LIVIN CAN BE OFF ANYTIME: DELHI HC

yes it is true.

mr d arun posted the said judgement.

please visitthe following if not yet.

Betrayal in Live in Relationships?

I am in complete agreement with the observations of the  Learned Judge of the Delhi Hogh Court.

Can live-in relation ship be within a married man (not divorced) and unmarried girl.

or married woman(not divorced) and unmarried man.

or both not divorced?

Yes

if a man is having a living in relationship  without being divorced can the wife take any legal action against him

@ Bharati,

I mean common, why would she do that !


The line of thought itself suggest that she is OK with HIS live-in but out of jeolousy she wants to create problem don't you think so if thought cooly ?

if a man is having a living in relationship  without being divorced can the wife take any legal action against him

- no.

Can live-in relation ship be within a married man (not divorced) and unmarried girl.

- yes.

married woman(not divorced) and unmarried man

 - no. punishable u/s 497, ipc

or both not divorced?

 - no. punishable u/s 497, ipc

@ Arup ji,

1. What about Married women (not yet divorced) but with widow old man ?

2. What about Married women (not yet divorced) but with divorced old man ?

Now you are giving me some ideas....:-)


 

1. What about Married women (not yet divorced) but with widower old man ?

- it is punishable offence under sec 497 of ipc. according to crpc, the right to complain is limited to her husband and not any other person.

2. What about Married women (not yet divorced) but with divorced old man ?

- it is punishable offence under sec 497 of ipc. according to crpc, the right to complain is limited to her husband and not any other person.

Establishing relationship with married woman is risky. his husband has the right to complain under ipc and crpc.

Group of maiden; divorced; & widow are best for live in, without risk.

Live in relationship

vs.

Marriage

Live in is the oldest form of conjugal relationship, whereas marriage is comparetively modern system.

Both provides s*x and company of the opposite s*x;

both are parallel systems;

continuing long days in society;

with wide acceptence by the society;

both are simulteneously runing.

Marriage enchroached the personal liberty under art 21 of coi, whereas, live in - not.

As on date, it is almost free from legal encroachment in conjugal life.

Live in provides a 'walk in - walk out' system whereas in a  marriage extream social and legal pressure bow down a person to the other.

Live in also provides a life long relationship as the marriage is.

In case of live in relationship, wife not entitled to maintenance & inheritence, but the child born is fully entitled to get maintenance as well as inheritence. in a marriage, wife and children both entitled to get maintenance and inheritence of class one category.

Girls

who have no solid independent income,

need maintenance,

care the pinching of the neighbours, relatively soft in nature,

should not go on live in. Marriage is best for them. There financial interest protected in marriage by law.

On the contray, girls who are bold , self dependent, do not care other's comments may go on live in relationship.

live in provides the test of 'real love' - because the partner may walk out at any time, but In a marriage, show stant drama etc are more than actual love.

Base of live in, -  are love & need, whereas base of marriage are - legal and social pressure.

Supporters of marriage system, have a hatered attitude to live in, sometimes they called it concubinage ; rakhel (in hindi);  etc, in various states it is seen in diffrent name. Even they compared the relationship with prostitution. though the prostitution are very diffrent. A protitute works with many persons, but a live in women with her man only.

Live in relationship

vs.

Marriage

Live in relationship & marriage both have Hindu religious sanction. A religiously solemnized marriage called ' prajapatya vivaha' whereas ' live in' called 'gandharva vivaaha'. in ancient india, king, zaminders and rich persons often go to live in. even common people also go through live in, which indicates that in india among the hindu society live in accepted. in india among film star and polititians it is almost a very common matter.above shows that in india, among hindus live in has a wide sanction.

Islam and Christian religion opposes live in but they agreed if the said relationship solemnized according to their religious rites.

