On “live-in” relationships, “Hindu culture” and Uniform Civil Code

I think it should be up to the people in a given to state to decide if they want to accord such rights.

Personally I would be opposed to such a legislation.

We are not talking children or minors here.

We are talking about responsible adults here. I dont believe the State shud have any responsibility towards adults who have exercised no responsibility or judgement in their relationships.

On the other hand I am ok with a law where any individuals can willingly grant such rights to another individual with whom he or she shares a relationship.

Dear All

It is amazing that no one here is talking about the actual wife’s rights getting trampled for no fault of hers…And they outnumber the live in “wifes” by a very large numbers(possibly many millions to one)….It is also amazing how for a few exceptions where the rule breakers are adults and are fully aware of their misdemeneour, our ministers make rules and waste their valuable time…..

I would say

– any illegitimate children shd have the same rights as legitimate children

– live in person to be considered equivalent to a spouse(regardless of gender) provided none of them are married.

– in any case the live in spouse who has not married legally knows what is in store for them and have accepted it so why the fuss???

– but then again the powers that be may may benefit from it!!!!!

regards

dnyanesh

I had the same discussion in my blog and i was disheartened to see that almost all my readers supported this move..

Leave aside the rights of other woman..(Why on earth would a woman spoil marital life of another woman ..sheesh..) What do you think actual real original wife would undrgo when one fine morning her husband knocks door and say “honey,this is my new honey”..gosh,disgusting…India is busy imitating America..I am not against imitating..Assimialte the good aspects and hold on to our own values..

Agreed that morality is subjective..But that doesn’t mean that you can move around doing anything in the name of individual freedom..

Today to 99% of people,indivual freedom matters and they forgetfully forget that individuals makeup a society..You say gays are doing sodomy int he privacy of their bedroom and hence legalizing gay is not going to affect society..What the hell..I am sick of newspaper loaded with views on homosexuality..Thank God my baby id small otherwise she’d have asked mt “Mom,what is gay,are you gay”..Geez…Kids are overloaded with hi-fi so called progressive ideas and they will obviously make attempts to ‘test’ it..

Ever seen kids experimenting smoking simply bcoz their favorite hero smokes..Wait until your own kid experiments being gay and comes homes with your legal live-in ‘wife’ and husband’..

Oh,i just spoiled the comment space with my emotionally overloaded rants..Sorry,I am against leagalizing live in relationships..If couples don’t like each other,divorce and get a new spouse,not that they can move around having live-in relationships.If the institution of marriage was a stupid one,is it that almost all of us are stupid and unprogressive?Can somebody pls enlighten me and make me progressive!!

Laws like these and ones like polygamy are disgusting and wrong under current social ecnomical and poiltical situations..Maybe things will change and we’ll need it tomorrow,will make a law on it then..Not now..

p.s:Does this law limit maximum number of live-in relationships? Just asking..

i never thought indian have such small thinking and mind. are we really so scared or hipocrate that we don’t wanna see truth of society.or this is a good example of “haati ke dath khaney key aur dikaney ke aur”.. today we are one of the largest populated country in the world and this is just because of our social backwardness. we are not open to sex education and sex realted matters. even today after so much education and western infulance we haven’t able to take good things from there society. we only see there development , there broad thinking but we don’t see wht was the foundation of this development.

every law has good and bad effect we shd take good point and think abt benifit of masses. you can break law or find week point of any law, no law in world is accepted by everyone. law which help society and impoves it, shd be accepted by everyone.

this law is very good and for betterment of indian socity. we shd understand that sex is a very important part of human needs. it is not bad thing or taboo. sex is very natural thing and need of both genders. why we feel guilty to talk abt sex and other sex realted issue. if one man and women with mutual understanding want to live toghether, wht is wrong with this. niether man or women is forceing and they both are happy and enjoying the arrangement. this will give our socity a very good base for controling birth rate. as young genration will move to accept this law and arrengement they will be reculant to have childrens or will postpond the birth for later times may be after marriage or when both are ready for it.

second this type of realtionship gives womens a equal status in socity. they can move out of any realtionship when they are not comfertable. womens will no longer be consider as week as they have there right to move and live single or with partner of there choice. basically wht this law does is, it will break the mentally of society that sex can be done only after marriage. this will help two ppl to stay toghether and understand each other. this will help to remain bachlor while enjoying benifit of married life. this will give a sense of comitment and responsiblity to two person without tieing them with the rope of marriage.

this law is mostly targeted to youth of india and i find it very very good for society.wht we are doing here is we are comparing this law with our present law, which is not able to keep with change in society and thinking. this law is really good for indian society and we should accept it with open mind.

Hi there!

