• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Live-In Relations "Part And Parcel Of Life" Now: Allahabad High Court

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Live-in relations have become part and parcel of life and need to be seen from the perspective of personal autonomy and not the social morality, the Allahabad High Court has said.
A bench of justices Pritinker Diwaker and Ashutosh Srivastava gave this ruling on Tuesday while disposing of the pleas by two live-in couples, who had alleged that in both cases, girls' families had been interfering in their day-to-day lives.

"Live-in relationships have become part and parcel of life and stand approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court," the bench said.

"Accordingly, the live-in relationship is required to be viewed from the lens of personal autonomy arising out of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India rather than the notions of social morality," the bench added.

The court made the observation underscoring at the outset that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is liable to be protected at all costs.


 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
I am actually surprised.
In Malaysia, its not culturally acceptable among the Msian Indian community here.

Even those who live in try to hide it from others because its considered not acceptable.

The local Muslims do not live in at all because the religious department would conduct raids and jail muslims who are unmarried and are alone in a house or room or hotel room with their partners.

So its not an acceptable culture here among Msian Indians and the local Muslims.

So i am really really surprised in India its ok to live in.
Dont parents of the girls get angry?
 

Lotusinsanskrit

Active member
I am actually surprised.
In Malaysia, its not culturally acceptable among the Msian Indian community here.

Even those who live in try to hide it from others because its considered not acceptable.

The local Muslims do not live in at all because the religious department would conduct raids and jail muslims who are unmarried and are alone in a house or room or hotel room with their partners.

So its not an acceptable culture here among Msian Indians and the local Muslims.

So i am really really surprised in India its ok to live in.
Dont parents of the girls get angry?
In India too no parents allowed. Now legal angle of protection if lived. With these heavy population it is easier to live-in hide across the length and breadth of the country.
 

Vaagmi

Well-known member
I am actually surprised.
In Malaysia, its not culturally acceptable among the Msian Indian community here.

Even those who live in try to hide it from others because its considered not acceptable.

The local Muslims do not live in at all because the religious department would conduct raids and jail muslims who are unmarried and are alone in a house or room or hotel room with their partners.

So its not an acceptable culture here among Msian Indians and the local Muslims.

So i am really really surprised in India its ok to live in.
Dont parents of the girls get angry?
Here in India too a live in relationship is not acquired with the blessing or concurrence of society. But there are exceptions. In high society live in is accepted. Even wife/partner swapping parties are common in this section of society. The inexorable ruthless march of time.
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Live-in relationship, that is, living together as couple without being married to each other in a legally accepted way, is considered a taboo in India. But recently, such relationships are being increasingly common due to a variety of reasons. In absence of any specific legislation, rules, or customs on the subject, the Supreme Court has issued certain guidelines in its judgment for regulating such relationships. This article tries to figure out the current legal positions governing the live-in relationships in India after making a systemic assessment of these judgments. Live-in relationship between two consenting adults is not considered illegal and if the couple present themselves to the society as husband and wife and live together for a significant period of time, the relationship is considered to be a relationship “in the nature of marriage” under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Consequently, the female partner is entitled to claim alimony under its provisions. Children born out of such relationships are considered legitimate and entitled to get share in the self-acquired property of their parents, though they are not entitled for a coparcenary share in the Hindu undivided family property. Live-in relationships may enable the couple to know each other better, but such no-strings-attached relationship has its disadvantages as well. The couple faces multiple social and logistics problems in day-to-day living. From mental health point of view, it is considered better to be engaged in a good-quality relationship than living alone and having no relation at all.

 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Live-in relationship between consenting adults is not considered illegal under the Indian law. In 2006, in the case of “Lata Singh v. State of U.P,” it was held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of opposite sex, though perceived as immoral, does not amount to any offence under the law.1 In another important case “Khushboo vs Kanaimmal and another,” the Supreme Court observed “Though the concept of live-in relationship is considered immoral by the society, but is definitely not illegal in the eyes of the law. Living together is a right to life and therefore it cannot be held illegal.”

