The British
ruled India for about two hundred long years.Even after they retreated , they
left an indelible mark on the mind of the young India, whether it be in the
form of legislation, their culture or most importantly the craze for
westernization. We are always in the rush of aping the west be it through
western outfits or their lifestyles without delving deep into the consequences
or repercussions of those acts on our society. Sometimes we defy our own
culture in order to endorse theirs and label ourselves as the children of the globalized world. One of the such ongoing trends is the culture of live in relationship.
Live-in-relationship
is the arrangement in which a man and a woman live together without
getting married. This is now a day’s being taken as an alternative to
marriage especially in the metropolitan cities. Currently the law is unclear
about the status of such relationship though a few rights have been granted to
prevent gross misuse of the relationship by the partners.
“Married in haste, we repent at
leisure”
The above
line by William Congreve truly defines the mentality of the live in
couples.The hectic lives of the metros don’t leave time for nurturing a family
in its true sense.Now a days people are becoming more and more individualistic
and career oriented. They spend less time at home and more time in offices.With
more and more women going out for work, the nurturer of the family is not
giving enough time for family and children. So actually why is there the
need to go into marital bonding and forsake one’s liberty?Everyone likes a life
free of tensions and responsibility.After working for night shifts who wants to
get up early the next day to prepare children’s tiffin and make ready them for
school?
Moreover,
the divorce laws are too cumbersome in India.If one has to get a
divorce then it takes years to finally get it done and trauma suffered by
the partners during these years is too much. This is also one of the biggest
reason for live in relations.There are too many legalities involved with the
institution of marriage which one can easily escape in the case of live
in relationships. It’s a much popular analogy of live in relationship that its
like “taking a car for a test drive “as the couple can easily walk in and walk
out of the relationship without any legal bondage. Its better to know the
person beforehand than marrying in haste and getting oneself in a legal
mess.
We have to
view the relationships from an important perspective of the institution of
marriage and our duty to protect and preserve the sanctity of marriage. There
are certain venues and spheres which are beyond the realm of law. Those are the
norms and dictates of conscience, sanctity of marriage, lifelong commitment and
responsibilities of parenthood.
As a lawyer
I feel the live in relationships are permissible so long as the person doesn’t
undergo the ceremony of marriage. It is alright if the factum of pre – marital
relationship is disclosed to the person and it is ignored or condoned. But in
several cases the non disclosure of this material fact especially in NRI
marriages are resulting in the nullification of the marriage on the ground of
fraud under section 5(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act. There are still arranged
marriages prevalent and the boys and girls are willing to undergo the same
trusting their parents and their experience. The character, the antecedents of
the boy or girl assume importance in such marriages. The marriages are made on
earth and are broken on earth and that is the accepted state now, especially
when we accept and approve the pre-maritial relationships before marriage.
The
Fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants to
all its citizens “right to life and personal liberty” which means that one is
free to live the way one wants.Live in relationship may be immoral in the eyes
of the conservative Indian society but it is not “illegal” in the
eyes of law.In case of Kushboo,the south Indian actress who endorsed pre-
marital sex and live in relationship,22 criminal appeals were filed against her
which the Supreme Court quashed saying that how can it be illegal if two
adults live together, in their words “living together cannot be illegal.”
Now the
problem is not just limited to the legality of the relationship but now people
are coming up about the rights of the live in partners and the status of children
born out of such wedlock.The Hindu Marriage Act 1955 gives the status of
legitimacy to every child, irrespective of birth out of a void, voidable or
valid marriage. However, they don’t have property and maintenance rights.In
case the couple break up then who would maintain the child in case none wants
to take responsibility remains a big problem.
In S.P.S
Balasubramanyam Vs Suruthaya @ Andali Padayachi and Ors. AIR 1992 SC 756, the
Supreme court held that if man and woman are living under the same roof and
cohabiting for a number of years, there will be a presumption under section 114
of the Evidence Act, that they Live as husband and wife and the children born
to them will not be illegitimate.
In Adan
Mohan Singh Vs Rajni Kant, the Supreme Court observed “The courts have
consistently held that the law presumes in favor of marriage and against
concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of
years. However, such presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence.
(vide: Mohabbat Ali Khan Vs Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135; Gokalchand Vs
Parvin Kumar, AIR 1952 SC 231; S.P.S Balasubramanyam Vs Suruttayan (1994) 1 SCC
460; Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali Vs Eknath Gajanan Kularni (1996) 7 SCC
681; and Sobha Hymavathi Devi Vs Setti Gangadhara Swamy and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC
244).
In appeal
filed by the well know actress, Khushboo seeking quashing of criminal
proceedings filed against her mostly in the state of Tamil Nadu, for the
remarks made by her in an interview to a leading new magazine. The Hon’ble
Supreme court opined that a man and woman living together without marriage
cannot be construed as an offence.
The Apex
court said there was no law which prohibits Live-in relationship or pre-marital
sex.
