LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Adv. T.K Sujith (lawyer)     23 March 2010

SUPREME COURT SAID THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING LIVE - IN REL

"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," a bench comprising chief justice KG Balakrishnan, justice Deepak Verma, and justice BS Chauhan observed.
The apex court made the observation while reserving its judgment on a special leave petiton filed by South Indian actress Khushboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-maritial s*x in interviews to various magazines in 2005. Khushboo had approached the Supreme Court after the Madras high court in 2008 dismissed her plea to quash the criminal cases filed against her throughout Tamil Nadu.



 32 Replies


(Guest)

1. Agreed with Hon'ble CJI, but, then why not give nod /comment on "irretriviable breakdown of marriage" and let young to older couples part graciously their ways instead of keeping them binded together for eternity and sayign it is not ground for divorce under Hindu Law?.
2. In above the sacrament of Indian Mrriage and or two opposite genders of Indian adults 'relationship' per se is 'priveledged' but what about 'concept of live in relationship' as a whole was it there since Manu's time in Indian society to announce it under Art 142 COI that it is not prohibitive ?
3. With highest respect to pillars of Indian Judiciary I am surprised the way interpretations of spouse be it wife and or live in especially in a relationship with a man by a Indian women are being churned out from the highest pillars of land. I think we are loosing our Indian values down the line and opting for western way of life and side by side are hypocratic to accept the same.
4.I am not against live in but give equal status to a dead Hindu marriage too is my point here.
Rgds

1 Like

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     24 March 2010

As I have already stated in the other thread with same topic, I would like to say, live in realtionship is not an "OFFENCE".  It is only "ILLEGAL"  in India as of now.

Adv. T.K Sujith (lawyer)     24 March 2010

Suchitra plz find out the entire words of apex court. court held that live- in relation ship is not an offence as per existing laws.

 

In our country, it is visible from our history. Court mentioned even radha-krishna concept in its remarks. Our ancient culture itself promotes free-relationships. Our different system of marriage, polygamy, polyandry, matrilineal system etc. evidenced this thing. But after the westernization and invasion of Victorian culture (biblical) monogamy and chastity etc. became adopted into our culture. Period of social renovation also encouraged these changes. But live in relation is not an offence or an illegal act, since it is not against any existing laws on the country. But it may be against certain customs and beliefs.

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     24 March 2010

Sir, I have read the view expressed by the SC. It only stresses the fact that live in relationship is not an offence. I completely agree with that. There is no law in India which says live in relationship is an offence.

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     24 March 2010

example :

 

1.  Sita, Wife of Suresh, lives home for 2 months only (not deserts him) and stays with Mahesh having a "live-in relation"  for 2 months. AND Sita then comes back to husband Suresh to resume normal life.  SC will protect such "live-in relationship" due to its order.

 

2.  Similarly  Suresh (husband of Sita)  leaves home for 3 months and stays with Gita (wife of Mahesh), on the 10th floor of the same building, as a  "live-in relation" for 3 months.  AND Suresh then comes back home to wife Sita, to resume normal life.    SC will protect such "live-in relationship" due to its order.

 

3.  What happens to the off-springs of such  "live-in relationships" (if any).

 

WELCOME to the culture of Wife-swapping  and Girl-friend swapping.

 

Further all were welcomes to the now legalised culture of  Gay'ism (u/s 377).


 

To sum it up, read the following :

 

LIFE-STYLE  (as per SC judgement)
Indian: I've 4 sisters n 3 brothers What about you ?
American: I have no sister no brother.  But  I have 4 moms from my 1st dad...& 5 dads from my 1st mom.

 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
 

2 Like

mahendrakumar (marketing)     24 March 2010

dear Hemand,


why are you misinterpreting the judjement? SC has not commented anything about X staying with the wife of "Y" or Z staying with the the husband of 'W".

