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 regarded 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 matrimonial duties has probably given rise to the concept of live-in relationship, the bench underlined.
Hence, it emphasised on the need to protect women in live-in relationships as they are most often the complainant and victim of violence by the inmate partners of live-in relationship.
“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.
Source: Barandbench