If live-in relationships continue for a long period of time and the couple present themselves to the society as husband-wife, they get recognized as being legally married. As early as 1978, in “Badri Prasad Vs Deputy Director Consolidation,” observation was made that “If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, after half-a-century of wedlock by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married fifty years earlier, few will succeed. A strong presumption arises in favor of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.” Same observation was made in “SPS Balasubramanian Vs Suruttayan”, in which it was observed that where a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for long time, presumption under the law would be in favor of their being legally married to each other unless proved to the contrary and children born out of such live-in relationship would be entitled for inheritance in the property of the parents. If such relationship is only for sexual reasons, neither of the partners can claim benefits of a legal marriage. “Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma” was another landmark case on the matter of live-in relationship in which implications of different types of relationships were examined. If both the partners are unmarried and enter into a relationship mutually, it does not constitute any offence. Prior to 2018, domestic cohabitation of a married or unmarried man with a married woman constituted a criminal offence of “adultery,” but for the man only, under Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). But this section was annulled by the Supreme Court of India in the case of “Joseph Shine vs Union of India” in September 2018, as the Court came to the conclusion that it was violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The section treated men and women unequally as only the man and not the woman is subject to prosecution for adultery. Moreover, it was only the husband of the concerned woman who could prosecute the man who was involved in the act and the woman cannot prosecute her husband for adultery. Though adultery is no longer a criminal offence, but the matter of cohabitation with any married man or woman may be a matter of civil issues constituting a ground of divorce, in which case it would be gender neutral. Similarly, cohabitation with sexual relations between two adult partners of same sex also constituted crime of unnatural offence under Section 377 of IPC prior to 2018. But the position was reversed in “Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India”. The Supreme Court annulled the Section 377, insofar as it criminalized the homosexual sexual acts of two or more adults in private who possess competency to consent. It was termed to be unconstitutional, irrational, indefensible and arbitrary, and being violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. However, the Section 377 continues to be in the statute book as legally valid and applicable insofar as the Section 377 applies to the nonconsensual sexual acts between the two adults, to the sexual acts against minors and all acts of bestiality.7 Though consensual homosexual sexual acts were legalized, but the same sex marriages are not recognized in India, though performing a symbolic same sex marriage is not prohibited either.

To get recognized as “in the nature of marriage,” certain conditions were set by the Supreme Court in the case of “D. Velusamy and D. Patchaimal (5 SCC 600).”

  1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
  2. They must be of legal age to marry.
  3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
  4. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
In “Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma,” the Supreme Court was of the view that all live-in relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. In this particular case, it was found that the appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage, because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than in the nature of marriage. The Court further made following observations in this case.

  • Such relationship may endure for a long time and can result in a pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such relationships calls for adequate and effective protection, especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship.
  • Legislature, of course, cannot promote premarital sex, though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion, for and against.
  • Thus, the Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation, or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children born out of such kinds of relationships are protected, though such relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.5
It is pertinent to note here that the Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC prohibits any marriage of person within the lifetime of her/his husband or wife and even makes it a punishable offence, unless it is permitted by the personal law of the concerned person. Therefore, a live-in relationship of a married man with a woman or of a married woman with a man cannot be recognized as in the “nature of marriage” as it is expressly prohibited by law. However, children born out of such relationship, though not regarded as legitimate, would have all the rights within the parameters as described below.

 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member

Conclusion​

Live-in relationships provide the couples a greater opportunity to know each other better together with a freedom to end the relationship as per their wish. But they have to face many social and legal hurdles. Such relationship puts women often in a disadvantageous position. The Supreme Court has issued guidelines for regulating such relationships and also for protecting the rights of women involved in the relationship and children born out of it, which has been described above. Social values and norms have changed for the new generation. Live-in relationship may be ok in some circumstances but the importance of the institution of marriage for maintaining the social order cannot be denied. From a psychiatrist point of view, what is more important is to get engaged into a positive, lovable, and meaningful relationship than to remain alone or remain trapped in an unhappy, negative, and troublesome relationship. To conclude, it is pertinent to say that

There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.
—Friedrich Nietzsch

 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
A live-in relationship between two people gets the “approval” of the society when they are legally married else the relationship is morally or legally not acceptable; but thankfully, the Indian Judiciary doesn’t think like that. A live-in relationship is a continuous cohabitation for a longer period between two people who are not legally married to each other but share a common household. Thus, despite being married they live like a couple. In India, no specific legislation or customs is governing the same. Thus, the Supreme Court has elaborated the concept of live-in relations through its Judgments and has issued guidelines to deal with such relationships.

This article discusses all the major decisions of the apex court regarding the live-in relationships, the status, and rights of children born out of such relationships, and various provisions indirectly covering such relationships in its ambit. Further, the recent Punjab & Haryana High Court different point of views regarding such relationships and the recent order of the Supreme Court on one of the Judgments of the P&H High Court is also discussed in this article.

 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
I am actually surprised.
In Malaysia, its not culturally acceptable among the Msian Indian community here.

Even those who live in try to hide it from others because its considered not acceptable.