Sex is a private relationship  between man and women and court has no role their unless,the act is done with a minor or without the consent.

aatma   24 March 2010

Originally posted by :mahendrakumar
" Sex is a private relationship  between man and women and court has no role their unless,the act is done with a minor or without the consent. "

 

What about prostitution? It happens with mutual consent of both parties. Court has no role on this private Sex-relationship?

Deekshitulu.V.S.R (B.Sc, B.L)     24 March 2010

Sir

What Kushbu meant or SC meant is in respect of a man and woman hav ing li-in-relationship, prior to the marriage sy of rthe reaason of proper understanding or to test out temperments. It does not relate to married people where question of adultery arises and an offence punishable. The words have to be taken in the context of their use.

Aftab4u (PVT EMPLOYEE)     24 March 2010

God save us...................First acceptance of section 377 and then Living relation ship...what next ?

 

Aftab

mahendrakumar (marketing)     24 March 2010

dear aatma,

In Prostituition the consent is obtained by payment of money. I am not sure whether "prostituition" will come under the present verdict.

Hemant Agarwal (ha21@rediffmail.com Mumbai : 9820174108)     24 March 2010

1.  What is to be MADE  "illegal" or  "legal" ,  is to be decided  "ONLY & ONLY"   by the representatives of the people,  that means by the  "legislature" under the constitution.

 

2.  The Law agency, is not empowered yet to MAKE laws or to legalise something which is non-existant in the Law.  Next the Apex Court will declare that  "wife-swapping" is legal, since it is done with mutual consent.  Further NEXT   "a s*x relationship between a  Dog & Woman", will be declared Legal, since it is their own private affair and the general public are not affected or prejudiced.

 

3.  The legislature is the only agency under the Indian Constitution, which is empowered to MAKE laws, whether it pertains to  "Gayism" (377)  or  "Live-in Relationships" or anything else.

 

4.  It must be remembered that people are gradually losing Trust in the Law & Judiciary system.
 AND it is not surprising at the way Law is being interpreted and meted out.  Each Judge to himself and to his own interpretations.   Next  judge to himself and ot his own interpretations which will be different from other judges.  The legislature knew about this, hence the LAW-MAKING power was never entrusted / delegated to the judiciary.

 

QUOTE :  Power corrupts, &
                Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Keep Smiling .... Hemant Agarwal
 

1 Like

girishankar (manager)     25 March 2010

Dear Hemant Agarwal Ji,

Ur Rocking really Rocking 

girishankar (manager)     25 March 2010

[Attachment(s) from psn.1946 included below]

 

Unquote:
 
1. What Kushboo talked was absolutely within the prarmeters of law, sense and culture.
 
2. But she violated one basic unwritten law. How can a woman talk on a woman issue?
   
3. Periyar in 1939: 'Individual liberty is equally applicable to both men and women. A man lives with two wives. What is wrong if a woman has two husbands? There should not be any restriction on those men and women who want to live like this. To live together as husband and wife is entirely the convenience of those two persons. None has any right to interfere and dictate terms'.
 
4. Dr.Lohia in 1950s:
 
"Celibacy is generally a prison-house. Who has not met such imprisoned souls, whose virginity shackles them and who eagerly await a liberator?
 

Of the two women, one who has given birth to just one child in all her life, although an illegitimate one, and another who has produced half a dozen legitimate brats and more, who is the more decent and the more moral? Of two persons, a woman who is thrice divorced and has married a fourth time, and a man who marries a fourth time because his earlier wives have died one after another, who is the more decent and the more moral?"

 

5. In the land of Kamasutra, Konark, Khajuraho and hundreds and thousands of liberal minds, why Kushboo

was harassed but Periyar and Lohia were not touched? Because Periyar and Lohia were not women.

 

Sankara Narayanan

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from psn.1946

3 of 3 File(s)

1 Like

girishankar (manager)     25 March 2010

Kushboo prblm is a small one comparing to  " KALKI ASRAMAM "for all top leading ppls are appearing for " KALKI " whos there to  ????


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query