Live in Essay

22 August 2008 In January 2008, the compulsory court sensibleated long-term live-in relationships as matings. A lordly solicit bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat with P Satasivan decl ared that nipperren born(p) out of much(prenominal) a relationship volition no long-dated be called illegitimate. Law inclines in the interest of legitimacy and thumbs d witness sobbing or fruit of adultery, the court added.The apex court savvy was followed by similar suggestions from the National delegating for Women (NCW). In June this year, in reaction to recommendations made by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the NCW sought a change in the definition of wife as described in Section cxxv of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which deals with livelihood. The NCW recommended that women in live-in relationships should be entitled to maintenance if the world deserts her.Emphasising the need for broadening the definition of wife in the CrPC section, NCW officials said in that respect had been cases where the musical composition led the cleaning woman to think that he was unmarital or was divorced or widowed and went ahead with the formality required by union police forces or the custom governing him. As a way of countering this, NCW chairperson Girija Vyas suggested that even if a marriage was non registered, a womans claim would protrude if she provided enough create of a long-term relationship.This underscored the Supreme royal courts stand that a man and woman, having lived together for long, would be presumed to digest been married, unless it was rebutted by convincing demonstrate. live rights The recent judgment is only the latest in a serial of recommendations by various bodies seeking compeer rights for the married woman and live-in womanly give away half. A recommendation by the Justice Malinath Committee to the Law Commission of India (2003) stated that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for a reasonable t ime, she should enjoy the legal rights of a wife.The Protection of Women from Domestic strength Act (2005) provides protection to women at the hands of their husbands as well as live-in partners, and his relatives. When the law came into force in October 2006, it did not distinguish between the woman who is married and the woman who is in a live-in relationship. The SC ruling in itself has its precedent in a 1927 judgment made by the john Council, the Supreme Courts predecessor in pre-independent India. In A Dinohamy v.WL Blahamy, the Council laid down a general principle Where a man and a woman are settled to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be intelligibly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. The Council made significant additions to the 1927 ruling in 1929 in Mohabhat Ali Vs Mohammad Ibrahim Khan. It said The law presumes in favour of marriage and against c oncubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a progeny of historic period. For a live-in couple to be considered validly married, the court wanted evidence of cohabitation for a number of age, without specifying the minimum number of years. In Gokal Chand and Pravin Kumari (1952), the Supreme Court reiterated the 1929 principle. However, it added that though the supposal for a valid marriage between a live-in couple could be drawn from their long cohabitation, it wasnt enough to compass them legitimacy if the evidence of their living together was rebuttable.In this judgment, the apex court refused to recognise a live-in relationship, though the couple had lived together for some years in advance the pregnant woman decided to live alone with her child born out of a live-in relationship with the man. The rebuttal of a presumption in favour of a valid marriage, in this case, came from the child, who said she did not remember her father ever visiting her or her mother.In Badri Prasad (1978), the Supreme Court recognised a live-in relationship as a valid marriage, accusing the government activity of perplexitying a relationship 50 years after the couple had begun living together, and were treated as a married couple even by their relatives. The view from the courts A Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in 1985 dealt with the case of Loli, who had lived for several years with Radhika Singh. Together they had pentad daughters and a son. The trial court dismissed the case made by Singhs sister-in-law that Loli should not have property rights as she was just a mistress.The sister-in-law had sought her rights over the property, and contended that Loli had started living with Singh even when her head start husband was alive, and in that respectfore, there could not be a presumption of valid marriage. But the appellate court set aside the trial courts order, a stand the Madhya Pradesh High Court also agreed with. This brings us to Payal Sharm a Vs Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and others, in which a court stated in 2001 that a live-in relationship was not black-market.Sharma had moved the Allahabad High Court to be left to do her own bidding after being forced to live in a Nari Niketan at Agra, following her arrest, along with Ramendra Singh, with whom she had a live-in relationship. The Agra police arrested her and Singh on the stem of an FIR lodged by her father, accusing Singh, an already married man, of kidnapping Sharma. A resident of Kannauj district in Uttar Pradesh, Sharma produced documentary evidence, including her steep school certificate, to prove that she was 21 years old.On the basis of this evidence, the court directed the authorities to set her free. Justice M Katju and Justice RB Mishra stated, Petitioner Smt. Payal Sharma appeared before us and stated that she is above 21 years of age, which is borne out from the high school certificate which shows that her date of birth is 10. 7. 1980. Hence she is a major(ip) and has the right to go anywhere and live with anyone. In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without getting married, can live together if they want to.This may be regarded as immoral by beau monde, but is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality. Thus, a kindred view appears to emerge from the courts, when one looks at the history of cases on the foreland of live-in relationships. It appears that, by and large, legal phiz for live-in relationships is based on the assumption that they are not between equals, and therefore women must be protected by the courts from the patriarchal power that defines marriage, which covers these relationships too. Shades of greyBut such preventative sanction raises other questions, notably about the institution of marriage itself, for which there are no easy answers. Supposing a live-in relationship is between a man who is already married with children, and a single woman? In Payal Sharma, Ramendra Singh was a m arried man with children. Which womans interest should the courts and law protect, and in doing so, can the apparent equality between married and single couples be maintained? Live-in relationships also raise questions about legal position towards bigamy.In spirit and essence, the Allahabad High Court judgement contradicts the law against bigamy for Hindus, twain for men and women, which make it mandatory for a husband or wife to get a divorce before they can marry again. When bigamy is illegal except for Muslims in what sense can a live-in relationship be equal to a marriage, if either the man or the woman is already married? And how is it that a division bench of a High Court is able to pronounce a judgement that openly violates the social, legal and filial implications that bind the husband in a Hindu marriage, which includes living with the wife and children under the same roof?Theres also the question of marriage-like protection for a woman who enters a relationship with s omeone she isnt married to, by choice or circumstance. Does a female partner need the protection of legal standing equivalent to that of a wife, in a non-married relationship she entered into by choice or circumstance? To marry, or not to marry? Live-in relationships among urban, educated, upper-middle class materialization people began as a declaration of independence, as a way of keeping away from the shackles of institutionalise marriages.In fact, its a willful rejection of the institution of marriage, of the stereotypes it engenders, and of the restrictions and inequalities it has come to stand for. But, legal sanction granted to a live-in relationship may hurtle it back in the trap that live-in partners sought to evade in the first place. This legal sanction implies that live-in relationships are bound by the same rules of fidelity, loading and economic stability that marriage is structured in.Social geographer Soma pika says that people who take for live-in relationships d o so because they do not believe in marriage. If live-in relationships are treated on par with marriage, many young men and women may not really like to get into such open relationships. At the other end, ensuring maintenance and giving legal sanction to live-in relationships will not make the position of the female partner equal to that of the wife because social acceptance in Indian society will take a very long time.It still does not have a mindset that accepts the estranged female partner of a live-in relationship. Psychologist Shenaz B Ilavia believes that live-in relationships are still confined to a marginal segment of society which she calls the elite, upper middle class. Theoretically, it may sound like a better proposition than marriage, but very few people actually opt for it. A live-in relationship is not a substitute for marriage, she says.