The Supreme
court, held that Live-in relationship is permissible only in unmarried major
persons of heterogeneous sex. In case, one of the said persons is married, man
may be guilty of offence of adultery and it would amount to an offence under
section 497 IPC.
In June,
2008, The National Commission for Women recommended to Ministry of Women and
Child Development made suggestion to include live in female partners for the
right of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. This view was supported by the
judgement in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and
Others . The positive opinion in favour of live in relationship was also
seconded by Maharashtra Government in October, 2008 when it accepted the
proposal made by Malimath Committee and Law Commission of India which suggested
that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time,
she ought to enjoy the legal status as given to wife. However, recently it was
observed that it is divorced wife who is treated as a wife in context of
Section 125 of CrPC and if a person has not even been married i.e. the case of
live in partners, they cannot be divorced, and hence cannot claim maintenance
under Section 125 of CrPC.
In France,
there is the provision of “Civil Solidarity Pacts” known as “pacte civil de
solidarite” or PaCS, passed by the French National Assembly in October 1999
that allows couples to enter into a union by signing before a court clerk. The
contract binds “two adults of different sexes or of the same sex, in order to organise
their common life” and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded to married
couples in the areas of income tax, housing and social welfare. The contract
can be revoked unilaterally or bilaterally after giving the partner, three
month’s notice in writing.
In
Philippines, live in relationship couple’s right to each other’s property is
governed by co- ownership rule. Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines
provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other,
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by
them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their
work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the UK,
live in couples does not enjoy legal sanction and status as granted to married
couple. There is no obligation on the partners to maintain each other. Partners
do not have inheritance right over each other’s property unless named in their
partner’s will. As per a 2010 note from the Home Affairs Section to the House
of Commons, unmarried couples have no guaranteed rights to ownership of each
other’s property on breakdown of relationship. However, the law seek to protect
the right of child born under such relationship. Both parents have the onus of
bringing up their children irrespective of the fact that whether they are
married or cohabiting.
The live in
relation were conferred legal sanctity in Scotland in the year 2006 by Family
Law (Scotland) Act. Section 25 (2) of the Act postulates that a court of law
can consider a person as a co-habitant of another by checking on three factors;
the length of the period during which they lived together, the nature of the
relationship during that period and the nature and extent of any financial
arrangements, in case of breakdown of such relationship, Section 28 of the Act
gives a cohabitant the right to apply in court for financial support. This is
in case of separation and not death of either partner. If a partner dies
intestate, the survivor can move the court for financial support from his
estate within 6 months.
Supreme
Court’s verdict on live in relationships has been welcomed by couples, who are
living in, but people who have high respect for tradition still remain on the other
side.
Talking
about prostitution, it is illegal in India, but do we see a reduction in the
number of brothels in the country? Can we legalize this practice in India,
which is prevailing for decades now? Same holds for live in relationships.
One big
question is that if a living in couple wants same rights as marriage couples,
why not they get married then? There are many grey areas. Will the law treat single,
married man cohabiting with a man in the same way? For how long the woman or
man have to be in live in to qualify for maintenance? If a live in couple has a
child and later decide to part ways, what will be the future of the child ? Why
should an innocent child suffer without any mistake?
Did we hear
of the oldest profession in the world? Is it not true that ever since human
memory is recorded, there have been instances of man seducing the other woman
or the woman seducing the other man. The Indian values have been undergoing
changes. Even 50 years ago, there was a joint family system, all living under
one roof; nolonger so, the couple look for a separate apartment even before
getting married. With the internet culture overtaking all other cultures
nothing is any more taboo. Moreover, there can be many, many genuine reasons
that a couple wants to stay together without creating encumbrances. How many
young wives are there in India with a child or two, whose legally married
husband has deserted? Live-in will avoid at least children and their
misfortunes in most cases, and both will have an option open to rectify the
mistake, if it was so. Both will not treat the other as their private property
and will learn to respect each other and be more matured in the process. So,
nothing is wrong. Anyway, no values are left in Indian society, politics,
business and even religious activity except one value and that is hypocrisy.
Many people imagine that living together
before marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive. The “trial period”
gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible. This analogy
seems so compelling that people are unable to interpret the mountains of data
to the contrary.
Here’s the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn't have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car.
Here’s the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn't have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car.
Legalizing
live in relationship means that a totally new set of laws need to be framed for
governing the relations including protection in case of desertion,
cheating in such relationships, maintenance, inheritance etc.Litigation would
drastically increase in this case.
Moreover the
psychological impact on children born out of this relationship would be very
bad leading to mental diseases and criminal tendencies. All this would give
rise to an unstable society.
The most
important fact that why do people get in live in relationships? If we would
make so many laws regarding it then what will happen to the whole idea of
liberty that is attached to such live in relationship. Now it is upon us to
weigh the pros and cons of this and then accordingly take a decision for
ourselves.
Siddhartha Shankar Mishra,
Sambalpur, Odisha
1 comment:
It is an article definitely for a cause. Human by nature , always looking for alternative , and it is indeed a alternative to marriage. Article is properly crafted with through research on socio-economic and legal issues.
Post a Comment