The Supreme Court has ruled that a live-in relationship not sanctified by marriage is neither a crime nor a sin. The judgment came while the bench was adjudicating dispute between a live-in couple, wherein a lady sought maintenance from a man after the relationship came to an end.
On the back of this ruling, the apex court bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan regretted that there are no statutes to regulate live-in relationships, and has has asked Parliament to frame laws that will protect women in such relationships, and also the children born outside of wedlock.
"Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country," the apex court ruled. "The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal."
Arguing that when such relationships break down, it is invariably the women who suffer, the SC said however that it was not asking the Legislature to promote pre-marital sex. However, the bench said, it was time to take cognizance of the fact that such relationships are increasingly prevalent, and in many cases long-standing. The bench, however, added that an adulterous relationship did not come within the ambit of this ruling.
"Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship that is having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person who is not one's husband or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage," it said.
Pointing out that such live-in relationships were increasingly prevalent in society across the world, the bench said "Courts and legislatures of various countries have now begun to think that denying certain benefits to a certain class of persons on the basis of their marital status is unjust where the need of those benefits is felt by both unmarried and married cohabitants. Courts in various countries have extended certain benefits to heterosexual unmarried cohabitants. Legislatures too, of late, through legislations started giving benefits to heterosexual cohabitants."
While asking Parliament to draft appropriate laws, the apex court laid down certain guard rails. It said the duration of period of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the criteria to be considered while determining the nature of a relationship between two parties.
While delineating the characteristics of such a relationship, the bench said socializing as a couple, having children and sharing the responsibility of their upbringing, entrusting responsibilities to the woman to run the home, acquiring property and assets jointly or in the name of the woman are all strong indications of a live-in relationship as recognized by law.
On the back of this ruling, the apex court bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan regretted that there are no statutes to regulate live-in relationships, and has has asked Parliament to frame laws that will protect women in such relationships, and also the children born outside of wedlock.
"Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country," the apex court ruled. "The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal."
Arguing that when such relationships break down, it is invariably the women who suffer, the SC said however that it was not asking the Legislature to promote pre-marital sex. However, the bench said, it was time to take cognizance of the fact that such relationships are increasingly prevalent, and in many cases long-standing. The bench, however, added that an adulterous relationship did not come within the ambit of this ruling.
"Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship that is having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person who is not one's husband or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage," it said.
Pointing out that such live-in relationships were increasingly prevalent in society across the world, the bench said "Courts and legislatures of various countries have now begun to think that denying certain benefits to a certain class of persons on the basis of their marital status is unjust where the need of those benefits is felt by both unmarried and married cohabitants. Courts in various countries have extended certain benefits to heterosexual unmarried cohabitants. Legislatures too, of late, through legislations started giving benefits to heterosexual cohabitants."
While asking Parliament to draft appropriate laws, the apex court laid down certain guard rails. It said the duration of period of relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the criteria to be considered while determining the nature of a relationship between two parties.
While delineating the characteristics of such a relationship, the bench said socializing as a couple, having children and sharing the responsibility of their upbringing, entrusting responsibilities to the woman to run the home, acquiring property and assets jointly or in the name of the woman are all strong indications of a live-in relationship as recognized by law.
No comments:
Post a Comment