Live-in relations lack committment,warn experts...

In France where I lived for more than twenty years, there is no stigma attached to live-in relations. In fact, such a relationship can be legalised through a "social contract" that opens the way for amicable or legally monitored termination of relationships when necessary and govern also the rights of children that may be born of such relationships.

Even homos*xuals can enter into such a contract.

There are similar options in most European countries.

The ball was set rolling by Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, a very famous couple of authors and intellectuals, highly respected all over the world.

Marriage is the biggest obstacle in the empowerment of women. Marriage automatically leads women into a subservient position in the family. Marriage and childbearing prevent women from getting educated, pursuing careens and obtaining financial independence.

Any woman, if she had any sense at all would avoid marriage like a dose of pox.

In all this, it is never made clear who is living in where. Presumably it is the woman who is living in with the man, so indeed the woman is being kept. Impression is also being sought to be created that men are choosing this kind of relationship in order to avoid commitments.

I think intellegent women who have deliberately opted for a live-in relationship instead of marriage (or celibacy) should speak up and justify their position.

Yes, we have to preserve our Indian culture heritage and for that we believe in marriage.

What is the reason behind the live in relationship is:

Dr Dherandra Kumar, "These couples do not usually have the moral obligation towards their partners and in the absence of any pressure from the parents as most of these cases remain hidden from the family, they end up in break ups". As roshni said .

But here why the partner do not take such a responsibility that have existed in marriage? The reason is simple: if something wrong in the live in relationship, they escape out from them but in marriage it is not possible or in marriage one can try to continue the affair with other girl and it creates mental torture to his wife and at that ground wife ask for divorce as we have seen the cases in this lci forum (sometimes we think we are like legal doctors and our client are patient)

Here most common thing is that most of the men (girl also but instances is very few) escape from live in relationship as in a long time they feel boring with their partner as  like example as the author said:

"I was staying with Samir for the past five years and we were planning to get married but one day when I returned from work earlier than usual I caught him in bed with my landlord's daughter and that was the last day when I saw him," says government employee Nilima.

The other reason for live in relationship popular is the the today’s generation is don’t try to take-up responsibility or become angry in trifle matters. and today’s fast life also responsible for them .that’s why live in relationship popular .

So, we are here talk now and then but we cant stop them as it continue as we have to respect the time ,situation, though its not good  but what is good or bad one has to his own perception or rational deduction and everyone have a liberty to choose the option. For me I don’t like live in relationship but if I like then definitely I marry to the girl.

Here one thing that we have to discuss that is ;

The couples who get married also face these problems because while a woman remains the same even after tying the knot, man changes drastically.

Here before wife(partner) said ; aap shadi ke baad badal to naahi jaaoge na ?(before marriage dream fantasy and after that reality starts.)

What are the reasons behind them? Why women said these statements?

i dont think its a big deal anymore. Well two consenting adults deciding to stay together either to try out a relationship or try to save money do not make headlines as they did a few years ago. But again India being such a complex mix of society with diverse culture we can not have "one size fit all" model. Because urban India is a different world compared to what rural india is. And there is this issue of the great class divide not in terms of economics or caste alone but include communities as well. And there is this question surrounding hypcrisy and double standards like somebody maintaining that he doesnt support women liberation inside his own home and in his own family.

Position in India for Live In Relationship :

In India, cohabitation had been taboo since British rule. However, this is no longer true in big cities, but is still often found in rural areas with more conservative values. Female live-in partners have economic rights under Protection of Women Under DV act 2005. 

The Maharashtra Government in oct. 2008 approved a proposal suggesting a woman involved in such a relationship for a ‘reasonable peroid’ should get status of a wife.

The National Commission for women recommended to ministry of women and child development o june 30,2008 that definition of wife as described in Sec.125 of Cr.P.C. which deals maintenance ,suggested that it include women involved in a live in relationship. Aim of the reccommendation was to harmonising other sections of law with protection of women from Domestic Violence Act that a live in couple’s relationship on a par with that between a legally married husband and wife.

The move has came after justice malimath committee of the SC recommended that all states turn into this law.The committee observed that “if man and woman are living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period ,the man shall be deemed to have married the woman.”

The malimath committee had also suggested that the word ‘wife’under Cr.P.C. be amended to include a ‘woman living with the man like his wife’ which means the woman would also be entitled to alimony.

In Payal Katara v. Superintendent Nari Niketan Kandri Vihar Agra and Others AIR 2002, the Allahabad High Court ruled out that “a lady of about 21 years of age being a major, has right to go any where and that anyone –man and woman even without getting married can live together if they wish”.

In Patel and others case (2006) 8 SCC 726 the apex court observed that live- in –relation between two adult without formal marriage cnnot be construed as an offence.

