The Konda Reddi tribe in Andhra Pradesh has embraced live-in relationships as a cultural shift to avoid the financial burdens of traditional weddings.
About live-in relationship
A live-in relationship means living together before marriage. It is a domestic cohabitation between unmarried couples.
Key Supreme Court Judgments on Live-in Relationships:
- Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978): The Supreme Court recognized live-in relationships as legal if they fulfill marriage-like conditions, including legal age, mutual consent, and mental capacity.
- Lalita Toppo v. The State of Jharkhand (2018): The Court ruled that live-in partners are entitled to greater protection under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA 2005), than under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijay Renganathan & Ors (2010): Children born from live-in relationships were declared legitimate and entitled to a share in ancestral undivided property.
- Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): The Court affirmed that mutual live-in relationships between unmarried individuals are not illegal and do not constitute an offense.
Impact of Live-in Relationships: Pros and Cons
Pros
- Freedom and Autonomy:
-
- Allows individuals to make independent choices about their personal lives, free from societal or familial pressures associated with marriage.
- Testing Compatibility:
-
- Provides a platform for partners to assess emotional, financial, and domestic compatibility before committing to marriage.
- Avoiding Legal Complexities:
-
- Simplifies relationships by avoiding lengthy legal and social formalities of marriage while still fostering companionship.
- Reduced Social Stigma:
-
- With urbanization and globalization, younger generations view live-in relationships as a modern, progressive lifestyle choice, contributing to changing societal norms.
- Flexibility in Commitment:
-
- Offers the freedom to walk away from an unsatisfactory relationship without the legal complications of divorce.
- Economic and Practical Considerations:
-
- Partners can share financial responsibilities like rent and expenses without the legal bindings of marriage.
- Legal Recognition:
-
- Judicial rulings in India ensure certain rights and protections for individuals in live-in relationships, such as property inheritance for children and relief under the Domestic Violence Act.
Cons
- Social Stigma:
-
- Despite increasing acceptance, live-in relationships are still taboo in conservative communities, often leading to societal judgment and ostracism.
- Lack of Legal Framework:
-
- Unlike marriage, live-in relationships are not fully governed by laws, leaving partners vulnerable in cases of disputes or separation.
- Emotional Instability:
-
- The absence of formal commitment can lead to insecurity and uncertainty in the relationship.
- Impact on Family Structures:
-
- Challenges traditional family values and can cause generational conflicts, particularly in conservative households.
- Vulnerability for Women and Children:
-
- Women in live-in relationships may face exploitation, and children born from these relationships may encounter societal bias despite legal recognition.
- Potential for Misuse:
-
- The informal nature of live-in relationships can sometimes be misused to avoid responsibilities or commitments typically associated with marriage.
- Economic Disputes:
-
- Financial disagreements or lack of clear asset division agreements can create conflict, especially in the absence of legal frameworks like prenuptial agreements.
- Cultural Backlash:
-
- In some areas, live-in relationships face resistance from religious or cultural groups, sometimes leading to harassment or violence.
