Nowadays it has become a fashion for judges in different parts of India to give out rulings in favour of women in livein relationships. Indeed they go out of their way to legitimize such relations, to treat them on par with legal and religious marriages.
While such relations have always existed in our society (chinna veedu vs periya veedu) if a keep has the same status as the wife, what is the point of getting married at all?
Instead of spending huge amounts on wedding feasts, one can simply ask our sons and daughters to go someplace and shack up together!
I am wondering seriously why no one is challenging such rulings. We should all sign a petition asking that the Hindu Marriage Act should be scrapped simply and send it to our dear president madam.
Our judges generally tend to be old fogeys bloated up with their own feeling of importance. I wonder if any of them had even heard of the expression livein relationship a few months earlier. Who coined it anyway?
Leading French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre had a livein relationship with Simone de Beauvoir for a long time but they was opposed to the principle of marriage. Many emancipated women refuse marriage because they see it as an infringement of their freedom. I do not think many of the women landing up in DV cases have such background. Seriously, I request our learned friends to explain how a dharampatni can be considered equal to a rakhel? Or, vice versa? I seem to be missing something here.
Bonjour les concubins
Bonjour les concubines
Bonjour le concubinage!.