The local Muslims do not live in at all because the religious department would conduct raids and jail muslims who are unmarried and are alone in a house or room or hotel room with their partners.

So its not an acceptable culture here among Msian Indians and the local Muslims.

So i am really really surprised in India its ok to live in.
Dont parents of the girls get angry?
Cohabitation is when two people live together without actually married to each other.



In Malaysia, couples resorting to cohabitation is on the rise in terms of percentage. To cohabitants, the benefits of marriage were simply not enough to counter the potential psychological and financial pain of divorce or other marriage problems.

Cohabiting between unmarried couples is only an offence under Syariah law. Therefore, non-Muslims are not committing an offence under said law. A Muslim caught in close proximity with a non-Muslim results only in the prosecution of the Muslim person under the relevant law.


Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Malaysia face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Sodomy is a crime in the country, with laws strictly enforced, and social attitudes towards the LGBT community are shaped by Islam, the official state religion of Malaysia. Breaking the law is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and authorities will also bring the person to corporal punishment.

Human Rights Watch stated in 2015 that "Discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people is pervasive in Malaysia.

In February 2021, a court declared that any state laws within Malaysia cannot be in conflict or override with clear federal laws banning gay sex.



Indian court system as well as Indian society in general is a lot more progressive than any Muslim Country.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Here in India too a live in relationship is not acquired with the blessing or concurrence of society. But there are exceptions. In high society live in is accepted. Even wife/partner swapping parties are common in this section of society. The inexorable ruthless march of time.
Its really frowned upon here even in " high society" cos its a very small country and word gets around easily and mostly " behave"...here its high society which has more to lose cos reputation is at stake.
 
Last edited:

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Cohabitation is when two people live together without actually married to each other.



In Malaysia, couples resorting to cohabitation is on the rise in terms of percentage. To cohabitants, the benefits of marriage were simply not enough to counter the potential psychological and financial pain of divorce or other marriage problems.

Cohabiting between unmarried couples is only an offence under Syariah law. Therefore, non-Muslims are not committing an offence under said law. A Muslim caught in close proximity with a non-Muslim results only in the prosecution of the Muslim person under the relevant law.


Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Malaysia face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Sodomy is a crime in the country, with laws strictly enforced, and social attitudes towards the LGBT community are shaped by Islam, the official state religion of Malaysia. Breaking the law is punishable by up to 20 years in prison and authorities will also bring the person to corporal punishment.

Human Rights Watch stated in 2015 that "Discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people is pervasive in Malaysia.

In February 2021, a court declared that any state laws within Malaysia cannot be in conflict or override with clear federal laws banning gay sex.



Indian court system as well as Indian society in general is a lot more progressive than any Muslim Country.
Yes..Shariah law only applies to Muslims but even if a non muslim is not charged in court for being " caught in the act" with a muslim but the names of both the muslim and non muslim would be flashed in the newspapers when the case goes to court..so the risk of getting humiliated is very high.

The live in relationships are mostly from a different community which are not malays or indians.
I dont want to mention the race name here as to avoid moral policing any race.

Btw progressive does not mean allowing social issues to prevail.

All these women and men who live in, once something goes wrong the women will sue the guy for not marrying her and cry rape and some men even go to the extent of murder to get rid of the woman he doesnt want to marry...why get into trouble?
So is this progressive?
Its not about morals..its just too risky behavior..if one gets pregnant..the guy will run away or the woman will do an abortion .
Is this progress? Single unwed mother or killing a fetus??
You do the math.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Yes..Shariah law only applies to Muslims but even if a non muslim is not charged in court for being " caught in the act" with a muslim but the names of both the muslim and non muslim would be flashed in the newspapers when the case goes to court..so the risk of getting humiliated is very high.

The live in relationships are mostly from a different community which are not malays or indians.
I dont want to mention the race name here as to avoid moral policing any race.

Btw progressive does not mean allowing social issues to prevail.

All these women and men who live in, once something goes wrong the women will sue the guy for not marrying her and cry rape and some men even go to the extent of murder to get rid of the woman he doesnt want to marry...why get into trouble?
So is this progressive?
Its not about morals..its just too risky behavior..if one gets pregnant..the guy will run away or the woman will do an abortion .
Is this progress? Single unwed mother or killing a fetus??
You do the math.
Marriage does not mean that violence against women is any less.
There are no universal laws, everything is local, and time bound.
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Marriage does not mean that violence against women is any less.
There are no universal laws, everything is local, and time bound.
Agreed, but at the same time most of those who are fine with live in relationships are fine as long its not their children living in.