I think that this move is pretty much on the right track – as is the norm, the law (rather the legislation) will go through some changes here and there over the course of time to adjust to some typical problems – but, in general we are on the right track with the idea.

Typically, live-in relationships are not accorded any value in the Indian society – however, that does not mean that such situations do not exist! The fact is that these type of relationships do exist today, and many a times the women living in such relationships have no legal recourse to help themselves – especially when the man decides to move on or get married to someone else or even reveal that he is already married.

What of the woman in such cases? What if the man has duped her and left her high and dry?

This legislation reveals the Government’s acceptance of the fact that they realize that the times and the society is in fact changing and that there is a need for proactive legislation which will guard the rights of the woman in such a case.

With this legislation, men will be forced to think twice before setting foot into the live-in territory in the first place, because they will be aware of the consequences of any wrong action from their part.

As for the women – it will help them to get back on track with their lives once the relationship is over.

Our society always has the tendancy to blame the woman or put her in a bad light – no matter what happens! She can be a mistress, an ‘other woman’ and so on – but they tend to overlook the fact that nine times out of ten, it has been the man who has initiated and propagated the situation in the first place. And the man always manages to get away scot free.

Well, not any more! He will have to pay for his infidelities and pay he will!!

As for the funda of ‘Indian Culture’ – I think that this point is getting too overrated for its own good! People are getting offended for all sorts of reasons these days – are we becoming too sensitive or are we becoming to nit-picky! The custom of Gandharva vivaha existed long before live-in relationships did – in fact the name of our country ‘Bharat’ is based on the legend that Shakuntala married Dushyanta via this rite and gave birth to her son ‘Bharat’. If we can live with that, then I think we should live-in with the concept that if men decide to take a woman for a ride then they will have hell to pay!!

Madhavi

Why we are not ready to accept good things? Why we are not ready to see truth? Why we want to deny things when we know it happens? Why we feel shy to accept few things which are not part of our customs? Why we reject something without even trying it out? Why we make big fuss or news of every thing? Why we create controversy from nothing? Why why why?

1) if living relationship result in birth of unwanted children then in western countries birth rate and population must be very high. Or every second girl should be pregnant. This is not the case there then why we are saying this will happen. I agree there are some cases of teenage pregnancy but is live-in was the only reason for it? Doesn’t we have teenage pregnancy in India??? The fact is we have but we don’t want to accept it or don’t want to talk abt it cause we are Hippocrates. We run from truth, we don’t want to see the real picture. We don’t want to accept that present situation is result of our wrong customs and policies. To be honest because of wrong understanding of our customs and implementation.
2) It will raise AIDS. if I am not wrong then we are among highly infected countries. if we have this without live-in law then we can cope with that with the law too. As per my thinking AIDS happen because of lack of proper safety measures, and when two people are mature enough to live in together then they must be ready to take precautions as well.
3) Women will be treated as sex object. Does it mean every live-in relation is only for sex? Or men just want sex from women??? If two people are staying together it means they are together for sex only?? If one is not happy with his partner or wife and want to move on it means he is looking for sex??
4) If a person is gay/lesbian is it his/her fault that he/she is like that? God has made all of us and there are some geans in them that make like that. If one likes same sex not opposite sex then what is harm in that? It is there life and they have full right to live it there way. They are not telling you to make love with them they just want there freedom. They are not creating any scene in society by making love in public they just want like minded people. Other then this thing they are like us only. Then why we should treat them as alien. They are human begin and deserve treatment of humans.

Live-in relation is not only about sex. It is about two like minded people coming together and living together. Sex is also a part of the package but not the only package. Live-in relation in no means force or deprives women of there natural right. It is there wish to stay or move on, infect it gives them equal right to choose and make them participate equally. It give a sense of confident in girl and she is better prepare to handle life.

Even today there are cases of unwanted pregnancy, child molestation, female abuse and other female related issues. What this law will do is it will open mind of Indian people and give women there right of freedom. Today when a girl gets pregnant without marriage it is like death to her. In fear she goes to any small clinic where she is exploited by doctors(by higher fees) and other social elements like police(if they know about case in hospital). In many cases as girl is scared and can’t take help of his parents gets bad treatment. This law will remove this evil of society. After this law we will consider premarital sex as part of body need. I am not telling every girl and boy should engage in premarital sex but if one does then it is normal and should not be guilty of his/her act.
I fail to understand why we are not giving this law at least a trial run. How can we take decision before we see anything? Let society has an option and then we can decide our action next. It is better to give our society a chance to accept new law and living condition. In my view this law will change our view towards women and there freedom.

whether two individuals who want to live together or no.. thats their own personal thing.. but lawfully giving it(live-in-relation) the status of marriage is what we oppose.

Govt says its for betterment and for protection of women.. and by providing them with rights which a wife has from marraige act.. But in doing so they will permanantly damage the institution of marraige.

