Live-in Relationships Promote Lascivious and Promiscuous Behaviour, Said the Learned Judge!

0
609
  • As you are aware, the subject debate is in the domain of judicial consideration for quite some time now interpreting the extremely sensitive, far-reaching, and potentially path-breaking man-woman relationships. Of course, the primacy and sanctity accorded to the relationship in a marriage are unquestionable. In the same vein, the society too has undergone tremendous changes keeping in line with the fast-evolving modern-day relationship scenario where couples deciding to live together without the official stamp of marriage is on the rise. This fast-emerging situation holds true in a majority of the metro cities as also less populated cities too.

PC: Aashima Kakkar

  • Most importantly, growing acceptance for such an arrangement between the consenting adults is a much-needed change in the society defining the clear path for the indulgent’ s without any hindrances. As is the case with any issues that lacks clarity and falls outside the ambit of the law invariably reaches the portals of the judiciary, the live-in relationship opted for by the consenting adults lacks support from both the law of the land as well as society, in general, is also being pursued by the higher judiciary. As reported extensively in the newspapers, Madhya Pradesh high court’s Indore bench rightly denied bail to a rape accused in a live-in relationship with the victim.
  • In denying bail, the judge correctly recognized that sex without consent constitutes rape in a live-in relationship, a recognition married women are denied via an exemption in Section 375, IPC 1860. Delhi high court is hearing a plea for the exemption’s removal. However, the problematic part lies in the judge’s other observations about live-in relationships promoting promiscuity and lascivious behavior leading to sex crimes, and as such, live-in status is a trap. Needless to mention, this attitude bears thorough scrutiny. Remember, the Supreme Court in a 2015 inheritance case ruled that an unmarried couple living together for a long time be considered married.

PC: Lawtendo

  • If you recollect by going back to 2011, a slew of companies allowed employees to include live-in partners for health insurance opening up the hitherto considered taboo topic a much-needed fresh perception and approach. Understandably, society too started viewing the topic with a welcome change albeit cautiously. Similarly, judgments have sensibly rejected rape allegations that cited the pretext of marriage, including in live-in relationships. A clash is inevitable over a woman’s right to consent in a live-in relationship and the latter’s legal status. Recall a 2015 Delhi high court judgment where the court refused to keep live-in relationships outside the purview of rape under IPC because that would give live-ins the status of matrimony, which the legislature had chosen not to do.
  • Nonetheless, the most peculiar upshot is that women alleging rape can seek justice only if they are live-in partners, not wives. Live-ins clearly offer more protection in this case, the judge’s worry about traps notwithstanding.