A direct question to you ..
" would you be happy if it was your children in a live in relationship"?

Note that i am not using " will you allow " because I do understand consenting adults make their own decisions in life..but what would you feel?
Most parents wont worry too much if their son is living in with some girl because its some other person's daughter..but what if it was one's own daughter living in?

Happy or worried ??
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Agreed, but at the same time most of those who are fine with live in relationships are fine as long its not their children living in.

A direct question to you ..
" would you be happy if it was your children in a live in relationship"?

Note that i am not using " will you allow " because I do understand consenting adults make their own decisions in life..but what would you feel?
Most parents wont worry too much if their son is living in with some girl because its some other person's daughter..but what if it was one's own daughter living in?

Happy or worried ??
I have done my part of parenting, wiping their bottom, feeding, educating, etc.
How they live their life is their business. If we interfere with their adult life, there is a good chance that I may not have any relationship at all.
I do not impose my morality on others.
Their morality is governed by the present, time, and location.

I am happy that we have a healthy relationship with my child. We may not see eye-to-eye on every matter, but we have an open relationship and can discuss anything and everything.
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
Treating all human beings with dignity is a progressive society.
LGBTQ people also deserve that treatment.
Archaic laws and morality prevail in many Muslim countries.
Not educating women, multiple wives, not allowing freedom to women are all signs of not being progressive at least in the eye of the majority of liberal people in the world.

I am not going to preach, so I will stop posting about other countries and religions.

But you got to live by the rules of the land.
Malaysia's LGBT community under siege as government ignores abuse

 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Treating all human beings with dignity is a progressive society.
LGBTQ people also deserve that treatment.
Archaic laws and morality prevail in many Muslim countries.
Not educating women, multiple wives, not allowing freedom to women are all signs of not being progressive at least in the eye of the majority of liberal people in the world.

I am not going to preach, so I will stop posting about other countries and religions.

But you got to live by the rules of the land.
Malaysia's LGBT community under siege as government ignores abuse

Though I have no problems with LGBTQ...but those of us who are heterosexual just go about life normally..we dont shout on top of the roof that we are HETEROSEXUAL.

Why? Because its natural for our mental disposition.

Likewise an LGBTQ too should feel normal in their mental disposition and live sans conflict and stop trying to shout on top of their voices that they are LGBTQ.

One only shouts loudly if they are feeling guilty of something or not yet settled in themselves.

I have met regular very normal homosexual individuals who are very very much like the rest of us who are not making a big deal of being gay.

Coming to LGBTQ rights...
They all have access to getting employed in Msia.
Many of them are holding good positions too.
They all have access to everything a heterosexual has in terms of legal rights as a citizen from education,health care,voting rights, employement etc.

Isnt that what being a citizen ofa country needs?

Does a heterosexual who has affairs try to tell the whole world " hey! I am a serial cheater?"
Nope..he or she would keep personal sexual life as private.

Thats all! One can be LGBTQ and just be normal..is it so hard?

Btw if you see cases in USA, there are videos where parents are seeking attention online just to show how cool they are by allowing their 10 yr old or less kids identify with being transgender and some unethical doctors are giving this kids hormonal blockers!

You see kids aged 10 saying " I dont feel like a boy..I have a girl trapped in me..I am transiting to becoming a girl and would start hormone blockers"

Get what I mean??
Wtf is this?
Kids are so easily influenced by what they see online.

Do you know lots of people who became transgenders hated their original gender because some of them faced sexual abuse as kids.
For eg male child who faced sexual abuse might not be able to handle that trauma and prefer to identify being a girl and change the gender as to feel " i am a whole new person..my old abused body is gone"

Do you see how damaging all these is to allow people to change gender so easily without going to the underlying causes?

This is what happens when we move away from being holistic and think only on a symptomatic basis.

I am not saying no one should change gender..but one should not let kids be on hormone blockers..what if they regret it later? Kids do go through lots of phases..these days kids are just into creating alter egos on Facebook, instagram etc..these fake alter egos eventually take over their minds..
Yad Bhavam Tad Bhavati anyone?
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
I have done my part of parenting, wiping their bottom, feeding, educating, etc.
How they live their life is their business. If we interfere with their adult life, there is a good chance that I may not have any relationship at all.
I do not impose my morality on others.
Their morality is governed by the present, time, and location.

I am happy that we have a healthy relationship with my child. We may not see eye-to-eye on every matter, but we have an open relationship and can discuss anything and everything.
Thank you though I dont see the answer.
 
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks