Live-in relationship ‘stigma’ in Indian culture: C’garh HC
The Chhattisgarh high court has held that a livein relationship is an “imported” philosophy and considered a “stigma” in Indian culture.
While dismissing a petition seeking custody of a child born from a live-in relationship, a division bench of the high court, comprising Justices Gautam Bhaduri and Sanjay S. Agrawal, observed that the concept of live-in relationship is an “imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian tenets and still considered a stigma in Indian culture”.
The court has held that such a relationship is preferred over marriage because it gives a “convenient escape when things fail to work between partners”.
“The security, social acceptance, progress, and stability which the institution of marriage provides to a person is never provided by live-in relationship,” the division bench observed. In its verdict in the case delivered recently, the high court observed, “The close inspection of society shows that the institution of marriage no longer controls the people as it did in the past due to the cultural influence of the western countries and this significant shift and apathy towards matrimonial duties has probably given rise to the concept of live-in relationship.”
One Abdul Hameed Siddique of Dantewada in Chhattisgarh had filed a petition in the high court seeking custody of the child born from a live-in relationship with Kavita Gupta.
The Dantewada family court had earlier rejected such a petition by him, leading the petitioner to move the high court.
While seeking custody of the child, the petitioner argued that the two had married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as it was an interfaith union. Under the Mahomedan law, the counsel claimed, Mr Siddiqui was allowed to perform a second marriage. He contended that he is entitled to the custody of the child. Ms Gupta’s counsel held that the petitioner is not entitled to a second marriage since his first wife was alive and that he cannot claim custody of the child born from a live-in relationship.
Her counsel argued that the petitioner lacks evidence to provide validity of the marriage.