This is complete misinterpretation of Live-in relationship

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.

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]

Links:
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

Are marriages made in heaven?

According to me, not at all. 

Marriages are decided on earth by humans; we make and break them. One can marry once or multiple times, or not marry at all. It is a personal choice and a legal matter. There is nothing divine either in marriage or human life; the first one is a legal contract, and the second one is a biological phenomenon. The human mind is very unsteady, and it tries to run from one place to another, so to reduce this instability in long-term relationships concept of marriage was introduced. Centuries ago, when societies were very conservative, social male-female interaction was very restricted and limited; females were allowed to interact with only males from their own family. This created a unique system of ‘arranged marriage’ where everything was decided by elders, and the bride and groom had very little say in their own marriage. I think this resulted in the belief that to whom you will get married is your destiny (because it is not in your hands), that’s why they say marriage is made in heaven. All the rituals, oaths, and celebrations associated with marriage are just to make us realize the importance of that relationship. Like any other relationship, marriage requires a lot of understanding and adjustment to make it successful. As society progresses (intellectually and materially) concept of marriage also evolves with time.

Marriage is a human-made concept and institution; there is nothing divine or spiritual about it, it's a partnership at a different level. It’s widely accepted in all societies and cultures. Therefore, most societies feel the need to respect and preserve it. In many societies, it helps in the smooth functioning of society, brings some stability to human relationships, and nurtures the concept of family. We are not yet completely successful in curbing our animal instincts, so most of us need these types of intuitions and laws to curb our animal instincts and have harmony in our social and personal lives. 

Traditionally concept of marriage was to allow the development of long-term relationships between a man and woman to create a family. But today, this definition is changing to a commitment to a long-term and honest relationship between two individuals. It is being debated whether these individuals need to be a man or a woman. According to me, marriage can be between any two individuals as long as both are willing to enter and honor the commitment. This is what I believe, and there can be different opinions on this, and I totally understand it. People are entitled to have their own opinions and express them in a democratic manner. If you think logically, then you might understand what I mean. I wonder how we can say that same-sex people can’t get married. Why not? If they are willing to enter into a long-term relationship and honor their commitment, why can't they get married? 

Our society was male-dominant for centuries, and marriage was also designed heavily to favor males, where all changes (name change, family change, loss of property rights, etc.) were forced on females. As wives, women's role was restricted to specific duties which were mainly related to household chores. Things are now changing very fast, but I think females suffered a lot because of unfairly biased rules, where they have to compromise so much just for the sake of a long-term relationship with a man to bring some stability in their lives.  

Marriage is also not an institution only designed to produce legitimate kids. Becoming a parent is a personal choice. It requires some maturity and capacity to bear the burden and responsibility of a parent. Everybody eligible to get married is not ready or eligible to become a parent, so marriage and parenthood are two different things, and we should not mix them together. Historically, both these things are linked, but I think we are mature enough to understand that these two things are separate and have nothing to do with each other.

I would like to end this post with one interesting quote: "You don’t really need someone to complete you. You only need someone to accept you completely".

Thanks for reading and don't forget to share your views and comments.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)