“Systematic conspiracy to destroy the institution of marriage”: Allahabad HC slams live-in relationships

On Tuesday, August 29, the Allahabad High Court observed that there is a “systematic design” at work to “destroy the institution of marriage in India.” The court also opined that films and television serials are also contributing to this. The Allahabad High Court made these observations while granting bail to a man accused of raping his live-in partner.

Justice Siddharth while hearing the matter on Tuesday stated that the brutish concept of “changing partners in every season” cannot be considered a hallmark of a “stable and healthy” society and that the security and stability provided by the institution of marriage cannot be achieved from live-in relationships.

The court further noted that films and TV shows that are currently airing are serving to annihilate the institution of marriage. Infidelity to a married partner and having a free live-in relationship are depicted as manifestations of a progressive society. “The youth get attracted to such philosophy being… unaware of the long-term consequences,” Justice Siddharth noted.

The court noted that life becomes very difficult for women if they suffer break-ups after live-in relationships, as society refuses to accept such women. Justice Siddharth said that while it is not difficult for males to find a female spouse for marriage or another live-in relationship after leaving a live-in relationship, it is “very difficult” for women to find a male partner for marriage or a subsequent live-in relationship. “The social middle-class norms, irrespective of the religion of the female partner, militate against her efforts to regain her social status,” Justice Siddharth said.

The judge emphasised that by keeping exceptions apart, no family would willingly accept such a female as a family member. “There is no dearth of cases coming to the courts where the female partner of a previous live-in relationship commits suicide out of disgust resulting from socially ill behaviour,” he observed.

Furthermore, Justice Siddharth stated that in a country like ours, middle-class morality cannot be overlooked. “The morality of the highest and lowest classes has nothing to do with each other because morality dies in riches and chokes in poverty,” he explained.

“The security, social acceptance, progress and stability which the institution of marriage provides to a person is never provided by live-in-relationship. Live-in-relationship shall only be considered as normal after the institution of marriage becomes obsolete in this country,” said Justice Siddharth.

Making another strong statement, Justice Siddharth said that a person who does not have cordial family relationships cannot contribute to the progress of the nation. “He/she has no anchor in life to bank upon. Hopping from one relationship to another does not lead to any fulfilling existence.

The court order stated that “children born from live-in relationships face numerous challenges. “When their parents divorce, their children become a burden on society. They end up in the wrong company, and the country loses good citizens.”

According to the court, “In the case of a female child born out of a live-in relationship, there are other ill effects that are too obvious to elaborate on.”

The court was hearing the bail motion of a man named Adnan from Saharanpur district who has been in jail since April 18, charged with rape of a 19-year-old girl, causing the death of an unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide, and criminal intimidation under IPC sections 376, 316, and 506, as well as the POCSO Act.

The couple lived together for a period of one year. When the woman became pregnant, Adnan refused to marry her, subsequently, the woman filed a complaint against him, stating that he had sexual relations with her under false pretences of marriage.

Accused Adnan’s counsel claimed that the victim was not a juvenile because she was 19 years old and that there was no medical proof against the accused of committing an offence under Section 316 of the IPC (causing the death of an unborn child by conduct amounting to culpable murder).

The single-judge bench took note of this and concluded that this was another instance where the young couple had split ways after enjoying a live-in relationship. The girl, as in most instances, had filed an FIR in an unsuccessful attempt to enter into a stable marriage relationship with the accused.

Consequently, the bench granted the bail plea, taking into account the nature of the offence, evidence, the accused’s complicity, and the arguments of the counsel for the parties, among other things.