Live-In Relationship: A Threat to Society or Not?
Live-In Relationship: A Threat to Society or Not?
What is a Live-In Relationship?
A live-in relationship refers to a situation where two adults live together in a long-term, committed relationship without getting legally married. It often resembles a marriage-like setup but without formal registration.
Debate: Is it a Threat to Society?
This is a subject of considerable social debate, with arguments on both sides.
Arguments That Live-In Relationships Are a Threat to Society
1. Undermining Institution of Marriage
Critics say live-in relationships weaken the sanctity of marriage, which is considered the foundation of society.
The absence of formal commitment may lead to instability and lack of responsibility.
2. Social Morality and Cultural Values
In traditional societies, live-in relationships may be seen as immoral or unacceptable.
Such relationships might be perceived as promoting casual relationships and promiscuity.
3. Impact on Children and Family Structure
Concerns arise about the legal rights of children born out of such relationships.
The lack of legal recognition might affect the child's social status and security.
4. Risk of Exploitation and Abuse
Without legal safeguards of marriage, one partner may be vulnerable to exploitation or abandonment.
Issues such as property rights, maintenance, and custody become complicated.
Arguments That Live-In Relationships Are NOT a Threat to Society
1. Freedom of Choice and Personal Liberty
Living together without marriage is an expression of individual freedom and autonomy.
Modern societies respect diverse forms of relationships and personal choices.
2. Changing Social Norms
Live-in relationships reflect changing attitudes toward relationships, gender roles, and family.
They allow couples to test compatibility before marriage, potentially reducing divorce rates.
3. Protection for Vulnerable Partners
Recognizing live-in relationships offers protection to partners, especially women, against abandonment.
It acknowledges realities of modern life where marriage may not always be preferred.
4. No Proven Harm to Society
Studies and observations show live-in relationships do not inherently harm social fabric.
Society evolves by accepting new social institutions, and live-in relationships can be part of this evolution.
Judicial Perspective & Case Law
1. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)
The court recognized that live-in relationships are permissible and do not violate societal norms.
It ruled that such relationships are protected under personal liberty, but also laid down conditions to differentiate them from casual relationships.
2. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
The court emphasized that live-in relationships are not illegal or immoral.
It also ruled that if a live-in relationship is in the nature of marriage (long-term, stable), partners should get protection akin to a married couple, especially for maintenance.
3. Alok Kumar v. State of Bihar (2018)
The court condemned attacks on couples in live-in relationships, calling such acts an infringement on personal freedom.
The judgment reiterated that live-in relationships are not a threat to public morality.
Summary Table: Pros and Cons
| Aspect | Arguments Against | Arguments For |
|---|---|---|
| Social Values | Undermines marriage, cultural taboos | Respects personal liberty and changing norms |
| Legal Protection | Lack of formal rights, risk of exploitation | Courts provide protection in long-term relationships |
| Impact on Family | Concerns about children’s status | Encourages stable relationships, less divorce |
| Societal Harm | Promotes casual, unstable relations | No evidence of harm; reflects social evolution |
Conclusion
Live-in relationships, by themselves, are not inherently a threat to society. They represent a shift in societal norms, emphasizing personal freedom and evolving family structures.
Courts have increasingly recognized live-in relationships and extended certain protections to partners, especially where the relationship is stable and akin to marriage.
Concerns about morality, social values, and children’s welfare highlight the need for balanced social awareness and legal protection to ensure rights are safeguarded without compromising individual freedom.
RELATED Blog
0 comments