi thêm City Palace với phí vào cửa 500 INR, bên trong rất đẹp và có 4 chiếc cổng 4 mùa. Trong thành phố hồng, Cơ dành thời gian đi thăm các ngôi đền ngẫu nhiên trên phố, nhìn nhịp sống của Jaipur trong các con phố bán nữ trang, bán phụ tùng, mỗi con phố chỉ chuyên một hàng giống như Hà Nội 36 phố phường ngày xưa.

Ngày 6: Jaipur - Jodhpur
Ngày hôm nay chủ yếu dành cho di chuyển từ Jaipur đến Jodhpur và tìm khách sạn để nghỉ ngơi.
Khách sạn: Casa de Jodhpur (chỗ này cực kỳ boutique, chủ ở chung trong nhà luôn, anh chủ cực kỳ nhiệt tình và phòng dễ thương, giống như ngủ trong 1 cave hotel ở Thổ Nhĩ Kỳ vậy, highly recommended)

Ngày 7: Jodhpur
Jodhpur khá nhỏ nhắn, Cơ dành thời gian đi bộ thay vì đi tuk tuk để khám phá thành phố chậm rãi hơn. Những địa điểm Cơ ghé thăm trong ngày hôm nay gồm:
* Pháo đài Mehrangarh
* Giếng Toorji Ka Jhalra
* Tháp Đồng Hồ Ghanta Ghar
Chỉ đi 3 điểm này là bạn sẽ hết cả ngày. Bọn mình dành thời gian gần Giếng Toorji Ka Jhalra (hay còn gọi là Stepwells) vì xung quanh có nhiều cửa hàng bán đồ thủ công rất phù hợp để shopping và nhiều quán cafe rooftop xinh đẹp. Cơ chọn Stepwells Cafe vì có view nhìn xuống Stepwells bên dưới rất đẹp.

Ngày 8: Jodhpur - New Delhi
Ngày hôm nay, bọn mình book vé xe giường nằm lúc 20:00 tối nên có cả ngày ở Jodhpur. Hôm nay Cơ dành thời gian đi ăn uống ở Omlettes Shop (bán toast cùng trứng chiên cực ngon), quán bán lassi ở gần tháp đồng hồ nổi tiếng.
Sau khi ăn uống xong, bọn mình di chuyển lên Jaswant Tada - một công trình hoàng gia cùng vườn thượng uyển xinh đẹp. Từ đây, bạn có thể ngắm ra toàn cảnh thành phố.

Ngày 9: New Delhi
Về lại New Delhi vào sáng sớm. Bọn mình về khách sạn The Ritz để gửi đồ và đi khám phá thành phố nhè nhẹ. Bọn mình ghé qua Gate of India để xem biểu tượng thành phố, là cổng chiến thắng to nhất Ấn Độ. Cả nhóm tính ra Red Fort nữa nhưng do hơi ngán các pháo đài rồi nên chuyển địa điểm qua đi The Connaught - khu này cực kỳ vui với nhiều quán cafe, nhà hàng Ấn có, Âu có, Mỹ có, Hoa có, Nhật có, và nếu bạn thích shopping thì đây chính là nơi tuyệt vời cho bạn.

Ngày 10: New Delhi - Sài Gòn
Ngày hôm nay bọn mình cũng chỉ lảo rảo đi cafe, vì cũng khá mệt sau chuyến đi, rồi đợi đến tối bay về Sài Gòn ^^

Đó là lịch trình 10 ngày của mình, hy vọng review sẽ giúp bạn có cái nhìn tổng quan khi đi chơi Ấn Độ, cứ tuỳ chỉnh theo sở thích từng người! Enjoy exploring!

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

"Papa, I ada soalan nak tanya" ditanya anak saya dalam perjalanan dari sekolah tadi.

"Tadi masa waktu rehat, saya berkongsi makanan dan minuman dengan rakan sekelas. Ada dua orang kawan baik saya, Syihan dan Amli tak nak makan. Kenapa ?" Muka anak terus muram bagai kaca ditimpa batu.

Tidak sempat saya menjawab, dia terus sambung "Pastu I pon dinasihat cikgu supaya makan di sudut jauh dari segelintir kawan-kawan I. Apa salah saya, papa?"

Tergamam aku dibuatnya seketika. Salah saya juga sebenarnya kerana tidak memberi penjelasan bulan puasa sebelum ini.

“koko @kingstonleekc , you tak salah. Kawan-kawan you tu sebenarnya dah start puasa. Dan Cikgu suruh makan di tepi sebagai tanda penghormatan kepada kawan-kawan yang tengah berpuasa tu. Jadi, kamu kena nasihat kawan-kawan Cina India lain, mesti sokong kawan-kawan Melayu ni menjalankan ibadah puasa. Kena bertolak-ansur dan hormat sesama lain. ”

Sulung yang kini dah 8 tahun sudah start menunjukkan sikap memberontak. "Kenapa kena bertolak ansur ? Saya makan saya punya hal, dia puasa dia punya hal" .

