To be or not to be in live-in relationship is the most debated question after Supreme Court’s recent observation on the issue of live-in relationship in the context of Tamil actress Khushboo’s statement on premarital sex. Six years back the Tamil actress was in news for her radical comments on premarital sex. She had then remarked that in the present times a man should not expect his wife to be virgin before marriage. Her statement stirred up a hornet’s nest. Daggers were drawn against her; the moralists in the society ran after her blood. They condemned her views vehemently. Now during a recent hearing of Khushboo’s case, the Supreme Court threw its weight behind live-in relationships saying that two consenting adults choosing a live-in relationship commit no crime and there is no illegality in such relationships. The Supreme Court has gone a step further observing that premarital sex between two adults is no offence; the law does not prohibits the consenting adults if they opt to go for premarital sex. A reference by the Supreme Court to Radha Krishna’s relationship, however, has raised eyebrows of the many. Voices of protest are loud and full of animosity especially from the quarters of VHP. The Honourable Court now faces difficult emotional fallout. It’s very derogatory, they say, to bring god into live-in relationship controversy. Krishanji was only 12 years of age when he left Vrindavan; his relation with Radha was in his childhood. How could a child be in erotic live-in relationship?
The neo intellectuals in the society, however, keep different views on the issue of live-in relationship. They call all those opposing live-in relationship as ‘Smaj ke thekedar’(custodians of public morality). While advocating freedom for choosing a live-in relationship they emphasize an individual’s right to decide for self. They strongly oppose conventional, orthodox thinking denying them freedom to live life on their own terms. Western influence is quite discernable in their approach to the Social issues.
On the other side those opposed to the idea of live-in relationship question the relevance of the institution of marriage in the backdrop of permissiveness in the society. They lay emphasis on the Social and moral values which have been followed in India for centuries. As per ‘Dharam Shastra’ , they say, the right to bear a child is only to a married couple.
The ‘bright’ in the society do not approve age old puritan thinking. Why should others decide what is good and what is bad for them, they argue? It’s their life after all and they have the right to live it the way they want to. If they are comfortable with live-in relationship why should they enter into a marriage contract?
Live-in relationship may be in limelight now because of the media but the phenomena of live-in relationships are not new. It has been brought into the sphere of discussion recently but the fact is that most of the live-in relations remain away from public gaze. The live-in relations of film stars and other celebrities are highlighted by the media. A few months back the French President Sarkozy was on official visit to India but his mistress Carla Brunei could not make the trip as she could not be given the status of First Lady by the Govt of India.
The society may have matured to the level of accepting live-in relationship but what about the status of children born out of wedlock? The law may protect the live-in couple but what about their off spring? They have no legitimate status either in the eyes of law or in the eyes of the society. What happens when live-in couple splits? In a recent case two adults were living together in a foreign country, shared an apartment and had a child and when they came back, the man went away saying he had no formal relation with the woman and hence was not liable to her and the child’s maintenance. Is man liable to pay for the kid’s upkeep?
How many live-in relations culminate into marriage is a subject matter of survey. If live-in relationships break so do marriages. Wife bashing behind the closed doors is not appreciated anywhere even if the relationship carries the stamp of marriage.
Whatever one may say, in this era of globalisation, amalgamation of different cultures and traditions is inevitable. The argument for and against the issue of live-in relationship will continue for a long time.
