Recent news about a judgment by Madhya Pradesh Lok Adalat left me surprised and shocked. As per the court order the wife and live-in partner of a man should live together under the same roof, sharing the space and time with their man, this arrangement was made after a mutual agreement between them. I am still trying to understand how come court concluded that an extramarital affair qualifies as a live-in relationship. This is a case of adultery where an already married man without giving divorce to his first wife engages in a sexual relationship with another woman. I also wonder what would have been the court's reaction if this had been a reverse scenario, that is, a married woman engaging in an extramarital relationship with another man outside her marriage. Would this court have given a similar verdict? Would people have accepted such a verdict as easily as they accepted this one? This decision might have been taken after considering the fate of the other woman who is dependent on this man, even if he cheated both these women they don't have any other option but to compromise and stay with the same man who cheated them both. This is a very sad state of affairs. After this verdict, one of my cousins told me that now in India even Hindus can marry twice legally! Such is the effect of such judgments.
The topic of live-in relationships is very intensely debated on many discussion forums in India. This is a very controversial and sensitive subject, many people and institutions are against it because they think it is against their traditions and culture. They also feel that this might put the institution of marriage in danger. There are many misconceptions about live-in relationships in India. First, a one-night stand or extramarital affair is not a live-in relationship. Live-in relationships are almost like a marriage but without any legal obligations for separation (like filing for divorce) but they also come with all other requirements like commitment (as long as the relationship is in place), offering financial support to the partner, and children. But often people misinterpret it as an easy way to have sexual relations without marriage and ignore all obligations. Now it seems even courts started making this mistake. Protecting the rights of a partner in any relationship is very important. The institution of marriage allows that protection but there should be an alternative for people who don't believe in this institution and a live-in relationship has emerged as the closest possible alternative. Society needs to discuss and debate it before accepting or rejecting it. Accepting or rejecting anything without proper consideration would be a huge mistake, and this judgment is a good example of it. I also agree that the court didn't have many options in this particular case but this case should not make people believe that now polygamy is legal or there is some way to practice polygamy legally.
The topic of live-in relationships is very intensely debated on many discussion forums in India. This is a very controversial and sensitive subject, many people and institutions are against it because they think it is against their traditions and culture. They also feel that this might put the institution of marriage in danger. There are many misconceptions about live-in relationships in India. First, a one-night stand or extramarital affair is not a live-in relationship. Live-in relationships are almost like a marriage but without any legal obligations for separation (like filing for divorce) but they also come with all other requirements like commitment (as long as the relationship is in place), offering financial support to the partner, and children. But often people misinterpret it as an easy way to have sexual relations without marriage and ignore all obligations. Now it seems even courts started making this mistake. Protecting the rights of a partner in any relationship is very important. The institution of marriage allows that protection but there should be an alternative for people who don't believe in this institution and a live-in relationship has emerged as the closest possible alternative. Society needs to discuss and debate it before accepting or rejecting it. Accepting or rejecting anything without proper consideration would be a huge mistake, and this judgment is a good example of it. I also agree that the court didn't have many options in this particular case but this case should not make people believe that now polygamy is legal or there is some way to practice polygamy legally.
I am questioning this particular judgment because there is a common impression among people that in this case man got rewarded instead of getting punished for his infidelity. This perception is dangerous, and this is why such judgments should come with proper explanations, warnings, and disclaimers. This judgment is a total misinterpretation of the concept of a live-in relationship. I hope they clarify this before many more commit this mistake again or start thinking that this is not at all a mistake. I am also not saying that because of this judgment, these things will now start happening, they are already happening but this judgment should not confuse people more about the already confusing concept of live-in relationship. These issues require some understanding and mature response from society as a whole, these things should not be used to exploit people and create unnecessary disturbance in society. I hope people understand this and act accordingly.
Thanks for reading and please share your opinion about this topic.
[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]
1. Lok Adalat orders man to spend equal time with wife and live-in partner
2. Court Asks Man, Live-in Partner to Stay with Wife in Same House
Now Supreme Court calls homosexual relations also illegal. Feel like to laugh at old fools warming chairs in Supreme Courts who do not know what modern relations are like. Haah ahaa.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your opinion, actually SC has expressed its inability to amend the existing law which I think is almost 150 years old, it seems only our parliament has that right, so it has passed the buck to politicians, so now lets see what they do, but I agree that this was such a regressive step by SC, I expected something different.
Delete