The SC has given it’s nod to ‘live-in’ relationship so many ask what should be the difference in ‘live-in’ and ‘married’ in the eyes of the law.  If the ‘live-in’ has all the rights of that of a ‘married’ than why marry?  It is important that the legal system send out the right signals and give benefits based on what the couple were looking for in the partnership when they got into it by their own choice.   The basic difference lies in the MINDSET and the CHANGING ROLES IN THE SOCIETY.  Marriage has in india been always considered to be a ‘sacred bonding’ not only for a ‘life time’ but of ‘saat janam’ with each partner supporting the other in all times, the traditional roles played by the ‘husband’ is essentially  that of being the ‘provider’ and the ‘wife’, the ‘nurturer & caretaker’, this is the case wherein even the wife is educated and capable of earning and being shoulder to shoulder with the husband.  Though she is as capable and educated since it is essentially she who is the ‘nurturer & caretaker’,  it is usually she who sacrifices and is expected to sacrifice her career and outside house opportunities and even if she is working, since the husband is in the role considered as the ‘provider’, the wives salary basically adds to as a ‘frill’ to increase the ‘standard of living’ of the family.  God forbid, if the husband is stricken and is not able to be the ‘provider’, the wife is ready immediately to take on the additional responsibility of being the ‘bread winner’ without in anyway it be seen as a burden as the concept of marriage in their eyes was of supporting each other at all times.  If the MINDSET of the two  is this, that of ‘commitment, sacrifice, adjustment’, then yes, they should marry and incase the marriage fails, the law should accordingly give ‘protection’, so that one partner does not take unnecessary advantage of his/her own doing at the cost of the other.  There can therefore be no need for amendment to marriage laws like ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage’ as there were set boundaries by the law and knowing fully well the divorce procedures are long and hassling, yet the couple chose to get married.  On the other hand if the MINDSET of the couple due to the CHANGING ROLE OF SOCIETY is one of ‘Freedom & Equality’,  then without any stigma the couple should be allowed to go in for a ‘Live-in’ relationship.  It should not be seen out of the boundaries of social conformity but the live-in should not be within the boundaries of law as both the partners were fully aware that they did not want the formalities of law.  In ‘live-in’ either can be the ‘provider, nurturer or care-taker’, there are no set boundaries and no need for ‘sacrifices, compromises or adjustments’ or conforming to the ‘traditional roles as seen in marriage’.  Either has the choice to just walk away or if the MINDSET changes enter into marriage.  Women too should not be allowed to turn to law if the man walks out as they ‘chose’ to enter a ‘live-in’ relationship fully aware that they were choosing ‘Freedom & Equality’ and were aware of the ‘risks involved’. 

The law should also pronounce it’s judgements from the angle seeing that the couple made a choice of ‘freedom of live-in’ against the ‘security of marriage’ or vice-versa and either party cannot be allowed to cry foul once the relationship turns sour. 

The law on live-in relationships around the world is also in accordance and india should follow suit to avoid ad-hoc judgments as are seen now based on the (1) no matter how long the relationship- unmarried couples should not have the same legal standing as those who are married (2) In live-in’s, Both partners are to be financially responsible for their children whereas in married couple the husband is essentially to ensure responsibility for the wife and children’s security. (3) Partners in live-in should not generally have inheritance rights over each other’s property unless they have been name in a will.  (4) Live-in relationship should not be legally obliged to support each other financially, even if they are sharing a home or raising a family together.  Unlike married couples they should not be entitled to receive maintenance payments from their partners, even if they have lived together for a number of years or given up their career to look after the home and children.  (5)  Contracts/ Cohabitation agreements which outlines their financial responsibilities towards each other as well as remedies for a split should be allowed to be made between the couples in a live-in               

This will also stop all the cribbing of the men about the maintenance they have to pay to the wife and children as it ‘getting married’ or having a ‘live-in’ was a choice they made.  The women too will make a choice based on what marriage means to them.

The question however now arise what about the children.......because it was not the child’s choice whether to be born out of wedlock or live-in......this is more complicated and needs to be thought through.

@ Arup Ji

See now the gender biased law . just see how the law allows a man to have a live in relationship when separated from wife and makes it punishable for women, or have I read it wrong. Just correct me if have. And if I have not, see the double standards... 

Now I do not expect comments like--though I cannot stop them either--look how women wish to have live in relationship. The intention of this post is not this--it depends who wants what. The intention is only to point out double standards of the patriarchal laws. When before divorce a couple is considered legally husband and wife, how come a husband's live in relationship does not amount to adultery? 

RG