In Radhika v. State of M.P. AIR 2008,the SC observed that a man and woman are involved in live in relationship for a long period, they will treated as a married couple and their child would be called legitimate.

In Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v.State Of Maharashtra and Others on 16.09.2009, the SC also observed that it is not necessary for woman to strictly establish the marriage to claim maintenance under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C..A woman living in relationship may also claim maintenance under Sec.125 CrPC.

On 23.03.2010 the honourable SC in khushboo’s case,was of the opinion that entering into live in relationship cannot be an offence. A three judge bench comprising Chief Justice K.G.Balakrishnan,Deepak Verma and B.S.Chauhan said that “when two adult people want to live together,what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence ? Living together is not an offence, it cannot be an offence.Living together is a fundamental right under Article 21, Constitution of India”.

Intention of this post is not to hurt the feeling of anyone. Just a article I found suitable for the discussion. Thanks............ Ravindra.

the thread is not looking at legal aspects...

it's just telling everyone that live in relationship has no guarantee of committment,even though it sounds like a rosy option initially

"Gen Next women are like genie out of a bottle, so when men attempt to send them into the bottle again they revolt. Thus for the success of any relationship, it is necessary that boy should understand his girl's desire and she gives sufficient time to him to change his mentality"

Mindless aping of western principles, which is not in consonance with Indian mindset/Psyche is not good. Commitment, resposibility and accountibility must be there. The problem is who will be watchdog of the society. In a lawless country like ours, prevention is better than cure.

I find many people here prattling about Indian culture and such like... The gharwali / baharwali culture has been there for a very long time, not to mention polygamy... In south, we have had chinna veedu / periya veedu, chakkalatthi and vaippatti.There was no India even until the British made it happen and left behind a load of mess. Just look around you, the prudes of the IT age, when you see those young girls in tight jeans and made up like tarts; is this all a part of Indian culture? Or would you rather have Khajuraho and kamasutra? What does Indian culture mean to a poor rickshaw puller's wife or keep when her man gets drunk every evening and beats her up. If you are so fond of Indian culture, learn to type in Hindi and wear a dhoti. And go for Manu smruthi and not the IPC. Really disgusting these psuedos!

What had Indian culture done to its women, after all? Supressed her, oppressed her and hardly gave any freedom to decide about her life. With caste implications, Indian culture just tramples over women( as well as men, but here I am breaking the facade of so called Indian culture). We keep talking about wives, we should rather talk about a girl's life in her parental home and what sort of oppression of different types she goes through--degree may be different but nature remains more or less the same. 

And what is the guarantee that marriages are not bound to fail. No one looks at live in as a perfect arrangement--no human arrangement can be perfect. In live in relationship if one finds fulfillment, why not? What is wrong in that? 

And Vishwa, Jean Paul Satre and Simone de Beauvoir: those who are singing praises of Indian Culture, do you think they would even come anywhere near appreciating their work???

A culture which is oppressive for majority of people: dalits, poor and ofcourse women, I do not have much respect for that culture? Why should we all the time keep about western culture as though it is something to be shunned off? There is respect for human being, there is relatively more safe spaces for women and there is respect for children: respect for children and their rights,  yes, that is a concept that originated from the west, as against blind obedience.

Self critiquing is not a bad thing, it needs courage and does not allow one self to be smug about unexamined cultural values. 

Please read

I do not have much respect for that culture. rather than I do not have ..........? 

why should keep all the time talking about western culture

Take other typos in stride!

And legal aspect cant be isolated from social realities. Ravindra's posting is very relevant for SC judgments are not empty pronouncement and brainless chattering. It is the question of rights and positioning live in relationship within them. So looking at the socio-legal aspects is very much relevant when we talk about any issues.

Ha Ha..

I like bottle and Genie analogy..

There is some details missing though

When women were in bottle, society used to provide oxygen mask and food train to keep  womans alive.

Bottle has opened genie( Gene next) is out but she is still demanding her old Oxygen mask and Food train

It is also known as freedom with entitlement  

You know, why Avnissh. When a baby comes out in the world, s/he still requires the support and that's her/his entitlement. Now I am not comparing women with babies, the analogy has its limitation, but it is clear too. 

Attitudes of parental family and husbands and in laws remaining the same, by and large they do control women--ofcourse age matter--the younger the more controlled that she misses crucial years of her life. women finding their feet, against all odds,  rearing children, playing the role of house wife, home maker, money earner( though the income remains only supplementary, I am now talking about majority of women--both in rural and urban scenario), it is clear that yes, she should find her feet on a solid ground to stand on and breath freely without any stigma, without any prejudice, and in the era of equal opportunity to develop as a daughter, wife and daughter in law. Until she does it, and until the attitude of men change, yes she should and would have her entitlements, even while she has her freedom.  

Sorry, I meant to say Avinash and not Avnish.