Maybe some other ways can be found and some other laws can be made and more powers can be given to National women commission to help women in this situations.

BUT NOT AT ALL AT THE COST OF OUR 5000 years old successful TRADITIONS.

Its nothing but Congress govt .. step to woo young voters… and the same dirty vote bank politics.. but this time youth votes politics

@ Mahesh: First of all, the act is not equating marriage with live-in. It is specifically aimed at helping women who are routinely “dumped” by married men by citing the fact that they were only “living together” and not married.

Secondly, this is not really “Americanisation” of Indian culture. Men have had “mistresses” ever since people began to live in societies.

Three, yes, marriage is a sacred institution and it should be seen as such. However not everyone may want to get married…and some couples may actually wish to live together and then decide to marry…

As Yossarin has mentioned in his comment, whether to get married or not should be an individual’s choice not dictated by society or family.

***
@ Yossarin: “… I think it should be up to the people in a given to state to decide if they want to accord such rights.”

I think this is great suggestion but may be difficult to implement – and certainly cannot be implemented with retrospective effect.

And there may actually be a via media in what your suggestion of giving individuals the choice to grant such rights to each other.

***

@ Vivek: You are right that at least part of the effort must go towards educating women who may be getting exploited in such relationships.

However, very often the consequences of such relationships come at a time when it is too late for such things. E.g. if a lady has been “living together” with a man for several years who has been looking after her and caring for her, what is her status and what is her plight if the man happens to die? Does she have no claim over him?

***

@ Dnyanesh: Yes, you are right that the actual wife’s rights will get curtailed by such a move…and it is here that the tricky issue of whom does the court favour comes up – does it favour the “wronged” wife or the “other woman”?

By the way, Yossarin also talks about your point re. the rule breakers being adults and therefore fully aware of the consequences of their actions

I liked these two suggestions of yours:
– any illegitimate children shd have the same rights as legitimate children
– live in person to be considered equivalent to a spouse(regardless of gender) provided none of them are married.

***

@ vck: Very thought-provoking (and I am sure controversial) comment…

I liked these bits…would you have any references in scriptures for this?

In this “Wayof life” it was “already accepted” that a live in partner “Prior to” or “Post” marriage had the “Same rights” as a married partner.
…
One must understand that in the “Way of life”, the marriage of children of “lived in Partners” were celebrated with the same pomp and Glory as the “True” ones. The “one lived in with” used to come and take care of the household when the “True” was out on any journeys with the “common man”.
Even in death the “one lived in with” used to go thru the same rituals as the other.

The Common used to provide for everybody including the “one lived in with” in his wealth and it was an “ACCEPTED WAY OF LIFE”.

…It was not so earlier. Life was a whole not the “bed” alone!!

***

@ Nimmy: This is not about legalizing adultery – which a lot of people confuse it with, but of giving protection to someone who may have no recourse or support to fall back on, if things go bad.

Good point about “…can a married lady have a legal live in relationshop with other-man..?”

And no, you were not over-reacting at all…I do like people to be honest with their comments…

***

@ tarun: Good point about sex education (or rather the lack of it) in India… You may find this article interesting

***

@ Madhavi:

You are spot on with your comment:

“…Typically, live-in relationships are not accorded any value in the Indian society – however, that does not mean that such situations do not exist! The fact is that these type of relationships do exist today, and many a times the women living in such relationships have no legal recourse to help themselves – especially when the man decides to move on or get married to someone else or even reveal that he is already married.

What of the woman in such cases? What if the man has duped her and left her high and dry?…”

And thanks for the reminder about Dushyant and Shakuntala quoting

***

@ Nanda: thanks for a thought-provoking comment

***

@ tarun: Good rejoinder (#12)

***

@ Malhotra: Good point about giving people choice in this matter (also mentioned by Yossarin and Dnyanesh)

***

@ Mahesh: Perhaps there is another way to deal with situations which has prompted this law…Do you have any suggestions?

***

Thanks all for an engaging discussion…I look forward to more comments.

nimmy,
ur are right that homosexuality is not genetic. but genes does play some part for it too. i have a family bachground of doctors and i know this is more of a psychologic disorder then genetic issue. but in every case the person is human and need to be treated like humans. secondly if ur doing something against someone will or by force even thought it is better for his life, it is not accepted.it is known as voilation of human rights. so if a adult want to live as homosexual let him live, let him see that world too, once he saw that world if he is happy that is good or if he want to live normal life then it is beter. but if u want to force your decision then it is not right.

wht i m saying here is there must be freedom to choose every path and one should be ready for the consequances of the path. the society must be open minded that can accomodate every person with diffrent path and style of liveing. as far as someone is not createing any danger for society .

