LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: RECOGNITION UNDER HINDU PERSONAL LAWS
INTRODUCTION
Live-in relationships imply relationships without marriage between the parties, but the parties live as a couple, showing the world that they are in a relationship and that there is balance and continuity in the relationship and such a relationship is also considered a "common law marriage". Live-in Relationships are the new fad of the 21st-century generation who no longer want to enter a prison relationship, they are more career-oriented and therefore no longer see the prospect of marriage as a viable option. Regarding Hindu personal law, there are no clear rules regarding Live-in relationship and their consequences. However, Indian courts have clarified the idea of keeping the relationship and its applicability through some of its judgments.
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS UNDER HINDU PERSONAL LAWS
As early as the Vedic period, marriage was considered a necessary "Samskara" for all Hindus. Thus, the importance of marriage has been recognized in Indian society in relation to Hindu personal law. In India, marriage is considered very important not only for the society but also for the happiness of the family and acts like Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954 is considered as legal aid and dent for this institution. In India, the Live-in relationship is still not legally recognized, the concept is slowly emerging and clearly emerging in recent legal developments. The concept of a cohabitation relationship is viewed as immoral by society, but it certainly does not violate the law. Cohabitation is the right to live, so it cannot be considered a violation of the law.
Some remarks are made in SPS Balasubramanian v. Suruttayan that when a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for a long time, the presumption under the law will benefit them to legally marry one with the other, unless it is proof to the contrary and the children born of such a Live-in relationship will have the right to inherit the property of the parents. If the two people are single and in a relationship, it is not a violation while a married or unmarried man marry a married woman constituted a criminal offense of “adultery,” but for the man only under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). But that part was overturned by the Supreme Court of India in the Joseph Shine v. Union of India case in September 2018, as the court ruled that it violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The division treats men and women unequally. Although adultery is no longer a criminal offense, the issue of cohabitation with any married man or woman can be a civil matter which forms the basis of divorce, in which case would be sexist. Same-sex sexual partners are also an unnatural offense under Section 377 of the IPC. But in the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court overturned Section 377, as it was found to be unconstitutional, absurd, attractive, and arbitrary, and in violation of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, Section 377 remains in force and effect to the extent that Section 377 applies to non-consensual sexual acts between two adults, to sexual acts against minors, adolescence, and all kinds of animal behavior. Although same-sex acts have been legalized, same-sex marriage is not recognized in India, although the practice of symbolic same-sex marriage is also not prohibited.
Regarding the relationship between Live-in and children's property rights, Supreme Court’s Justice Ganguly announced in 1955 that the legislature had used the term property in Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, but if the property was acquired by an ancestor, give this ambiguity, and can not arbitrarily deny the property rights of the children in question. Paragraphs (1)and (2) of Section 16 clearly stipulate that such children shall be considered legal children in accordance with the law. Therefore, discrimination against them and unequal treatment of other legal children who have all the economic rights of their parents (including self-education and ancestral inheritance rights) will mean the loss of value of the modifications made to this Section.
CONCLUSION
Based on the current situation, it can be concluded that although certain provisions (such as Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) give legality to children born in a cohabitation relationship, their rights to ancestral property and alimony still have problems and are subject to the case. To avoid this situation, it is necessary to formulate a clear law and amend the ambiguous clauses in the current law to clarify the status and rights of children born in a life relationship. This will ensure consistency and help establish emotional, mental, and physical safety for the child.
AUTHOR DETAILS:
NAME- PURTI RAJPUROHIT
STUDENT OF TILAK MAHARASTRA VIDYAPEETH
Comments