Total freedom a sham? Perils of Live-in relationships

Every society upholds certain values, and what follows are certain unwritten rules. Most people live in compliance with them. These rules are passed down through the centuries for the smooth running of family lives. One of the cardinal subjects under the aegis of this rule is marriage. Although it is a private ceremony between two individuals, a large audience of relatives and friends comes to witness the grandeur. This nuptial knot or marriage ceremony in the presence of a crowd is done to instil great responsibility on the shoulders of the bride and groom. Marriage is also a ceremony where the couple gently agree with the societal norms so as not to invite the wrath of the people. The pendant thus carries significance and is worn as a symbol of respect.

All these notions are things of the past. In this modern era, these notions don’t get the same respect as before. The concept of living together has taken over among youngsters, making marriage go redundant. Marriage is a legal ceremony, while living together is not bound by any law. The partners in a live-in relationship can separate from each other at a whim without informing society or other legal institutions. The Supreme Court has pointed out in a related case that such separation cannot be considered a criminal offence. Supreme Court Judge Justice B.V. Nagaratna questioned why those people engaging in a living together relationship, which is not bound by law, end up coming to court alleging rape by their partner. This observation of the Supreme Court Justice was made while considering a petition filed by a woman alleging that her partner had raped her by promising marriage. A complaint of rape after the breakup of a consensual living together relationship cannot exist.

The complainant alleged that the accused had deceived her by hiding the fact that he had four wives. The complaint states that the two met when the girl was 18 years old and promised to marry her. However, the court asked whether it was the complainant’s own free will to live together and give birth to a child before marriage. The court added that this question was not to insult the victim but to clarify the nature of consent. At the same time, the court clarified that even if the relationship is illegal, the child born from it has all legal rights. The court also clarified that the mother has every right to demand financial backing from the partner for raising the child. The Supreme Court's observation should also be seen as a warning to those who go for a live-in relationship without looking into the possible consequences.