Securing live-in relationships
The Maharashtra government recently approved a proposal where a woman in a live-in relationship for a "reasonable period" of time would get the status of a "wife". Ramesh Menon has more.
New Delhi (WFS) - Archana Baxi loves Delhi. Living in the big city gives her the anonymity she did not enjoy in her village in Punjab where she grew up. In Delhi, no one asks her prying questions like why she isn’t married yet or what she does with her huge salary or why she lives in with her boyfriend - who shuttles between Delhi and Mumbai.
Archana only dreads her mother’s periodic visits to the city because, like all mothers, Baxi senior voices her concerns on her daughter’s living arrangement. She worries about what would become of Archana if her boyfriend decided to break off with her one day.
However, in what can be termed as a progressive move that will have a far-reaching impact, the Maharashtra government recently proposed an amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that would give a woman in a live-in relationship the right to seek maintenance post-desertion. Of course, it would need the Centre’s stamp of approval before it can become a law. So, while it may be some more time before legal support for women in long-term live-in relationships across India comes into force, Archana’s mother can at least lay some of her fears to rest.
The Maharashtra government recently approved a proposal where a woman in a live-in relationship for a “reasonable period” of time would get the status of a “wife”. The approval came on the heels of the recommendations of the Justice Malimath Committee, which said that if a man and a woman are living together as husband and wife for a “reasonably long period”, the man shall be deemed to have married the woman according to customary rights of either party.
While for many people living-in is a matter of personal choice, there are youngsters today who see it as a means of rebelling against their families or society.
The Malimath Committee was formed by the Centre to suggest reforms in the CrPC. However, only Maharashtra has shown interest in protecting the rights of women in polygamous relationships by working towards implementing some recommendations. The Centre has comfortably chosen to ignore them as they are bound to raise the hackles of the moral police.
When the proposed amendment was announced, critics immediately sprung up to say that the move would encourage men and women to get into multiple relationships outside of marriage. However, one of the major reasons for this move was that numerous women were finding it very difficult to get any assistance from men who had deserted them after living with them on the promise of marriage in the future. In many cases, the women did not even know that the man they had been living with was, in fact, already married.
As per the Malimath Committee recommendations, the state government, therefore, wants the CrPC to be amended so that the word ‘wife’ under Section 125 includes a woman living with a man like his wife for a “reasonably long period”. This will ensure that these women are entitled to alimony.
Points out Mumbai-based writer Rajendar Menen, who has widely written on relationships, “I am sure people are living-in all over India surreptitiously. It is like corruption and visiting sex workers. But it is great that the government is finally accepting live-in relationships. It is a step in the right direction.”
When the amendment comes through, it will, for the first time, protect the interests of women who have been taken for a ride by uncaring men. But the state has yet to clarify how long the “reasonably long period” should be. And this ambiguity many feel may give rise to bigamy. Menen says, “As time passes, marriage, as an institution, will get less important. It has already lost ground. A lot of people in urban settings are living together. They don’t trumpet the fact, that’s all. As women get more empowered and don’t rely completely on men for financial support, they will begin to choose their partners for reasons other than monetary support. Thankfully, the balance is shifting now and men no longer call the shots.”
Menen however is guarded on the pace and universality of the change. “But women’s empowerment is a long and slow process, and all this will take time in India which lives in so many diverse time, cultural and economic zones” he says.
Live-in relationships are definitely more glamorous and easy but marriage has its advantages as well. Nick Powdthavee of the Department of Economics at the University of Warwick in England carried out a study of 9,704 married people at the university in 2005. The study revealed that married people were deriving happiness from each other’s happiness unlike those who were just living together. The research also indicated that marriage encouraged the habit of sharing among spouses who stood by each other in both good and bad times.
Yet, living-in is a popular concept among the young. In fact, even those who are not involved in such a relationship are all for it. Aloke Gupta, a Mumbai-based software engineer, is not in a live-in relationship, but says, “There is nothing wrong with a live-in situation. Different people see marriage differently. Some use it to lose their virginity, some to get dowry; some see it as a business deal, some to have children, and so on. Only a few marry for love. So a live-in relationship makes so much sense.”