Dear Shantanu,
I do not have any pointers from the scriptures, but it has been a practice in the south for ever so many years.
I can add here that it was also the personal experience of my maternal grandmother.
That was the reason I was able to give a feed back on this matter.
Even today, if I am not wrong certain socities in the south still follow the custom.
I will try to ascertain from information from scholars on this matter.
Regards,
vck

I see that this topic is now mixed up with something completely else: the right of sexual preference. Shantanu, you may want to move this to a completely different thread.

To all of those who are talking about Indian culture and tradition, may I politely remind you that Sodomy was actually criminalised by the British in the 1800’s (1869, I think, not sure) and there is no proscription against homosexuality in any of our scriptures. I challenge anyone to come up with any kind of scriptural sanction against homosexuality.

So, my poor deluded co-bloggers, what you are defending are the social mores of Victorian England (who have, incidentally, moved on), not Bharatiya culture/social mores. Talk about brain-washing! And, in the land of Krishna, Khajuraho and the Kamasutra …. what irony. Heh!

Wow..comparing gays to left handed people..very funny..

I agree with Nanda 100% .We are trying to be as ‘progressive’ as world police..They have realzied their mistakes and are walking back..But waves of ‘progression’ reached the subcontinent just now..So,yeah,all champions of ‘individual’ freedom take up the issue and fight for it..What if we are folloiwing victorian laws..We have come forward long way form all those sick concubine culture,where nampoothirs move around having world wide smabanthams and making illegitemate kids..No culture,may it be own own,is beyond faults and criticims..

Anyways,I wish all those individual-freedom champions all the best on their efforts..Good luck to see you knowing your son being gay and teenage daughter being pregnant….Afterall,it shouldn’t bother you bcoz she/he is just making use of individual freedom and doing everything in the secrecy of their bedroom.

@Shantanu: Thanx first of all for raising a valid point in the last comment addressed to me as that has provided me the answer.. neways i have very little time to discuss online about this issue this week as we are going to launch road protest in Pune,Thane and Mumbai in this week on this issue.

If you could help me with a draft proposal to CM and Social Justice Minister

Below are my thoughts which needs to be elaborated … incorporate urs to and creat the proposal by tonite

SUGGESTION.. WHICH I WOULD GIVE IN WRITING on BPD’s behalf TO CM VILASRAO DESHMUKH AND Min for Social Justice CHANDRAKANT HANDORE “If the govt wants to protect the unmarried daughters of Maharashtra who are in live in relation with such men who might cheat.. By equating them to status of a wife by expanding the sec125…which would neither solve or stop/detter the cheating of men but further deteroite the insitution of marriage also. and also legalise bigamy!!

GOVT PLEASE STRENGHTHEN THE EXISTING LAWS.. dont get laws which will promote bigamy

P.s. Please look into Madhur Bhandarkars vs Preeti Jain case

Here is a quick n dirty representation of my thoughts…

Personally, I am a strong proponent of the institution of marriage. The kind of support system and stability this builds arround a marriage, no written laws on the earth can give. Still without knowing the technicalities of the law, I am for the suppport of this move. There are failed marriages and failed live-in relationships too.

I completely agree with you when you say that it should be supported by those who value freedom of choice and individual freedoms…However, disagree when you say that it will help fomalise relationships which otherwise would (in most cases) be disadvantageous to women.

In my opinion, any woman who enters such relationship is very well aware of its pros and cons. She is not an average Indian woman. So I assume she better knows how to protect herself from such “disadvantages” or be prepared to suffer for a bad choice that she has made in her life. No way, she should blame the man for things not working out for her (I mean duping her).

As far as the discussion on polygamy and protecting the rights of the other woman goes, I don’t think the law/proposal (?) has got anything to do with that.

The other day I was reading an amazing article in TOI about these “Other Women”/”Mistresses”. It included views from ppl like Rani Mukherjee, Shobha De etc.They knew that they are never going to get the status of a wife. None of them for sure, want any legal rights from their partners. They just don’t give a damn. Here are a couple of quotes from the article which I liked:

“It’s the married men who are angling for an affair. It takes a special kind of woman to sustain an affair and still be on the social circuit. To accept being sidelined, people’s glances… It’s not for the faint of heart my dear,” she says adding, “I would run the other way.”

We share joys without responsibilities, we console without being involved. There is a distance too because the relationship is fragile. On the other hand, wives and husbands go where I will never. We don’t discuss ‘their’ life much. Nobody knows about tomorrow so we each live more fully for today. Today, here and now, is all it’s about. We’re happy in our own ivory tower. One day, it will come crashing I suppose. Shrug. Tomorrow is another day.”

No, Nanda, you got hold of the wrong-end of the stick (as usual, if I may add?)

