LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     18 January 2012

Live-in relationships are a fad, perceived as immoral:court


New Delhi: Despite legal legitimacy, live-in relationships are largely perceived to be immoral and it is a fad visible only in urban areas, a Delhi court observed on Tuesday while dubbing it as "infamous western cultural product".

In remarks that may stoke a controversy, Additional Sessions Judge Surinder S Rathi said, "Traditionally peaking, live-in relationships were alien to our nation till late. Even today it is fad which is visible only in urban areas."

The judge made the observations while handing down a 7-year jail term and a fine of Rs 7 lakh to a woman ailing from Mizoram for killing her live-in partner, a Nigerian national, in north Delhi over three years back.

Live-in relationships are a fad, perceived as immoral: Court

"Lately, not only the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a legal cover to this infamous western cultural product but our Parliament also accorded some degree of protection by including live-in relationship under definition of domestic relationships as defined in section 2 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act," he noted.

The ASJ also said that "despite all the developments granting a level of legal legitimacy to live-in relationship, it is largely perceived to be an immoral relation in our society."

The case pertains to 28-year-old Zarzoliani stabbing her live-in partner Victor Okon Efflong, 28, to death in 2008 as she did not approve his withdrawing money from her bank account.

Zarzoliani once worked in an orphanage in Manipur and had moved in with Victor in his rented apartment in north Delhi near Delhi University.

The court noted that "there is nothing on record to show if family of the convict had consented to or was even aware of convict having a live-in relationship with the deceased Nigerian national Victor."

Zarzoliani was convicted for unintentional killing of Victor as the court said the act was not premeditated and was excuted in heat of the moment as it is not known if they had any regular income and Victor's act of withdrawing money from her account was a "spark on mound of explosives".

The ASJ also ordered a departmental enquiry by DCP Central against the Investigating Officer of the case, Kishan Lal, for sharing the details of the case with the media during the trial and getting it published like a story in a crime magazine with his photograph, which the court called a move "aimed at self glorification.

The court has called for an action-taken report within two weeks.

The judge directed that the fine of Rs 7 lakh will be remitted to the the family of Victor in Nigeria. In case, she does not pay, she will have to undergo simple imprisonment for another one year.


 8 Replies


When marriage is immoral then what can we say about live-in ?

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     18 January 2012

Bhagwan bhala kare !

1 Like

Ranee....... (NA)     18 January 2012

7lac>1 yr imprisonment 7lac<1 yr imprisonment which 1 is more convenient?
1 Like


7lac>1 yr imprisonment is better.

Earning 7L in year after TDS is very difficult.

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     18 January 2012



Your equation is irrelevant as the Hon'ble judge ordered 7yr jail as well as Rs.7Lac fine.




CS Sandip (ILO)     18 January 2012

Money doesn't mattter period of imprisonment is long.


Many people imagine that living together before marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive. But here the car becomes fatal for couple.The “trial period” gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible. This analogy seems so compelling that people are unable to interpret the mountains of data to the contrary.

 Here’s the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn’t have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car, and maintenance

 Above green writings is from the link(

 From old post lci;


India a country of cultural values and ritual ceremonies cannot afford to plunge into western society. But since growing economy and people getting more and more aware, india finally has to step ahead and walk with the rest of the world by legalising Live-in relationship.

 Avoiding responsibility and lack of commitment come out as a main reason in live-in relationship.

 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, all benefits are bestowed on woman living in such kind of arrangement by reason of being covered within the term “domestic relationship”  under Section 2(f).. It would grant rights to parties to it but at the same time it would also impose obligations on them.

Live in relationship is different thing and killing a partner is another thing.In matromonial life ,this type of incident also happened.

In Live in relationship if one partner killes another it is called as  immoral relation in our society and what about married life if one partner kills another for money?

 Thats why the judge said, "there is nothing on record to show if family of the convict had consented to or was even aware of convict having a live-in relationship with the deceased Nigerian national Victor."

legal legitimacy and intimacy (live in ) are accepted but illegal act ae not accepted in the eyes of law.

rajiv_lodha (zz)     27 January 2012

Moreover we blame WEST for each & evrything wrong here! Westren culture....westren life style.........westren ppl. This is not an excuse........indian culture & life has become so spoilt, what I think, westren ppl are much civilized than us, gender equal n more caring for human rights as a whole. No looking down upon GORAAS any more n take responsibities for our own wrongs!

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register