INTRODUCTION
Live-in relationships are more typical than you may think. Everybody has various considerations and discernment which would lead them to acknowledge or object to such relationships. While there are numerous purposes behind a couple to choose to move in together, it involves a certain kind of duty one that you may need to assess yourself on before you choose to make this stride in your relationship.
The very bit of leeway of being in a live-in relationship is its greatest burden Lack of Commitment. It is accepted that human relationships are feeble and complex. As a result of all the weight and obligations that accompany marriage, couples incline toward being in dwelling together to fulfill their different needs. Be that as it may, a wedded couple will put forth every conceivable attempt to spare their relationship, and look for answers for issues and misunderstanding before splitting up than the individuals in a live-in relationship. Despite the numerous discussions that sparkle in the minds of individuals with regards to live-in relationships, there are positives and negatives to the equivalent.
Social Censure is an incredible impediment to a live-in relationship. Society finds it difficult to acknowledge such a relationship kindly. It is considered as non-worthy particularly by the more seasoned age. Couples in such kind of relationship are regularly bugged by the general public for their decision. Another weakness is the absence of responsibility. Any squabble or battle can prompt a split, while in a marriage a battle is regularly trailed by reasoning and resolving.
Quite a while into the relationship, one of the accomplices may feel ‘choked’ in the relationship because of the absence of individual space. Some may even feel a feeling of dreariness which causes inconvenience for the relationship and could in the end lead to a lamentable split.
Live-in relationships frequently come up short on the profundity of a marriage. The path of least resistance of a live-in connection makes individuals so agreeable in this arrangement that they wind up delaying marriage as an alternative. Likewise, living together makes individuals used to their concept of enjoying the individual and financial opportunity, such a significant number of couples find it hard to manage the obligations that marriage brings alongside it. Trust likewise turns into a flawed factor for those in a live-in relationship or who have left one. Human relationships are mind-boggling and marriage is a gigantic duty. Today, youthful age goes into different kinds of relationships in request to fulfill their physical, mental, passionate, and financial necessities. It has become a growing pattern in youths in metro urban areas.
In men-centric social orders, the impact of a bombed live-in relationship is generally intense on the lady. She endures both organically and socially. She frequently finds it hard to recover financially and proceed onward with her life.
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP: INDIAN SCENARIO
- In 2010, the Honorable Supreme Court of India in the Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr case opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offense. What is the offense? if two adult people want to live together. Does it amount to an offense? Living together is not an offense. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice K.G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma, and B.S Chauhan observed that it cannot be an offense.
- In the case of Bhaasthamata v. R Vijaya Renganathan in 2010, live in relations suffered a setback with the ban imposed by the Supreme Court in a Family dispute. The Supreme Court held that a baby born out of a live-in relationship wasn’t entitled to say inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property. The dictum of the division bench comprising Dr. B.S Chauhan and Swatantra Kumar appears to be a general law but its root of jurisdiction lies in the facts peculiar to this case. This ruling may not be accepted as a general law at all. It is only justified during this particular matter, but if applied to all or any live-in relations raising a presumption of marital bond; it might end in a gross miscarriage of justice.
- In the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan Alias Andali Padayachi and Others, the Supreme Court under section 114 of Evidence Act allowed the presumption of marriage out of live-in relations and presumed that their children were legitimate. Hence, they are rightfully entitled to receive a share in ancestral property. The trial court did not accept the live-in claim. The first appeal was dismissed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court held the judgment in favor of a live-in partner.
- Before independence, in the case of A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy [AIR 1927 P.C. 185], the Privy Council laid down a broad rule postulating that, where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary is proved, that they were cohabitation in consequence of legitimate marriage and not during a state of concubinage.
- After independence Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1557, was the first case that can be reviewed. A live-in relationship as a valid marriage was recognized by the Supreme Court, putting a stop to questions raised by authorities on the 50 years of life in the relationship of a couple.
- In the case of Payal Sharma v. Superintendent Nari Niketan Agra and Others, the Allahabad High Court ruled out, any lady of about 21 years of age (being a major), has right to go anywhere and that if they wish any man and woman even without getting married can live together.
- In 2009, Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Honorable Supreme Court observed that under Section 125 of CrPC, to claim maintenance, it is not necessary for a woman to strictly establish the marriage. According to Section 125 of CrPC, A woman living in a relationship may also claim maintenance.
In 2008, a proposal suggesting a woman involved in such a relationship for a reasonable period should get the status of a wife was approved by the Maharashtra Government. The word wife under CrPC is amended to include a woman living with the man like his wife which means the woman would also be entitled to alimony, suggested by the Malimath committee.
In the case of Lata Singh v. State of UP & others, the Apex Court held that the live-in relationship was permissible only between unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex. Before the decriminalization of adultery, if a spouse is married then the man could be guilty of adultery and punishable under Section 497 of the IPC. So, live-in might be a dangerous thing between a wife and a non-husband because it could lead to the crime of adultery, but never to marriage.
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE-IN RELATION
Live-in Relationship has been granted legal status by the Supreme Court of India, but what happens if one partner decides to walk out? Regarding this question recently Supreme Court of India held that child born out of a live-in relationship will be legitimate and possess a right to inherit the properties left behind by one of the partners.
In the case of Arvind Yadav v. Renu Sharma in 2011, an 18 years old unmarried girl choose a path for herself to live with a married man. Wherein Delhi High Court protected their live-in relationship but alerted them that they will not be entitled to claim Maintenance and Alimony in case any one of them later walks out of this wedlock because they do not qualify the condition of live-in relationship that they both must be unmarried.
CONCLUSION
It’s better to possess a live-in relationship instead of having a divorced life. This is a common and quite rational line favouring live-in relations within the world. It shouldn’t be denied that our culture does need a legislature to manage relationships that are likely to grow in number with changes within the ideology of individuals. The right time has come that efforts should be made to enact a law having clear provisions concerning the period required to offer status to the relationship, registration, and rights of parties and youngsters born out of it. Parliament should make laws, which can help to keep a check on the practice of evading bondage.
The man and woman who are willing to live in a relationship should also try to make bond strong instead of moving out. The problems listed above in the introduction part are the main reasons why some communities in India are against the live-in relationship. At last, if anyone moves out of the relationship it can cause a psychological issue on the human body, mostly on the women. And sometimes men also take advantage of women under the shield of live in relationships.
Author: AYUSH CHOUBEY,
Jagran Lakecity University, 1st Year