I wrote that comment in the context of the state or other busy bodies trying to interfere with my sexual preferences – I have made no comment on the original “live-in” topic, whatsoever – because, I am neutral on this issue – I don’t care about it.

BTW, have you read an interesting book called *gasp* the Kamasutra …. it has even more interesting things in it.

Obviously, many of us are more Victorian than the English, when it comes to sex …… which is a pity, given the rich culture and ingenuity that we can draw down upon.

Patriot. You have right to judge my comment, i might hold the wrong end of the stick..But I can assure its not intentional.

the main point which i understand in above discussion is that””INDIAN WOMEN ARE WEEK AND NEED TO BE PROTECTED”. if we agree on this point then this is gr8 shame for all indian. we talk about women reservation,equal right,women rights,women education and other messures for them. but after all the efforts we feel they are still weeker class. common friends let’s open our mind, just by saying ur not giveing women there right. let them right to live freely, let them face social evil of society, let them handle this situations, i m sure then only women can in real sense term as equal. we indian always understimate the power,knowledge,capability,intelligence of women. it is a mother who makes his children strong, who teaches them to fight and survive in every social enviroment. a mother protect there children from every evil of society and always comes up with stronger will.but still they are a weeker class and need protection.

this thinking is wht the main reason for our backwardness. we always understimate other and gives lots of explanation for everything. untill we give women there equal right and place in society nothing will change. we talk abt men dumping women, did we ever think abt situation where women dumps men??? are we ready to accept situation where girls say they wanna live alone and society accept there decision? it is easy to talk then actually doing. if a boy makes a girl pragent, noone says anything to boy and everyone abuse the girl, why why why? in this act they both are equal partner. then why society treat them diffrently.no one will marry that girl and everything will be normal for that boy after some time. why we don’t boycot that boy too? if a girl changes her partners we call her bad girl but when a boy does it is normal, why this discrimination?

this livein law won’t make every other girl availble or easy target. wht this law will do is will open society’s mind towards women who want freedom. will make society to understand they are also part of us. it is not that every teen will be pregant and everygirl wanna live-in realtionship. there will be marriage too. there are marriage system in western countries too. we only looking at just the negative side. it is our habit to look at things from nagative point of view only. recently when that big-bang was about to happen media showed full world will end and they really blown it in big way. in india it is our nature to make big controvery out of nothing.we are not flexible to adjust and accomodate new things and change. it is a mantle blockness which is there from childhood.and with time it gets stonger. we keep on passing this from one genration to another. i agree we have grate values, and customes. our histroy is full of gr8 things. then if we have trust and faith in our customs, religion,teaching,then let this law be implemanted. we should understand that we can’t stop anyone from his natural will. if we stop him from one way he wil find another way. if we stop our children from smokeing, he will smoke outside, if he wanna smoke he will. wht we can do is we can make him understand that it is not good and you shd not do this. but if he continue then no matter how hard you try he will smoke. it is all about will. let him give both the option and let him decide on which road he wanna to go. we must respact one’s will and right of freedom.

The arguments that have been made “for” this move are:

It will protect the interests and rights of the so-called ‘mistress’ or ‘other woman’. We may not admit it but we all know that these women are the worst sufferers in the current system in spite of giving up years of their lives (and more) to one man without any legal protection at all (especially in cases of abuse or harrassment). The move would equate such women to legally married wives in matters of property, inheritance and maintenance

—First, no woman should take a step towards becoming other woman or mistress. Why she should take such a low and dirty ground for sustaining? In every socitey ( progressive or whatever one say) it is considered 100% low act. Woman is considered to be the “Shakti”, in other words, why does she has to stoop so low? Why do they suffer or giving years to this kind of relation? Aren’t other women selfish and fulfilling their own desires at the end of the day? This kind of unwanted law will support becoming other woman or mistress! No shame now! Many man look out for this kind of low entertainment outside marriges. It is woman who has to give slap on their face and protect their wellbeing.

Sorry if i am offending anywhere here. But if you do bad there are consequencies to met out! And that is being called as mistress or suffere! its my opinion and I dont want to go in to history or instances of any thing. Something that is wrong means wrong! Go and ask the suffering of legal wives in this case. Legal wives are suffering in such case.

@tarun –

wrt sex being an unnecessary taboo subject,and that it is a valid and perfectly natural need – I agree with you and propose that prostitution be made legal with all the necessary regulations and safeguards required….

This should directly result in a decrease in crime against woman. in fact there was a study done in France after 10 years of making prostitution illegal(it was legal till 1970, I believe) and it was found that in 10 years the crime against woman had gone up significantly…..

regards
Dnyanesh

My dear friend Indian,

Im afraid that if all my fellow countrymen subscribe to the same view as yours regarding marriage, there might be less of divorces but definitely many many more incidents of “murder/ suicides”……remember kiranjeet ahluwalia ( the inspiration behind the movie “provoked”).

