Immorality & Live-In Relationship
In a rather strange ruling the Delhi High Court said that people who are in a live-in relationship cannot complain about infidelity or immorality. The judges said “People who chose to have live-in relationship cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married man and unmarried woman or between married woman and unmarried man”. The judges delivered this ruling and set aside a complaint by a woman who stated that her former live-in partner refused to marry her.
I actually agree with the outcome of the case. Nobody should be forced to marry someone if he/she does not want to irrespective of what was said during the relationship (she can maybe file a case against him for lying). The judges further added “those who do not want to enter into this kind of relationship of walk-in and walk-out; they enter into a relationship of marriage where the bond between the parties has legal implications and obligations and cannot be broken by either party at will”. The statement of the judges and the language used worries me a lot.
The judicial systems in all major democracies follow some basic principles before delivering their verdict on cases where human rights issues are involved. One of the principles is to make sure that a verdict expands rights and not put a limit on it. The Delhi High Court missed a wonderful opportunity to provide rights to those who are in live-in relationships rather than make a blanket statement that these people cannot complain about infidelity or immorality.
The judges are also playing to the gallery by using the phrase “walk-in walk-out” to describe what is going on in a live-in relationship. Yes there are some live-in relationships that fall under this category. But the same can be said of married relationships as well. Those of us who believe in traditional marriage or those of us who are conservatives would like to believe that all live-in relationships are “walk-in walk-out”.
In addition this is another example where certain sections of society are defining for the rest of us of what is acceptable and normal. Arranged marriage is very common in India. But that does not mean that other types of arrangements/relationships are uncommon in India. Millions of Indians who we consider as tribal’s do not believe in the concept of marriage the way we do (I have met people who belong to the Toda community in Tamil Nadu. Many of them believe that according to their traditions couples have to live together for a while before they can get married). Why are the moral values of certain sections of Hindu society superior to others?
The divorce rates in India are climbing. Traditional marriage in India has been undergoing change for a long time (our grandparents most likely met each other for the first time on the day of their wedding. How many traditional marriages are like that today? We are all slowly but steadily moving towards live-in type relationships whether we like to accept it or not). Our government and legal system has come to terms with couples separating and divorcing. So why are the government and the legal system dragging its feet when it comes to live-in relationships?
In fact many traditional marriages in India today already have elements of live-in relationship. This is very true for couples in urban areas. Parents “arrange” a marriage but the individuals involved “date”, are in constant contact with each other, attend ceremonies together etc. before their actual wedding ceremony. The courts are saying that some of these couples cannot complain about morality or infidelity.
In my opinion infidelity and immorality has an impact on human beings whether they are straight or gay or whether they are married or in a live-relationship. These human tendencies and emotions do not change based on the legal status of the relationship. The current interpretation of the court is that two strangers can meet and marry the same day but if one of them cheats the day after marriage then he/she can make claims of infidelity and immorality. But if one person who is in a long term live-in relationship cheats then he/she has no claims to infidelity and immorality. Does this sound fair or reasonable?
The statements that the court has made can be interpreted to show that it believes that those who are married are morally superior to those who are in live-in relationships. How did it come to this conclusion? Should the courts or the government be in the business of legislating morality? People, who live together rent or won property together, have combined bank accounts, may have children or have joint debts or face the same day to day issues that other individuals face. It is important that government is prepared and that there are sufficient laws in place to govern this growing aspect of our society.
“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike” – Alfred North Whitehead (English Mathematician)
Related posts:
- Live-in Relationship & Premarital Sex Are Legal
- Time for India to Legalize Gay Marriage
- Indians Morally Superior to Westerners?
- Arranged Marriage is Not Fashionable Anymore!
- Indian Police Act as Marriage Counselors
Category: Culture & Religion
I agree with the high court here. My wife and I lived in for a year before getting married. It’s perfect for those who don’t want the law to have anything to do with their personal relationships.
If the court had instead said that the law was going to have a hand in what is and isn’t acceptable in live in relationships, then I have a problem. After all, what option does a couple have then if they want to sort their problems out themselves without the law getting involved?
I think that law is not an issue if everything goes well. I am wondering about what would happen if things go wrong in a live-in relationship. If a couple is living together for a long period of time (only if one individual is working) and if they decide to call it off after 10 years what should happen as far as spousal support is concerned? I believe that the concept of “Common-law marriage” which is accepted in many Western societies (and many states in the US) should be adopted in India as well to protect the rights of those participating in such relationships.
I think there’s a limit to which the state can play nanny. If an adult has had a live in relationship for 10 years, he or she is supposed to know the consequences – they’re not children after all. What the HC said was actually quite right.
Also, where does it end? Soon marriage and live in partners will be the same. It seems to be heading that way with women activists demanding the same rights for both. You have to draw the line somewhere.
A live in relationship has nothing to do with the government. Not legal or illegal. It’s invisible to the law. And that’s the reason why it can be better than a marriage!
Bhagwad … Personally I do not think that we can put a limit on rights. It is always expanding. That is the world we live in. We cannot also presuppose behavior. The law has to state what is acceptable and what is off limits. As adults we are supposed to know that we cannot physically abuse our spouse. But some of us do and that is when the law steps in.
Most people who are in live-in relationships understand the nature of the relationship. But when things like spousal abuse, property disputes and child custody issues prop up they approach the government and demand justice. The government cannot say that these issues are outside the scope of law because of the nature of the relationship. An individuals right has to be protected in this case irrespective of the nature of the relationship.
I am not stating that marriage and live-in relationship should be treated the same under the law. They are different and should be treated differently within the context of the law but should not remain outside the privy of the law. I disagree with the judge that a person in a live-in relationship cannot make a claim of immorality (immorality is not just cheating on a spouse but includes a long list of other deeds).
I feel the government cannot and should not legislate morality.
As far as rights go, we must understand that no one has a right not to get hurt. The only rights given to us are those in the constitution – and they mainly deal with “live and let live.” There isn’t any right to not suffer the legitimate consequences of one’s actions.
After all, the world isn’t fair. If someone has hurt you – physically or financially, then one can say that one’s right have been violated. But emotional hurt or unfairness isn’t something that the government should interfere in.
I will let you have the last word.