Dignified Lives for Women without Marriage too

“Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal.”                                                                                                         – JusticeK.S. Radhakrishnan

Section 125 of Cr PC, 1973 and TheProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are the two important piece of legislations in India, which though expressly do not endorse live-in-relationships, still impliedly recognize it. Both of them seek to achieve social purpose of endowing the women with certain basic rights such as maintenance, protection against various forms of abuse and violence, and so on. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 andSection 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 accord legitimate status to the children born out of such relationshipAll these provisions under different legislations and their liberal interpretation basically emerge from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The old precedent of 1978 reminds us of sensible and aware judiciary where the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation opined that a strong presumption arises  in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived  together for  a long  spell as husband and wife. Since then, on a number of instances, it has time and again taken stand to uphold the rights of people who never married formally or fail to prove it with evidences. On the occasion of International Women’s Day, let us try to present the changed social conditions in India and how the higher judiciary has been responding to the transforming social patterns.

It is no doubt that the people in India have lived together beyond marriage even in the past. But the present scenario is different in two aspects – firstly the relationships in earlier days were kept secretly and mostly involved an already married person. So those relationships cannot be brought within the modern day “live-in arrangements”. Now, unmarried couples stay together openly, enjoying a married life, just lacking the formal ceremonial nature of marriage. Such arrangements are resorted by people of all religions, not just limited to any community. The Apex Court soon realized that the people who decide for such relationships may face legal issues as they exist in cases of marriage. It is not only the question of monetary claims or maintenance , protection from all forms abuse but above all a right to live a dignified live as secured by Article 21 of the Constitution. The fundamental right to live with dignity and respect exists so far as married couples are concerned as well as those who opt for live-in relationships.

The higher judiciary has cautiously accepted the basic biological needs as well as the choice to choose own life-partner, for both marriage and live-in relationship. The question of dignity arises the moment society starts looking at live-in couples with doubts. The legal sanction has been accorded by the Courts in a number of cases. With regard to TheProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , the cases where benefit of the legislation has been given to women considering them as wives are D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (deiceded in October 2010) and then in IndraSarma v. K.V.Sarma (decided in November, 2014). The Court did not stopped here and again gave wide interpretation even to the provision- Section 125 of Cr PC, 1973. It has reiterated that destitution can be prevented only such an interpretation such as in Chanmuniya v. ChanmuniyaVirendra Kumar (decided in 2011) by granting maintenance to a live in female partner.

The active vibrant outlook of the Supreme Court has been reflected also in giving the children a legitimate status even without formal marriage of their parents. In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, (decided in August 2010) legitimate status was conferred by the Supreme Court upon the child born out of live-in-relationship while interpreting Section 114, Evidence Act, 1872. The Court observed that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. However, such presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. Again Uday Gupta v. Aysha, (decided in April 2014) it was reiterated that social status of legitimacy is conferred on a group of children born to a man and woman living together for a long time as husband and wife.

The mere conferment of legal benefits such as protection from abuse, grant of maintenance and grant of legitimate status to their children is not sufficient unless the society too treats all women at par. The time has come where not only the judiciary but we as society also start giving respect to the women who choose to stay in live-in relationships. The sacred institution of marriage of which love is the foundation would never extinct as live-in relationships also make the couples realize the pros-cons of a marital life. We must hope that a dignified attitude is developed amongst us for our sisters, female friends-colleagues, daughters who though not ready for formal marriage but has legal right to live their lives with the persons they choose without looking at them with stigma.

BY LAWZ BUREAU