Comments on: Immorality & Live-In Relationship

By: Hari

Hari — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:24:58 +0000

I will let you have the last word.

By: Bhagwad Jal Park

Bhagwad Jal Park — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:21:27 +0000

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.

By: Hari

Hari — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:10:05 +0000

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).

By: Bhagwad Jal Park

Bhagwad Jal Park — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:31:25 +0000

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!

By: Hari

Hari — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:41:40 +0000

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.

By: Bhagwad Jal Park

Bhagwad Jal Park — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:22:57 +0000

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?