High Court of Chhattisgarh
People nowadays prefer live-in relationships over marriages because it provides a convenient escape when things fail to work between the partners, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently observed [Abdul Hameed Siddiqui vs Kavita Gupta].
A division bench of Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Sanjay S Agrawal said the security, social acceptance, progress and stability which the institution of marriage provides to a person, is never provided by live-in-relationship.
“A live-in relationship is preferred over marriage because it provides a convenient escape when things fail to work between partners. If the couple wishes to break up, they enjoy the freedom to split unilaterally, irrespective of the consent of the other party and without having to go through the cumbersome legal formalities in the court,” the bench observed in its April 30 judgment.
In our country, non-solemnization of a relationship as marriage is considered as social stigma as social values, customs, traditions and even legislation have attempted to ensure stability of marriage, the Court further said.
However, it also said that there is no denying that problems can occur in marriages and on breakdown of marriage, women tend to suffer more.
“It cannot be denied that problems occur in marriages and there may be unequal relationships in which one partner, most commonly women, is in a disadvantageous position. It is also true that on breaking down of relationships through marriage women suffer in far greater terms, especially in Indian context,” the judgment said.
The close inspection of society shows that the institution of marriage no longer controls the people as it did in the past due to cultural influence of the Western Countries and this significant shifts and apathy towards marital duties has probably given rise to the concept of live-in relationship, the bench underlined.
Therefore, it emphasized on the need to protect women in live-in relationships as they are most often the complainant and victim of violence by the intimate partners of live-in relationships.
“It is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live-in relationship and in such case the courts cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such distressful live-in relationship and children born out of such relationship, “ the Court opined.
The Court was dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by a man challenging the decision of a lower court, which denied him the custody of his child born in a live-in relationship with a woman.
As per the plea, the man, a Muslim, had entered into a live-in relationship with a Hindu woman. The couple was blessed with a child on August 31, 2021. However, things turned sour gradually in the relationship and on August 10, 2023, the woman left the petitioner’s house with the child.
This compelled the man to file proceedings before the family court seeking custody of his child. He claimed to be capable of taking care of the child since he earned well. However, the family court turned down his application and refused to grant him custody of the child.
Subsequently, I have filed the petition before the High Court.
After considering the facts of the case, the Court said that it was aware of the fact that live-in relationships are still considered a stigma in the Indian culture.
“Live in relationship is an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian tenets. No trick would be available to hide the spot. In Indian tradition each of citizen possesses a sense of self that is unique and unlikely to be confused with imported traditions. There cannot be mere inglorious object than to adopt live in relationship to destroy the interwoven culture in society and tradition,” the bench emphasized.
With these observations, it dismissed the petition.
Advocate Rajeev Kumar Dubey appeared for the petitioner.
Advocate Virendra Verma represented the respondent.
Abdul Hameed Siddiqui vs Kavita Gupta.pdf
Preview
