1. Late Rajesh Khanna and Dimple never completed their ‘divorce’ process which they earlier filed for sake of their two then little daughters and since 1984 they mutually enjoyed their “separated” public phase and then this lady @ Advani became live-in partner of late Khanna sometime in mid 90’s as no time/date stamp has leaked to media to authoritatively put a time stamp on her live-in relationship in reference to context.

2. Their live-in never seen any media publicity / response all these golden decades of Hindi Cinema's best known romantic superstar nor there is any single picture of them in public domains instead there are more or less many pictures of “separated” couples on and off attending various public functions (even late Rajesh Khanna's two Election campaigns in Delhi constituencies say Dimple to his side and not @ Advani) till his death and this is what keeps me to reserve my larger opinion if SC last judgment can squarely fit here or not?

3. It is good complaint case for the sake of getting support from strong feminists lobby trying hard to include live-in into the ambit of matrimonial  Laws and give such live-in females their due status when Legislatures are silent and Hon’ble SC has also not expressed legislative change guidelines in its last view.

4. Most probably to not cause further dent to the charishma late Khanna has till date the families of late estate and live-in will opt after few tweaks here and there into some sort of internal formula or some sort of out-of-court ‘compromise’ which public may not know nor Judiciary may get its application of mind into is my view.

But world over live-in means un-ceremoniously get-in / quick get –out with no estate attachment / share in estate of other partner to such fly by night relationships and almost all advanced societies world over have till date not given any legal status to live-ins inspite of strong women’s lobbying there for a reason world wide views is that such live-ins donot evoke sanctity a marriage evokes be it western culture or Asian cultures. Only in Asian cultures it will get sentimental and emotional twist sooner than later and this news reporting if to be believed is one good social (larger public) interest direction and wish public adjudication it gets instead of behind curtain.

However it could also be reasonably said that, time will only tell whether live-ins can get equal status in a subsisting marriage of a legally wedded wife or not and can Indian law (especially legislatures having medieval mindsets) evolve to make it gender neutral as there are many cases where single females have kept males as their live-in partners too in very Indian societies.   

Lastly I publicly donot see live-in as a social evil in reference to Asian cultures. Since mythological times our culture evolved and accepted live-ins and the Radha we worship even today in home to public temples of Krishna is proven to be live-in partner of lord Krishna and she was never a wedded wife of Lord Krishna. So in a Indian culture of today 21^st. century when Radha gets the status of reverence which is nothing but larger public acceptance so why give ‘thums down’ to such prudent news reporting, may be one feels insecure that is just understandable…………. J

OMG!..nice to see you again Roshni...