We have been witnessing the changes that happen to society with the rapid liberalization and globalization. Have these societal changes indirectly affect the personal life of a person, especially while taking his/her decision when it comes to marriage in modern times. It has not affected tremendously, but just because of the fact that it has not affected that much, we cannot deny its existence and usage. A live-in relationship is the one that we focus on here. It is very sensitive if we see through the eyes of partners and their private life, and an interesting topic to note from the side of policymakers and their views on it. In the past decade or so, there have been lots of cases on this contention between the partners for their right to live together without any legal ties between them. Similarly, courts have opined and acted accordingly, not indifferently, until the recent judgment from the Punjab High court. This article will analyze this emerging area of live-in relations as shown contrary to the concept of marriage in India and the legal perspective it.
Marriage and India:
The fact that we should see marriages and India instead of marriage in India is because of the notion that has been created in India with respect to the concept of marriage by society as a whole. It is a well-accepted norm that marriages in India have been connected to society and the religions across the country. So, marriage has been considered to be the only way through which man and woman can have relationships, and that has been considered legal as well. Under Hindu law, the idea of marriage has been given the status of sacrosanct. Under Islamic laws, marriage is a contract that has the elements of formal contracts. Under Christianity, marriages have to be conducted or solemnized in the presence of the priest.
These are the official ways through which a marriage or legal relation takes place between the man and woman. Anything against it would be illegal. One such example could be Bigamy.
Are laws in India recognizes Live-in-relation?
We have seen that society sees this new concept as a rare one; the question is whether Indian laws recognize these liberties? Of course, the Indian constitution is there, but it will be dealt with later. Apart from that, we can witness evidence act comes into the picture. Section 114 and section 50 of the act enable the court of law to consider or, more specifically, presumes that there was a marriage between the parties in live-in relations.
Section 114(i) states as follows, as reiterated,
“There would be a presumption in favor of wedlock if the partners lived together for a long spell as husband and wife, but it would be rebuttable and heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place”.
Section 50 of the act, 1872 states as follows,
“When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, or any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 or in prosecutions under section 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code.”
As per the act, it is important for the parties not to prove anything more than the fact that they have been living together for a long time and have been projecting that they were the married couple to the society as a whole. This is the fact that they have to prove before the court of law in a case where the legality of the marriage is questioned.
Apart from the evidence act, the Protection of women from Domestic Violence act, 2005 also recognizes the live-in relationships between the parties. The objective of this act was to ensure that there were gender-related measures of women. In that way, section 2(f) of the act, 2005 defines the term ‘domestic relationship’ as a relationship between the parties who have been living together or lived together in a shared household through a relationship which may be through consanguinity, marriage, or adoption.
Societal morality v. Personal liberty:
Do we remember one of the serious and sensitive conflicts that arose between the two articles of the Indian constitution when the Sabarimala Temple entry case came up for discussion and debate? Yes, it is between the religious freedom of one community and the right to equality. Both are conferred by the constitution on its citizens to enjoy with some reasonable restrictions. Even though such a conflict does not arise in this scenario of live-in relations, it is important to look into it as a consideration. In this case, as well, there is a conflict between two aspects. They are societal morality versus personal liberty and freedom. This debate can be considered as this was referred to by the recent Punjab High court decision. On the one hand, there is a right of personal liberty and freedom that has been provided to these individuals who can pursue their life as they want. It is a fundamental right and can never be restricted. Similar to the right to privacy, this right has also been recognized and is applied in various cases. A progressive decision came in the famous cases of Maneka Gandhi and Shreya Singhal case relating to personal liberty and the rule of law. On the other, there is societal morality which has been customized through personal laws and customs relating to marriages.
In the recent Punjab High Court case, the Honorable Justice observed that the terms of the deeds between the 19-year-old boy and 18-year-old girl as part of their relationship are nothing but the misuse of the process of law as it cannot be morally accepted in society.
Conclusion:
As discussed above, the concept of Live-in relationships in India has to be legally accepted in spite it is not being recognized by societal morality. Constitution as a living law has the feature of changing according to the society. But, it is not important that all the societal norms have been to comply with at the cost of fundamental rights provided under the Indian constitution. Whenever there is a conflict with the laws and morality, it is the supreme law that has to prevail over the other customs and practices of the society, which does not mean that all the customs and morality is ignored. There should be a progressive interpretation of laws when it comes to laws and morality.