Menen adds, “The problem with marriages in India are the expectations. There are in-laws and an extended family - they all want different things from you. For example, during Diwali, I may just want to go and relax by the seaside. I can do this if I am single. But if I am married, I would have to be with my wife and visit people I don’t want to meet, shop for gifts, and participate in rituals I do not believe in.”
But while for many people living-in is a matter of personal choice, there are youngsters today who see it as a means of rebelling against their families or society. Two people should live together only if they are in love and seriously committed to each other, not to merely share a pad and save on expenses like food and travel. They also have to be strong enough to face social drama, as most people in India still do not accept such relationships.
Unfortunately, in cities like Delhi, Bangalore and Pune there are many young people - especially in the BPO industry - who get into a live-in relationship just to neutralise their boredom. While some end up formalising their tie with a marriage certificate, for many things go sour and they just move on.
Given this reality, the Maharashtra government’s move to give women the right to seek maintenance post-desertion should be welcomed. (Women’s Feature Service)
Filed under
Cite this article
Ramesh Menon (2008) ‘Securing live-in relationships’, India Together, 16 November 2008. https://indiatogether.org/livingin-society/
12 reader responses
Add a response
Prakash M Apte · 16 November 2008
While there is some force in the argument that a man should not be allowed to go free if a ditches a woman 'Partner'. However this is largely an urban problem where both partners are well educated and 'worldly wise. Their decision to stay together should be a well considered one. Under the circumstances for a woman to expect a 'maintenance to get best of both the worlds! This law is not justifiable .It amounts to having one's cake and eating it too! If a woman wants the status of a wife without the legal bond then should also accept the risks! In good old days many well to do rich had such relationships but ere honest enough to make provision for the livelihood of the woman as well as the prodgney. Incidentally in these days of equality of sexes and in the urban context when both partners are working and stay together-let us be blunt about it- for sexual gratification without thye risk of AIDS- there is no justification for granting the status of a wife to the female partner and making a legal provision for her maintenence. Prakash M Apte
puratan · 16 November 2008
By the time men and women complete their education and establish themselves in the chosen career they are past marriagiable age. Live in relationship has become a compulsion in modern industrial society due to delayed mariages. While considering ammendment of laws it is essential to examine status of woman vis-a-vis her economic status. Women who are economically independent do not require maintenance in case of separation. While women who are dependend do need legal support for maintenance. Live-in relationship is a metro culture. I wonder how many dependant women enter into live-in relationship.
Badhri · 22 November 2008
Let me get this straight, if a man promises a woman to marry her to get her into a live-in relationship and later on deserts her, the woman has the right to seek maintenance post-desertion. I wonder how this is progressive. It is basically a repeat of the age-old nonsense that says, if a man rapes a woman, the man should marry the woman. What is the guarantee that the woman and the family would be "maintained" properly after marriage? What is the man leaves one day before the stipulated time after which he is supposed to be her husband? Besides, what if the man leaves the woman after he finds that the woman is totally unlivable with or, say, if the woman is involved in a romantic relationship with another man? Does he have the burden to provide maintainance as well? On the other hand, if the woman leaves the man after a certain period of time, does the man have the right to seek her marriage to him? What makes the committee think that only men promise to marry women and desert, but not the other way round? On the other hand, if the woman really wants to marry the guy why not just marry him than choose a live-in relationship for sometime? In my opinion it is simply a move based on the baseless premise that women, in spite of getting progressive, financially independent have to be "maintained" by men and that only men take women for a ride and never the other way round. To call it progressive is laughable. This law is basically useless. Live-in relationship is a non-issue and should be considered on similar grounds a pre-marital sex. It's a matter of personal choice and the outcomes, good are bad, are personal problems. Just work on a more important social problem.
Marmik Joshi · 22 November 2008
Sorry sir, but i do not agree with what you are saying.There can be no comparision between "marriage" and "live-in". Marriage is the way to keep our society alive and "live-in "is just an excuse with the help of which we are trying to run away from our social responsibilities. Supporting what Maharashtra government is doing would be like encouraging "live-in".