I find your presumption that being an “other woman or a mistress is a low/ dirty act” to be extremely preposterous. There is no legal bar to my knowledge, in most common law countries in having an affair outside marriage (esepecially for the “other woman”. Do you not realize that many a time the “other woman” has no idea that the person she is in love with is amuch married man.

Do you recall the character of Sandhya Mridul from the movie “Honeymoon Travels Private Ltd”? The situation she faced vis a vis her ex – boyfriend is an oft repeated phenomenon with women across the world.

For that matter, a man having “an affair” with a woman, fully realizing the fact that the woman is married is not illegal (with respect to the “woman”,the man is liable to the offence of Adultery (which as per the IPC treats the woman no better than chattel and “restores” her to her husband.).

If the woman is unmarried, then an “affair” with a married man is again not “illegal” even as per the norms of the extremely parochial and archaic Indian Penal Code drafted by Lord Macaulay in the 1860.

Again, we can refer to the case of Payal Sharma Vs Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and others, in which a court stated in 2001 that a live-in relationship was not illegal.

Sharma had moved the Allahabad High Court to be left to do her own bidding after being forced to live in a Nari Niketan at Agra, following her arrest, along with Ramendra Singh, with whom she had a live-in relationship.

Sharma produced documentary evidence, including her high school certificate, to prove that she was 21 years old. On the basis of this evidence, the court directed the authorities to set her free. Justice M Katju and Justice RB Mishra stated,

“Petitioner Smt. Payal Sharma appeared before us and stated that she is above 21 years of age, which is borne out from the high school certificate which shows that her date of birth is 10.7.1980.

Hence she is a major and has the right to go anywhere and live with anyone. In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without getting married, can live together if they wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by society, but is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality.”

(Refer to Ms Shoma Chatterji’s article in http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/aug/soc-livein.htm)

Moreover even before your ilk starts criticizing people like us as being overtly concerned with legalese, let me remind you that to be a true citizen of this great country called INDIA, one need not qualify any exam on morality but an allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of the land is enough.

Sir, in this land, where even in the 21st century an “arranged marriage” is the norm an assumption that every marriage will be blissful and made in heaven is indeed naïve. There are countless people especially women who are trapped in extremely violent and unsuccessful marriages, which they cant get out of due to many reasons ie financial or due to societal “guardians of morality” like you.

Yes, a woman is indeed the “manifestation of Shakti” and need not be dictated by the societal mores set by fools and hypocrites alike….as long as what someone does is not illegal let he or she be the judge of their own actions and the charter’s of their destiny. A woman or a man entering into an extramarital affair or a live in relationship is free to do as he or she wishes but what the law needs to do is to ensure that no one either the “wife” or the “other woman” is financially disadvantaged due to such a relationship and that might be one of the reasons behind the Maharashtra law)

You commented that: “I dont understand when couple can enjoy live-in relationship, why cant they can enjoy marriage. How much time it takes to get married? Both are not ready for marriage means their intenition are suspicious and are there to satisfy each others need for short period of time………”

Why a couple choses to be in live in relationship is not for me or you to understand as “we are not the masters of their destinies or lives”. The answer though might be as simple as “mere convenience”. The very reason for promulgation of the Maharashtra law is that if in case the arrangement breaks down one day, the “sacred goat” ( ie as you describe the woman in the relationship ) is not at sea….

When you talk about the west which religious community are you talking about??? Please don’t generalize the west as Christian (Catholics). Have you heard of a sect called the Mormons in the US of A and the lowly staus they accord to their women??? Or do you have any idea of the divorce rates in the “my marriage is holy” west as compared to Asian societies??

Thankfully in in the west women are not looked upon as “Shkati” and then burned for dowry in a “happy marriage”. It causes me immense mirth to read that you cite the west as a continent with people who are an example of “marital fidelity” when compared to the “immoral and depraved Indians”

As per your opinion: “There are also class in west, those who are from higher family values, they are very honest and trustful. No matter what, they will respect their wedding vows.”

Which “class” are you talking about??? The WASPS or the rich elite or the ones who are ivy league educated?? Do you mean to say that the poor / less educated / people of African/Hispanic or Indian decent in the west are morally insensitive ‘animals’ because they are not from the “high class”. Is the high class judged by money or education or is there a different parameter according to you??

“Marital infidelity” as far as I believe dates to the idea of marriage itself……don’t you know that even when there was a system of polygamy prevalent in the society both in the east and the west, the high class still slept around with countless “other women” outside their marriage …… oops, I thought they kept “beasts” in their exquisite harems……

I coudln’t agree more with Indian and he/she has put down my thoughts perfectly…I ahve no idea what Abhiroop is atlking about and it seems Indian’s words are distorted to intend something else..