Belum sempat saya marah, tangan penampar @wongmewchoo terus melanda ke atas tangan anak. Tahulah saya dia pandai smash gak, tapi memang laju tangan dia kali ni.

Sulung pun menangis bertanya sebab.
"Kalau kita tak bertolak ansur, koko tidak akan ada kawan Amli dan Syihan lagi. Bayangkan kalau tak bertolak ansur, koko main mercun semasa New Year mestinya dimaki. Jika tidak hormat, kawan India buat perarakan Thaipusam semestinya dihalang. Andainya tidak menghormati sesama lain, tak mungkin shopping mall KL ada Christmas tree masa Christmas", jawabnya saya.

"Kita menang bola dan Thomas Cup pun sebab kita bertolak ansur dan bersatu padu", disambung saya.

Dengan muka menyesal, pendek sahaja jawapan anak saya "Saya mahu berkawan baik dengan Amli dan Syihan" .

Itulah cerita hari ni. Saya Chong Wei dan Mew Choo sekeluarga ingin memohon-maaf dan mengucapkan Selamat Berbulan Ramadhan kepada seluruh umat Islam. Have a blessed puasa month.

Batu Covid pasti berudang,
Diharap bersabar sesama sembahyang;
Petunjuk Ramadhan moga diundang,
Semoga Raya di kampung tersayang.

Note : Nama bukan nama sebenar

#RamadanKareem2021

祝福穆斯林朋友斋戒月斋戒功修顺利平安

LuLu Big Bang Year End super Deals

from 29 december 2020 to 3 January 2021

Istimewa buat anda yg suka fashion pada 1 hingga 3 january terdapat diskaun rata 50% untuk bahagian Fashion, footwear and ladies bag .


Terdapat diskaun sehingga 50 % untuk semua kategori semasa jualan besar besaran big bang sale di lulu KL dan Shamelin. Jadi jgn lepaskan peluang keemasan ini utk berjimat lebih semasa jualan hujung tahun di LuLu.

Istimewa buat penggemar pakaian tradisi india terdapat diskaun 35% flat rate untuk saree, punjabi , lengga.

Untuk promosi terkini layari laman sosial LuLU di https://www.instagram.com/luluhypermarketkl/


FIND ME AT
Blog : http://www.ienaeliena.com/
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/ienaeliena/
Fanpage : https://www.facebook.com/ienaelienadotcom
Facebook 1 : https://www.facebook.com/ienaeliena
Facebook 2 : https://www.facebook.com/ienawahab
Twitter : https://twitter.com/ienaeliena
Email : iena@ienaeliena.com


#ienaeliena #malaysianblogger #lifestyleblogger #travelblogger #beautyblogger #foodblogger

iPhone Cases | Casekoo Cases | Unboxing & Review

Use this code (dr25) to get 25% discount!
Buy it here: https://casekoo.com/

Follow us on Instagram!
https://www.instagram.com/hassantheshah/

Support the channel: https://paypal.me/drtechyt?locale.x=en_US
Buy on Amazon: https://amzn.to/37x5LMt
Buy on Gearbest: https://m.gearbest.com/?lkid=78632615

