Social and Moral Aspects of Live-in Relationships

People in rural India do not have a positive outlook towards live-in relationships, as compared to
that of urban India. If we compare India with western societies’ marriage is seen as an individual
choice rather than a family decision and hence individual liberty is prioritized. 1 Many people in
India have a notion that live-in relationships are a way to fulfill the desires, however this kind of
mindset is subject to social conditioning and people need to understand. The main reason behind
opting live-in relationships before marriage is to check whether they are compatible enough with
each other, this is good in the sense because marriage is a lifelong commitment and before
entering into that sacred relationship everyone has the right to decide whether his or her partner
is perfect or not. Many conservatives are of the view that live-in relationships create a bad
impact on the Indian society. This kind of thinking should be revamped ensuring the very
essence of democracy i.e. individual liberty and freedom.

Malarkodi @Malar v. The Chief Internal Audit Officer2

In this particular judicial pronouncement the court interpreted Section 2(f) 3 by looking at the
broader interpretation of this particular section it is seen that the definition of live-in
relationships was developed during the discussion of Supreme in the case of Joseph Shine v.
Union of India4. The madras High Court stated that live-in relationships must be recognized,
particularly from the point of this act.5

Morality and Law in Khusboo v. Kanniamal

In this particular case the concept of morality was discussed that pre-marital endorsement will
create a moral corruptive effect on the minds of the young generation, thereby creating an
adverse affect the public notions of morality.

1
Article 9 of ICCPR.
2
W.P.No.5706 of 2021
3
PWDVA, 2005
4
W.P.No.5706 of 2021
5
PWDVA, 2005
In the case of Gurwinder Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & ors. 6 The Punjab and Haryana
High Court directed the couple while approaching the Court to obtain a seal of approval on their
“morally and socially not acceptable relationship” Justice H S Madan stated that -

“As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking
seal of approval on their live-in-relationship, which is morally and socially not
acceptable and no protection order in the petition can be passed"

In the case of Ridhima and Anr. v. UT of J&K 7 the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has
observed that the right to exercise assertion of choice is an inseparable part of liberty and one’s
dignity. Justice Sindhu Sharma observed that –

"It is settled proposition that right to exercise assertion of choice is an inseparable part
of the liberty and dignity and the same should not except in accordance with the
procedure established by law."

6
citation
7
citation