Vispi Jokhi · 16 December 2008
Let me get this straight and simple. Love and marriage or live in relationship or call it what you will, can only be successful if it is selfless, and one lives for the other. This can be the basis for any relationship, weather married or a live in kind. So if u are making a law to protect a woman when the relation is breaking or broken you are pronouncing the man guilty without proof or trial. This is unfair to say the least.
RAJESH · 8 February 2009
Live in is a MUST in India where there are thousands of cases of domestic violence. 56% of men admitted to beating their wives and there is the occassional(or is it?) wives beating their husbands. Each person takes advantage of the other knowing that they cannot end this relation ship quickly and harrass their partner either physically,mentally or both. All this can be avoided in a live in which is benefical to all. The live in partners have to be responsible and forego certain comforts that society may offer to them. Be prepared for desertion too and be prepared to live alone bravely if you hate the idea of getting into a stifling relationship in todays dog eat dog world.
Shweta Ukey · 18 February 2009
Before making a comment on this law for women in live-ins, would somebody please explain to me the need for this whole concept of "Living-in"..??? Why is Maharashtra gov. making such a fuss about it? I totally agree with one of the commentators that this move can never be termed as progressive. In this age of financial independence, its ridiculous to consider women as old age "Abala Naari". When two so called mature and "worldly wise" people come together and decide to stay together, it is well presumed that they would have thought well about their decision. It is more like any other decision that a couple whether in a live-in or not would make. Why be so personal about this whole thing. It's the couple's decision. who has asked the gov to step in..?? And couples, if u really love each other so much, why not simply get married instead of trying out each other..? And what is there to try out..? If this provision is already there, you are bound to find faults with each other. This whole concept of living-in has a weak foundation, in fact it's baseless and a non-issue! It's totally an individual and personal choice and nobody should be allowed to intervene. (Read government/committee). Lets give some thought to the other burning issues as well instead of wasting time on such solely personal matters of individual choice. When you are ready to enjoy the benefits of a decision you make, be ready to face the other side of the coin as well!!
Dr. manju koolwal · 19 February 2009
Live in relationship concept is truely a new mode of adultery of moderen time.It could be termed as consented prostitution. this concept is against the indian culture and heritage. on one hand, even in this modern time, we the people of poor but developing country are working hard to preserve heritage buildings spending exorbiant amounts and on other end our women politicians.Now next step would be that Indian culture of man-woman having live-in relationship shall be entitled for succession rights the woman a mistresses.Do not glorify these realtionships and make them legal.
Sumanta · 15 April 2009
A live-in relationship is a practical partnership between two consenting individuals for common benefit. It doesn't take an expert to understand that the working principles of such a relationship is entirely different from marriage. At such, giving the female partner the status of a wife will only increase mistrust and prejudice between the partners. Just imagine the condition of a man who would have to pay alimony even if his partner cheats on him. The new law is just a one-sided attempt at justice.
Sena m · 29 April 2009
Live in relations is not an issue for government to get involved.instead of supporting it, rules should be set against it.giving womem wife status in a live-in is totally unnecessary.when 2 people decide to livein together they should know about the pros & cons.why leagalise such relations in our country?i think government should be making laws which stop such practices ,which is more like prostitution.young generation find it a way to get away from stress & lonliness.60% of the live in couples have no love,its just for personal gain.government should not be allowing such relations in our country Send p
yodha · 16 July 2009
Does Archana Baxi with her huge salary really needs maintenance after "reasonable period" of live-in? Or does she need to have a good relationship? An amendment to law is being done to satisfy a few urban women who don't need such maintenance! Is this some kind of joke. Why not make police, law, judiciary speedier for poor women?
Nitin · 4 December 2011
A man should not be responsible for any maintainance to woman if live in relationship breaks as it is discrimination for man & one side rule which is only favouring woman & not justifiable.The woman already knows before entering in live in relationship that live in relationship is just like friendship which includes sex between both friends on mutual consent basis & the man is not his husband then why maintainance is required as sex is a requirement for both partner & not for man only? If such types of rules will be applied for live in relationship then what will be the difference between live in relationship & marriage?