“Maharashtra Govt. Seeks to Legalize Live-In relationships” screeched the headlines. My first thought “Wow”! My second thought “hang on…when was it ever illegal??!!”
This really made me sit up and think about it. The news was all over the papers, the TV, the radio, the internet and even in cafes. And as with any new govt. regulation this too got mixed responses.
Frankly I don’t see the need for legalizing Live-Ins. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that it is a move made by the govt. to discourage such relationships rather than to support people in such relationships. If I think as a woman I am tempted to think that such an action will help me, but will it really?
What exactly is a live-in relationship? As far as I see it is something that a couple decides to do when they do not want to commit themselves to the institution of marriage, for whatever reasons be it lack of belief in the sanctity of marriage or fear of commitment. Couples, who do not wish to make lifelong commitments, prefer to live together before getting married. Some do it as they feel a need to know each other better before they decided to finally be legally bound in a relationship, something like a test drive before actually buying a car. And then there are some who live together purely as a matter of convenience like saving some money by paying rent for one house. A live-in is essentially just like a marriage but without any legal papers involved. There is still a certain amount of commitment that is required and compromises certainly need to be made in such relations too. To me a Live-in = Marriage – In Laws.
If a couple is faithful to each other does it really matter if you are living-in or married? When a woman agrees for such a set up, it is obvious that she too does not want to get married..at least not right away, maybe later. She is aware that the law does not recognize her as a “wife” and hence she is not entitled to the legal support and benefits that a wife gets. She is however protected against domestic violence, whether she is in a live-in or she is the “other-woman” and that is sufficient. If the woman wants legal protection and all rights for a married woman…she can very well get married, no one has stopped her from it. If she wants to claim alimony and ‘her share’ from his assets she should get married. She enters a live-in knowing very well that there is nothing that gives her the status of a wife. And let’s assume here for a minute that she does want to marry her partner, but he does not want that commitment nor does he want the legality, in such a case this legalization of the live-in may help her, but honestly, if she wants a legal relation and this is not something that he wants, and neither are willing to compromise on this, isn’t it time they decided if they should be together at all?
And when it comes to deciding if they want to be together or not should they decide to split, assuming that they have been in a live-in for a reasonably long time, it is up to them to manage the scenario. The relationship is between the two individuals based on their mutual consent while being aware that it does not have a legal standing and it is for them to figure out how they will manage the show if the relationship fails… it is not the responsibility of the state to decide or dictate anything.
But now with the new law 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. Not only that the definition of the word 'wife' will now be amended to include a woman, living with the man like his wife for a "reasonably long period". The woman would even be entitled to alimony. The problem with this is that the definition of "reasonably long period" is missing and hence we can’t be sure how this may be (mis)used.
But this kind of legalization may help should the couple in a live-in ever opt to have children out of wedlock and then after some time decide to separate. In such a case there may be court battles where child custody is concerned. What happens in regular divorce cases will be repeated in cases where live-in couples choose to split.
Having said that, it is important to remember that in our society a marriage after all is very final and lives get messy when there is a divorce. It is normal for men and even women to get tired of a relationship and split with a partner in the live-in arrangement with relative ease as compared to a divorce. And this is one of the reasons that a live-in proposition is more attractive to some as compared to a marriage proposition. This legalization will not make splitting so easy. It may make it just as messy as a divorce.
So who stands to benefit side after the legislation? Women who are in non-martial relationships which end - either amicably or because they are deserted by their live-in partners – currently cannot seek alimony. Now the new law will protect "the pecuniary interests of a woman who was living with a man like his wife for a reasonably long time".
Who stands to lose after the legislations? People who does not want to seriously commit to a relationship and do not decide for a ‘considerably amount of time’ whether he or she wants to be married or not. This person will now be considered as good as married. This basically defeats the purpose of a live-in.
Considering this, should one of us have the choice between a marriage and a live-in, it would make no difference what we opted for. The live-in for all legal purposes is now just like a marriage. Which brings me to my fist point: is this legalization a move made by the govt. to discourage such relationships rather than to support people in such relationships?
