Non-marriage
of
convenience

For most people, a live-in relationship continues to be a vile concept that defies the sanctity of marriage. Even many of the couples, who live together, hope to get married some day. — Sociologist Oindrila Mitra

Sonali Roy is smart, suave and educated. This IT professional, who hails from West Bengal, works in an MNC and stays in Mumbai in a two-room flat with her boyfriend. In their own terms they have a "cool" relationship — he picks up the bills for groceries and she picks up the bills for the hired help. While he cooks on the weekend, she cooks on the weekdays. At the same time, they have schedules, which are in perfect coherence. In this relationship of ideal marital (live-in?) bliss, there just seems to be one downside — neither of their parents know about the arrangement.

What has stopped them from disclosing their live-in status? Are they not confident about their relationship or do they feel they are doing something wrong? Sonali feels that it is neither. "Neither do I feel that I am doing wrong and nor do I feel that my relationship cannot be disclosed as it will not last. I am perfectly confident about my relationship and my parents already know that Neel is the guy that I would eventually marry. They are also aware that we meet regularly or in most cases share meals — what, however, they do not know is that he has permanently moved in with me. I have consciously not told them about this decision. I feel that though they will not object but they will not understand either."

For Sonali’s boyfriend Neel, moving in with his girlfriend seemed to be the best option as both of them "wanted to be together forever, and given their hectic schedules they hardly got any time to meet." So, this was the only option left open for them, he says. However, Neel, who hails from Jamshedpur, has not told his parents for a similar reason. "They are very traditional and cannot digest it," he rues.

Sneha and Pariskshit, who are a live-in couple staying in Bangalore, have, however, told their family about their live-in status. "Initially, they were upset but now they have taken it in their stride, as they know that eventually we will get married. However, they have strictly asked us not to make this knowledge public," says Sneha.

With the Supreme Court passing a judgment recently legalising live-in relationship and pre-marital sex, has their position improved? Sneha answers in negative. "There was never any question of legality or morality for me; I am a consenting adult and I know what I am doing when I am living with somebody. So, the Supreme Court judgment does not really affect me at all, as I have no qualms about what I am doing; but maybe, it is a good initiative as all people are not like me and I hope this judgment changes their mind," she says.

This, however, will not be an easy task, feels sociologist Oindrila Mitra. "Sex has forever been taboo in our society and the concept of pre-marital sex is something that is not acceptable. Even today, for most people, a live-in relationship is a vile concept that defies the sanctity of marriage. Most couples, who live together, hope to get married some day. Given this scenario, it would be difficult to change the mindset of people as far as living together or pre-marital sex is concerned. A law cannot change the attitude of society," she says.

Advocate Soumyajit Raha, however, feels that there are a lot of questions that the law does not answer. "What happens when a guy breaks up a relationship after five years of living together? In many cases, in such situations the girl brings charges under Sections 420 and 376. However, in such a situation, would it be justified if the girl had been consenting partner in the relationship? Similarly, would it be justified if a partner walks out after years simply because the couple has been in a live-in relationship and not marriage? There needs to be a lot of introspection on these laws as after the aim of the law should be to safeguard the social well-being of a nation’s citizens."

While advocate Raha feels that there should be more stringent regulations to define these laws, social worker Namita Sinha feels that if stringent rules are imposed, then the spirit of live-in relationship would be lost. "If there are strict rules associated with a live-in relationship, then what would be the point in having such a relationship and not going for marriage? There would be no difference left between the two," she adds.

Psychologist Anamika Ghoshe, who works with an NGO Prayas, however, feels that these two forms of relationship are essentially not different at all. "In fact, the emotional investment in both kinds of relationship is often the same. It would be wrong to say that a person is less disturbed when a live-in relationship breaks than when a marriage breaks; so, psychologically there is no significant difference between the two."

Ghoshe feels that despite sex being a taboo word in tradition-bound societies like India, young people today are more open to the concept of pre-marital sex and live-in relationship. "In fact, most young people today are keen on checking their physical compatibility with their partners before they opt for long-term relationships; so, they are open to the idea of a live-in relationship and concept of pre-marital sex as well. What they do not want is the unnecessary chastisement by society, and for this they often practise the same behind closed doors while keeping the society guessing," she adds.

Are most of the senior Indians against the concept of live-in or pre-marital sex? Fiftyfour-year-old homemaker Sulekha Basu, who has been married for more than 30 years, says: "To be frank, yes. At least, in my case I would not be happy if my daughter Rhea, who is a graduate from NIFD and who works as a designer, enters a live-in relationship. I would always want her to be traditionally married as I am and would feel insecure for her if she stays in a live-in relationship. However, on retrospection I think, I would adjust — after all if she stays with a partner of opposite sex despite him being of different caste/community, I would think that all would finally turn out to be well." Like Sulekha Mira Kapoor, mother of two teenaged daughters, feels that "live-in is fine if it finally leads to marriage." She is open to "free mixing" of her daughters but would want them to be "finally married and settled in future."

Given the changing times, it seems an increasing number of people are embracing the liberal way of living and loving. The Supreme Court judgment, which states, "Living together is not an offence" clearly reflects this changed scenario. Advocate Raha points out that the apex court’s judgment is reflective of a changed social scenario. "Prevalence of live-in relationship is on rise and the Supreme Court’s judgment is reflective of this changing social trend.

"A recent judgment of the court has also extended the law on domestic violence to cover live-in relationships — in fact, as live-in relationship becomes an imminent reality more thought needs to be given to safeguard the interests and rights of people in such relationships. At the same time, a clear line needs to be drawn between marriage and live-in relationship. It should be ensured that in a bid to give rights to live-in relationships, the institution of marriage is not threatened," Raha says.

With the legalised status being given to live-in relationship a major question that arises is whether the "legalised" live-in partner be considered equal to the wife/husband, if one of the partners happens to be married. Advocate Raha feels that this would not be true and despite legalisation of live-in relationship, a live-in partner would not have the right of a married partner. "The laws of adultery and bigamy still hold true — after all, they are prevalent laws and any new law cannot conflict with an existing law. One person’s/woman’s right cannot jeopardise another woman’s happiness," he says.

Despite all these controversies, it seems this verdict on live-in relationship has had a positive impact on the youngsters. "The law shows that times are changing and people are accepting the changed social norms. In a few years down the line, I believe, it would change further and common people, too, will agree that there is nothing moral/immoral about a live-in relationship," says Sneha.

Her partner Parikshit, however, feels that it will take a long time to come. "As long as the end relationship is marriage, it would be tough for people to acknowledge openly that they are in a live-in relationship — after all, there is something eternally fairy tale and romantic about marriage. Staying in a live-in relationship somehow, spoils that and I think this is a major reason why people are reluctant to accept," he smiles as he speaks. For most of these youngsters in a live-in relationship, this relationship seems to be a matter of convenience and a means of testing water before they plunge into the "stable" marriage relationship.

Judgment Day

The Supreme Court (SC) verdict says that live-in relationship between adults i.e. living with one another without marriage is not illegal and cannot be defined as “criminal offence”. If two persons, man and woman want to stay together, what is the offence they are committing here? Who can oppose them?

The SC has also given example of Radha-Krishna relationship to corroborate its judgment and said if they can live together why can’t today’s adults.

A Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat declared that children born out of such a relationship will no more be called illegitimate. “Law inclines in the interest of legitimacy and thumbs down ‘whoreson’ or ‘fruit of adultery’,” it adds. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a man and woman are involved in a live-in relationship for a long period, they will be treated as a married couple and their child would be called legitimate. While deciding a case involving the legitimacy of a woman born out of wedlock, the court ruled that children born to parents ‘out of wedlock’ would have all the rights of a legitimate child.

The court observed that “...Where the partners lived together for long spell as husband and wife, there would be presumption in favour of wedlock. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.”

In further statements, the court proclaimed that even though the assumption of marriage is rebuttable, heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to question the legality of a relationship to ascertain that no marriage transpired. The court cannot brush off the evidence introduced to weaken the presumption in such stance.