Thanks for watching, join us on facebook.
https://goo.gl/2k9Zct

❤ Subscribe (IT'S FREE) ❤
https://goo.gl/dBkUWo

? Facebook: https://goo.gl/2k9Zct




























iphone 11 case collection,
iphone 11 cases haul,
iphone 11 case drop test,
iphone 11 case amazon,
iphone 11 case review,
iphone 11 case collection try on,
iphone 11 case shopping,
iphone 11 casetify,
iphone 11 case haul,
iphone 11 case collection amazon,
iphone 11 case apple,
iphone 11 case aesthetic,
iphone 11 case aliexpress,
iphone 11 case amazon review,
iphone 11 case anime,
iphone 11 case asmr,
iphone 11 case and popsocket,
iphone 11 case black,
iphone 11 case best,
iphone 11 case battery,
iphone 11 case blue,
iphone 11 case by apple,
iphone 11 case bape,
iphone 11 case bd,
iphone 11 case bumper,
iphone 11 case collection black,
iphone 11 case clear,
iphone 11 case collection boy,
iphone 11 case charger,
iphone 11 case collection purple,
vitamin c iphone 11 case,
iphone 11 pro vitamin c case,
iphone 11 case decoration,
iphone 11 case diy,
iphone 11 case drop,
iphone 11 case damda glide pro,
iphone 11 case design,
iphone 11 case decoration kpop,
iphone 11 case defender,
dbrand iphone 11 case,
iphone 11 case everything apple pro,
iphone 11 case ebay,
iphone 11 case eco friendly,
iphone 11 case evutec,
iphone 11 case expensive,
iphone 11 case extreme,
iphone 11 case embroidered,
iphone 11 case easy to hold,
iphone 11 case from amazon,
iphone 11 case flossy,
iphone 11 case from walmart,
iphone 11 case fit xr,
iphone 11 case for xr,
iphone 11 case for red,
iphone 11 case for black phone,
iphone 11 case flossy carter,
iphone 11 case gameboy,
iphone 11 case green,
iphone 11 case girl,
iphone 11 case glitter,
iphone 11 case grapefruit,
iphone 11 case giveaway,
iphone 11 case gucci,
iphone 11 case gold,
iphone 11 case haul amazon,
iphone 11 case haul aliexpress,
iphone 11 case haul casetify,
iphone 11 case haul philippines,
iphone 11 case heavy duty,
iphone 11 case haul korean,
iphone 11 case haul 2020,
iphone 11 case ideas,
iphone 11 case india,
iphone 11 case i blason,
iphone 11 case iphone 12,
iphone 11 case incipio,
iphone 11 case ijustine,
iphone 11 case in xr,
iphone 11 case indonesia,
iphone 11 case juice wrld,
iphone 11 case jesus,
iphone 11 case jelly,
iphone 11 case jojo,
iphone 11 case jiji,
iphone 11 case jetech,
iphone 11 case jb hi,
iphone 11 case jasbon,
iphone 11 case kate spade,
iphone 11 case korean,
iphone 11 case kpop,
iphone 11 case korea,
iphone 11 case kickstand,
iphone 11 case kobe bryant,
iphone 11 case kakao friends,
iphone 11 case kodak,
iphone 11 case leather,
iphone 11 case louis vuitton,
iphone 11 case lineup,
iphone 11 case light up,
iphone 11 case liquid air,
iphone 11 case luxury,
iphone 11 case led,
iphone 11 case linen blue,
iphone 11 case mate,
iphone 11 case mate twinkle,
iphone 11 case mous,
iphone 11 case magnetic,
iphone 11 case military grade,
iphone 11 case mobile reviews eh,
iphone 11 case making,
iphone 11 case mint green,
iphone 11 case nabeel nawab,
iphone 11 case neo hybrid,
iphone 11 case nomad,
iphone 11 case nike,
iphone 11 case nabeel,
iphone 11 case nillkin,
iphone 11 case naruto,
iphone 11 case nightmare before christmas,
iphone 11 case on xr,
iphone 11 case otterbox,
iphone 11 case on iphone x,
iphone 11 case or no case,
iphone 11 case otterbox defender,
iphone 11 case on xs,
iphone 11 case otterbox symmetry,
iphone 11 case otterbox commuter,
iphone 11 case protection,
iphone 11 case purple,
iphone 11 case pro,
iphone 11 case pink,
iphone 11 case painting,
iphone 11 case philippines,
iphone 11 case power bank,
iphone 11 case pitaka,
iphone 11 case quartz hybrid,
iphone 11 case qi compatible,
iphone 11 case quicksand,
iphone 11 phone covers
iphone 11 pro,apple,iphone 11 pro max,iphone 11 case,iphone 11 casekoo,casekoo iphone 11 case,iphone 11 pro casekoo,casekoo iphone 11 pro max screen protector,casekoo iphone 11 pro case,iphone 12,iphone 12 pro case,iphone 12 case,casekoo,casekoo case,iphone 12 pro max case,iphone 12 pro,iphone 12 magsafe case,iphone 12 silicone case,iphone se magsafe,iphone 12 case price,apple iphone 12,best iphone 11 case,best iphone 11 pro case,best iphone cases
best iphone 11 case,best iphone 11 pro case,best iphone 11 pro max case,best iphone cases,best iphone cases 2019,best iphone 11 cases,best iphone 11 pro cases,best iphone 11 pro max cases,best iphone 11 case drop test,best iphone 11 case clear,best iphone 11 pro case review,best iphone 11 pro case clear,best iphone 11 pro max case clear,best iphone cases for protection,best iphone cases drop test,top iphone cases 2019,top iphone cases,best cases iphone 11 pro

Indian market in Bangkok Phahurat market
Let's go to the Phahurat market, which is famous for having an Indian town.
It is a short walk from Chinatown's Sampeng Market.
There are many dough shops on the street here. They also sell buttons and beads.
India Emporium sells Indian and Thai dresses as well as fabrics.