My point is simple..If people don’t want to be in a legal relationships,well and fine…its their choice..But I have only issues with people grabbing legal rights or gains even when they are not in any legal relationship..Isn’t that fair..?

I hope almost all would agree to the fact that marriage is not all about physical intimacy..

Either you be legal relation if legal gains matters to you,or be in live in relationships where you aren’t burdened with responsibilities or legal formalities,and OFCOURSE ,show the courage not to avail leagl rights of legal wife..Isn’t that what we call double standards..If a ‘wife’s right’ matters to you,why don’t you get married?

My point is simple..don’t equate live-in or mistress to legal spouse,be it husband or wife..Bcoz then the whole system of marriage becomes an idiotic drama..and thatz why i am against this law.

Smita

Its your opinion that I am pigeon holing. I dont think so. Why speaking for legal wives is pigeon holing?. If it is than let it so. I dont care what others has to say about it. I dont need to run scared and slotting . Its person who is engaed in such activity need slot and gets scared. They want all such legaly binding laws.

I am not running for anykind of identity! Every coin has 2 sides. What can I do if you dont have that guts to accept it! rather than blaming others for self righteous or moral police. You can use as fancy words as you can, its not going to make my stand change Right!

I too have many stories to tell you but I dnt want to indulge in all that nonsense.

Dear Mr Guthalkar,

with due respect to the sentiments expressed by bharat punarnirman dal regarding the maharashtra legislation, i would pose a few questions to you whose answers would be most welcome…..

1. Bigamy continues to be an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, as far i beleive there is no move to change or amend the said provisions and thus a person Committing the offences of bigamy and adultery will not get any support from the new law proposed by the Maharashtra Government. So where is the question of promoting Bigamy or Adultery??

2. in the west where there is no restriction to the concept of live – in relationships, do you think that in such countries the instituion of marriage has lost its relevance or has folded up altogether????

3. the offence of adultery (though i personally think is an archaic concept)is to prevent a man from having a sexual relationship with a married woman without her husbands knowledge…so where is the “threat” to a married woman?? and dont you think that all unmarried women should have the right to choose what she wants do ie get “married” or “live in”?? the maharastra law would only secure the right of the woman who “chooses” to live in with her partner…..

though im not either for/against your campaign or your personal political views….i just wanted you to answer these questions so that we could get your point of view better….

Abhiroop,

Thanks for raising some valid and interesting questions.
i’l answer accordingly to your points

1)If a married Man is keeping a mistress , and if the mistress gets all the rights of what his present wife u/s 125 has… isnt that bigamy?… or like legalising bigamy (even though retrospectively)…. yes the acts of 494 exists as it was passed after 1955.. but seems like Maharashtra govt has made a fool of itself by bringing a contrary law to 494…

2)Prime part of our ideology is to preserve the culture of India and efforts should be made to indigenise the world and not in westernising india.. We are against moral policing but if the govt wishes to legalise something which is not in our culture we would surely oppose.

“We are not against the couples in live-in relation… thats their choice… but giving these unmarried woman a status of a married woman indirectly through this act is what we are oppose too”

3) On sec 497.. is debatable .. and as you rightly mentioned is archiac..

If a man commits adultry, then the mistress or the victim woman approaches court, under the new live-relation law she would claim and have equal rights for alimony or assets
as for the mans married wife.. so you see who is at the
most loosing end.

Any women with malicious intentions just to extort money can start filing false accusation against any known/wealthy married man.. and if she wins.. the faithful man’s wife and her children would be at the loosing end the most

my personal thoughts*
eg: Madhur Bhandarkar is been falsely accused by preeti jain if this law is implemented and by some loop holes in this law if she wins… Madhur Bhandarkars whole family will be in shambles.

If we were to belive The govt of Maharashtras intention to bring the live-in law is to help the RURAL WOMAN .. who are more prone to bigamy (even though ipc494 exists)and to fight for rural woman rights which we also strongly support.. but in doing so they should also keep in mind it shouldnt affect the Hindu Marraige act,
also bigamy sec494 and dont give rise to the byproduct of the act by officialising live-in relation.

The Govt of Maharashtra by saying that even after presence of ipc 494 they are not able to curb bigamy in rural areas of Maharashtra.. this shows the failure of govt duties towards the security and empowerment towards the daughters of Maharashtra… so instead taking steps towards of strenghtening 494, and increasing the defn n sentense for 376(rape) why weaken 125(defn n rights of wife) and the hindu marriage act?


Jai Hind! Jai Maharashtra!!

