Stating that we are not living in a Western country where live-in relationships are very popular and common among citizens, the Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man, noting that it was solely filed to extract a compromise from the woman’s family by placing them under pressure and fear of humiliation
By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Justice Shamim Ahmed of the Allahabad High Court made the observation while deciding the petition submitted by 32-year-old Ashish Kumar, who claimed that his partner, a 29-year-old woman, was being confined forcefully by her family members. Being totally unconvinced by the submissions made by the petitioner’s lawyer, the judge reiterated that live-in relationships are not common in India and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner.
The judge observed: “This Court does not find any justification to entertain this type of petition and to frustrate this type of petition filed by any such person in future only to defame the image of a girl or her family members, who are living in a society and if the Court entertains this type of petition, the image and reputation of family as well as of the girl will certainly be demolished and it will be very difficult for a family who has been roped in these type of cases to solemnize the wedding of their girl in future to any other family of their choice.” The judge further said: “We live in a country where people believe in culture and traditions, which is the crown of our country and we are proud of it, therefore, we have to respect the traditions and culture of our country.”
The decision of the Court was a blow to the petitioner who had claimed to be in a relationship with the woman since 2011. It was also alleged by him that, despite the couple’s desire to marry, the woman was forbidden from meeting Kumar, was forced to stay at home and her family strictly opposed the union. Kumar further submitted photographs and a letter allegedly written by the said woman to back up his accusations as proof.
The state, on the other hand, opposed these claims stating that the entire case was not only bogus, but also concocted and intended to harm the woman and her family’s reputation in the society. The Court seeing merit in the state’s submissions, concluded that the pictures submitted by the petitioner appeared to be modified and altered and that the letter allegedly written by the woman appeared to be forged. The Court at the same time also questioned why the couple did not marry after supposedly being in a relationship for 13 years. Noting that Kumar’s writ petition made no mention of any live-in relationship, the Court was also of the view that the petitioner’s arguments before it were carefully crafted in order to secure a favourable ruling.
This is not the first time when the courts in India have taken an adverse view regarding providing protection to couples who claim to be in a live-in relationship. Observing that live-in relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this country, the Allahabad High Court had recently dismissed another writ plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner, seeking police protection on the grounds that her husband was endangering their peaceful lives.
Dismissing another petition filed by an inter-faith couple, who were in a live-in relationship and had approached the Court seeking protection from alleged police harassment, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court had said that live-in relationships were a “social problem” and could be “uprooted socially” and not by the intervention of the courts in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari last year on a petition filed by a Hindu woman, who had contended that she was an adult and had been living with a Muslim man in a live-in relationship and alleged that she was being harassed by the police. Suggesting an alternative remedy to such couples, the Court had also stated: “If there is any real grievance of a live-in couple against their parents or relatives who are allegedly interfering with their live-in status which goes to such an extent that there is a threat of life, they are at liberty to lodge an FIR.” The Court had in fact in this case also discussed the Muslim Personal Law and said that live-in relationship is not recognised in Islam. “In Muslim law no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage,” the Court said.
Referring to the concept of “Zina” (any sexual intercourse except that between husband and wife includes both extra-marital sex and premarital sex) in Islam, the Court also said that “any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring, etc” are “Haram” in Islam before marriage because these are considered parts of “Zina” which may lead to actual “Zina” itself. The punishment for such offence according to Quran (chapter 24) is hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit fornication and the punishment prescribed by the “Sunnah” for the married male and female is stoning to death.
Giving an in-depth assessment of the problems caused due to such relationships, the Court had even opined that “awareness has to be created in young minds not just from the point of view of emotional and societal pressures that such relationships may create, but also from the perspective that it could give rise to various legal hassles on issues like division of property, violence and cheating within live-in relationships, rehabilitation in case of desertion by or death of a partner and handling of custody and other issues when it comes to children born from such relationships”.
There is no doubt that being a culturally rich society, the value system on which India thrives cannot run on the same lines as that of the Western societies. Due to the growing economy and the fact that people are now getting more and more aware, India finally had to step ahead and walk with the rest of the world by legalising live-in relationships. The state cabinet gave its nod to amend Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code which seeks to protect the pecuniary interests of the other women. However, it would need the centre’s stamp of approval to become a law. The legal definition of live-in relationship is “an arrangement of living under which the couples which are unmarried live together to conduct a long-going relationship similarly as in marriage.”
While a marriage is governed by a separate set of laws in all countries which safeguards the interests of both parties who enter into the union, live-in relationships, on the other hand, have received due recognition in a very few countries such as France and Philippines. In India, presently there is no law defining the maxims of a live-in relationship.
The Supreme Court, however, in Khushboo’s case opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence. “When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence,” a three-judge bench of then Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma and BS Chauhan had observed. The Court, in fact, went as far as saying that even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology.
Live-in relationships do guarantee immense financial freedom for both parties involved and this is one of the reasons why scores of couples are opting for the same today. However, it cannot be denied that the society attaches a taboo to such relationships. A majority of the Indian population still looks at live-in relationship as a dilution of morals, and more importantly, tradition. Marriage, on the other hand, is still venerated by most despite the alarming rise in the number of divorces. Therefore, the primary social difference between live-in relationship and marriage is that while marriages have received the societal stamp of approval, live-in relationships still have a long way to go before society accepts them.
While proponents of live-in relationships have multiple arguments in their favour, it cannot be denied that such relationships come with their own baggage. Although the apex court has granted legal status to live-in relationships, what happens if one partner decides to walk out? Could the other partner be left homeless? Will the children born into a live-in relationship be recognized by the law? Will it empower women with the right to inheritance, right to maintenance and right to demand alimony? Will the law give the same standing status to live-in relationships as that of marriage? Only time will tell.
—The writer is an Advocate-on-Record practicing in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi