The family system in India received a jolt rather death knell on 28 November when the Supreme Court put its stamp of recognition to live-in relationship. Earlier it was Madras High Court that had ‘undermined’ the institution of marriage by granting recognition to outside-marriage relationship. Now, an Apex Court Bench comprising Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said the ambit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – which for the first time recognised a man-woman relationship outside wedlock – did not cover live-in relationships in general but offers protection against domestic violence to a woman in a live-in relationship that is in the nature of marriage. Though the Bench affirmed that “maintaining an adulterous relationship… cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage,” it took the trouble of framing guidelines for determining live-in relationship. Duration of relation, shared household, pooling of resources, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, socialisation in public and intention and conduct of the parties are the eight ‘guidelines’ which the Court deemed necessary for considering live-in relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’ and for differentiating it from an ‘adulterous relationship’. The Court also asked Parliament to consider a proper law to address the problems faced by a large number of women living in live-in relationships.
The fact remains that a live-in relationship cannot be equated with a relationship based on marriage. In marriage, socio-religious commitment ensures lifetime peace and stability in relationship to both the partners. While a live-in relationship is a live-in relationship; no amount of time spent in live-in can bring it ‘in the nature of marriage’. It carries a sense of insecurity and capriciousness with it and will always remain adulterous and thus a sin and crime. Besides, a live-in relationship is exposed to other social and medical dangers; chances of abortion, promiscuity and breakup of relationship are always there. They argue that a live-in relationship is “as good as marriages”. The billion dollar question is: If it is so, why the practitioners and advocates of this relationship do not opt for marriage, which is of course more stable and durable. This is only because they lack commitment level.
Our civil society, social scientists and voluntary organisations especially Muslim and other religious organisations need to come together to raise their strong, united voice against this onslaught on family system. Violence against the women who have fallen prey to this vicious relationship must be contained but more importantly efforts be made to make them understand the sanctity of marriage. Instead of devising any law to recognise live-in relationship, Parliament should devise law to curb this anti-family move and save the society from moral degeneration.