*** COMMENT by MODERATOR ***

Deepak: Not sure where you wanted to replace “If a man commits bigamy” with “If a man commits adultery”.

Or did I mis-understand you? Feel free to leave another comment by way of correction

Yes I do agree that there are many reasons for not getting married. But if the person is so much concerned about security and the time, efforts and energy invested in realtions than we have marriage laws and institution. The main aim of marriage is to protect woman, and divorce is the tool to get all legal rights.

I too have gone through this situation where I thought marriages are waste of time (what I felt). It was more like,everything is going fine and we dont have time to do all that ceremony and coming in front of many relatives. We dont want them to dictate us what to do and what to not or their endorsement was not that necessary. Live and let Live was the attitude. More freedom, and curiosity outside the relationship is the part of the bundle being without ceremonies. And the age is the main factor- between 21 to 30,we are more independent and needs freedom from all that attachments that hampers our daily freedom and advancement. Here comes the expertise of adults. Parents advises; dont you want secutity in your marriage. Dont you love yur partner and want him to tie knot so that your partner is legally yours too. Society is not that matured to equate your relationship with that of married couple. And basically you are showing irresponsibility towards your relationship and society.

Today I understand no legal formality for the sake of evading responsibility. It was for brushing aside many regular bindings plus not ready to bargain eachother’s independency. They are more there for fulfilling eachother’s need. That lack of responsibitiy was the reason for live-in relationship. So relation itself suggests no security. Than why so much fuss. Its not only a question of rights but question of love on both side whether in live-in relationship or legally married.

Or one can bring the law where commitment in writing should be counted as legal binding. So before anyone proceed to live-in relationship put everything on paper how much eachothers responsibilty in front of legal counsel.(I dont know it is the right solution or not but just a suggestion). Atleast dont break families.

Vck

You are right! But pulic in India ( mentality) is something different, they wont let go all that enjoyment becuase of economy problem. They give boot to such financial difficulty. They dnt have money but they will drink, gamble, smoke, illicit relations, and visit brothels.( I dont like to use such words, but its reality ). Lower income, uneducated public is more prone to all this for moving away for a while from sadness, unhappiness and financial difficulty. Not always though! Exception always exists.

I just read about it, It is “Maitryee Karar”. It is perfect. No legal priviledges on both side but still relation is formed by legal formalities. Many have established “Maitryee Karar” and than underwent marriage ceremony. It is same as Live-in relationship without any obligation but I have no idea about, if it can be done by married couple. I think it give widow, divorcee and widower an oppertunity to know the person before formalising marriage or live together witout going into the marriage ceremony. More to be reserached about it.

I am quite impressed with the level of discussion on this blog (and on this article).

While I am not an expert on legal matters, I believe the point that Mr. Deepak and Mr. Mahesh raise pertain to the possible side-effects of such well-meant legislation (that protects individual rights). I guess the question is to what extent would such legislation change the number of such live-in relationships? If it affords more protection for individual rights (of the woman), then perhaps more women may be persuaded to enter into them (as the barrier is now reduced). Fundamentally the institution of monogamy (and marriage) was basically to give most males a shot at getting someone to marry. Else, what naturally happens is that the alpha males (i.e., males who are more powerful, wealthy etc) tend to garner more mates (you just need a few men to keep the next generation going) and most males are left high and dry in the mating game (by the way, this is what seems to be happening in western societies; in typical universities a few males get the lion’s share of the action and females seem ok at sharing these alpha males among them.. this is a consequence of unprecedented liberties and the invention of oral contraceptives). The story of how human society evolved to give beta males a better chance at propagating their genes is a fascinating one.

I guess the moral is that all policy and legislation can have unintended impacts. And sometimes, too much individual freedom (or new freedoms) can have devastating long-range effects.

“Yes, it is western concepts, but it is not exactly what we are imitating in India. In west, those who are in live-in relationship are already engaged or about to be engaged. They make wedding happens 100%. If not than they have their ways going apart without claiming anything from anyone, only pitty things like returning gifts. Many times they marry after having children.”

@Indian I dont know where you get your information from but its totally confusing because couples living with each other are not usually engaged or planning to get married or even get married after having children.You are talking about a very small percentage and even then it usually ends up in divorce.Ive been with school with many their kids which in many some can be from multiple fathers.Most of these relationships break up after a year or so with kids ending up losing direction with the girls in the same situation as their own mothers with different kids from different men.

When you know the street culture then all this glamour that indians have for west will be a very big shock for many.

Before importing western ideals have any of these experts visited the council estates in the UK or the ghettos in the US to study where live in relationships lead to.Of course not because they wouldn’t come back alive if not mugged first lol..Instead of trying to be like the West on something which will end Indian society in more of a mess then it is already why not take the positive side of the West and start with building some decent public toilets in India..