Live In Relationship Is Imported Philosophy Contrary To General Expectations Of Indian Tenets: Chhattisgarh HC

The Court stated that it is an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of the Indian Tenets.

The bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal observed, “we are conscious of the fact that the live in relationship which is been followed in certain sect of the society still continues with a stigma in the Indian culture. Live in relationship is an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian tenets. No trick would be available to hide the spot. In Indian tradition each citizen posses a sense of self that is unique and unlikely to be confused with imported traditions. There cannot be mere inglorious object than to adopt live in relationship to destroy the interwoven culture in society and tradition.”

Advocate Rajeev Kumar Dubey appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Virendra Verma appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Appellant, who follows Muslim rituals, entered into a live-in relationship with the non-applicant, who is governed by Hindu law. In 2021, they got married without conversion. The non-applicant is the appellant's second wife, as he was previously married and has three children from his first wife. According to the Appellant a child was born from their relationship in 2021. One day in 2023 appellant discovered that the non-applicant and the child were missing. He filed a habeas corpus petition, where the non-applicant appeared with her parents and stated she was living with them by choice.

The Family Court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was filed by the husband claiming custody of the child. Hence, this appeal.

The Court stated that when without a change of religion, the marriage between a Hindu and Muslim takes place, it would be governed by the provisions of the Special Marriage Act of 1954.

The Court further stated that the pleading of the application claiming custody shows the appellant pleaded that he is still governed by Muslim law. There is no pleading as to how the second marriage of the like nature is saved by the custom.

“Even principle laid down in the marriages for Mahomedan, the capacity of marriage is to be in between mahomedans and in the face of admission that one of the parties did not change her religion, it cannot cloth the live in relationship of such continuation to say that marriage was under the Mahomedan rituals.”, the Court stated.

While stating that even it can also not be said that the appellant was having live-in-relationship with the respondent the Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs V.K. V.Sarma - (2013) 15 SCC 755 and quoted, “Appellant, admittedly, entered into a live-in-relationship with the respondent knowing that he was married person, with wife and two children……hence, the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, and the status of the appellant was that of a concubine. ..........."

The Court further observed, “A live-in relationship is preferred over marriage because it provides a convenient escape when things fail to work between partners. If the couple wishes to break up, they enjoy the freedom to split unilaterally, irrespective of the consent of the other party and without having to go through the cumbersome legal formalities in the court. The security, social acceptance, progress and stability which the institution of marriage provides to a person is never provided by live-in-relationship.”

The Court stated that it is crucial to understand and protect the women in such relationships, as they are most often the complainant and victim of violence by the inmate partners of live-in relationships. According to the Court, it is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live-in relationship and in such case the courts cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such distressful live-in relationship and children born out of such relationship.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024:CGHC:15182-DB)

Appearance: