The Allahabad High Court, while granting bail to a man accused of raping his live-in partner, expressed criticism of live-in relationships. The court argued that such relationships lack the stability, security, and social acceptance typically associated with marriages. Additionally, it contended that women often face difficulties finding husbands after being in live-in relationships.
Justice Siddharth, in his remarks, highlighted the challenges faced by female partners after the dissolution of a live-in relationship, stating that they often struggle to reintegrate into society. He noted that middle-class society tends to view separated females from live-in relationships differently, subjecting them to social ostracism and indecent public comments. The judge also mentioned that while it might not be difficult for the male partners to find new female live-in partners or wives, it is considerably harder for the female partners to find male partners for marriage. This difficulty, he argued, is exacerbated by societal norms, regardless of the religion of the female partner. He also alluded to the adverse effects on children born out of such relationships, without elaborating further.
The court emphasized that the institution of marriage offers security, social acceptance, progress, and stability that live-in relationships cannot provide.
The case under consideration pertained to a man from Saharanpur district who had been in custody since April 18 on charges of rape, causing the death of an unborn child, criminal intimidation, and violations of the POCSO Act.
Furthermore, Justice Siddharth expressed concern about the normalization of live-in relationships, suggesting that they should only be deemed normal if the institution of marriage becomes obsolete in the country, similar to some so-called developed nations where it has become a contentious issue. He voiced apprehensions about the potential consequences of undermining the institution of marriage, seeing it as a systematic effort to destabilize society and hinder the nation’s progress.
The court concluded by asserting that individuals lacking harmonious family relationships cannot contribute effectively to the nation’s progress.