Live-in relationship, an ‘imported’ philosophy, a ‘stigma’ in Indian culture, Chhattisgarh high court holds
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court has held that the live-in relationship is an ‘imported’ philosophy and considered a ‘stigma’ in Indian culture.
While dismissing a petition seeking custody of a child born from a live-in relationship, a division bench of the high court comprising Justice Gautam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S Agrawal observed that the concept of live-in relationship is an ‘imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian tenets’ and still considered a ‘stigma’ in Indian culture.
The court has held that such a relationship is preferred over marriage because it gives a ‘convenient escape when things fail to work between partners’.
“The security, social acceptance, progress, and stability which the institution of marriage provides to a person is never provided by live-in relationship”, the division bench has observed.
The high court in its verdict in the case delivered recently held that “The close inspection of society shows that the institution of marriage no longer controls the people as it did in the past due to the cultural influence of the western countries and this significant shift and apathy towards matrimonial duties has probably given rise to the concept of live-in relationship”.
One Abdul Hameed Siddique of Dantewada in Chhattisgarh had filed a petition in the high court seeking custody of the child born from live-in relationship with Kavita Gupta.
The Dantewada family court had earlier rejected such a petition by him, leading the petitioner to move the high court.
While seeking custody of the child, the petitioner argued that he and Ms Gupta performed the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and since he is governed by the Mahomedan law, he is permitted to go for second marriage and hence, his marriage with Ms Gupta was legal.
He contended that he is entitled to the custody of the child.
Ms Gupta’s counsel held that the petitioner is not entitled for a second marriage since his first wife was alive and that he cannot claim custody of the child born from live-in relationship.
Her counsel argued that the petitioner lacks evidence to provide validity of the marriage.
While dismissing the petition, the high court held that provisions relating to more than one marriage of a Muslim man under their personal law ‘cannot be invoked before any court of law unless and until the same is pleaded and proved’.
