“How can this not have legal sanction”, “India has moved to medieval times”, “all the progress we have made so far has come to naught” a “huge blow for woman’s liberation” is the common theme of the articles in papers, (ND)TV brigade…
What happened ? Is it a cry against people beating up folks on valentine’s day, or against the church for calling women not to abort (in Kerala) and to breed plentifully, or is it against enforcement of Burqa for a college lecturer in Bengal ? Well, if you attempted to be logical like me about this you are likely to be disappointed. Wait in line. The urgent issue in question is the recent judgment of the supreme court of India establishing the parameters of what is “Common law marriage” and what are the criteria for compensation, if such a “marriage” were to split. Instead of thanking the SC for highlighting the fact that “Rights” come with “Responsibilities” (pseudo) intellectuals are up in arms !!
The specific case relates to a woman who filed for maintenance from the partner he had a live in relationship. The person is already a married man and lived with the litigant for a period of 2 years. The HC ordered him to pay alimony and sustenance. He went to SC which upheld that the woman is not entitled to any compensation. As a bonus, it (re)defined the parameters of what is common law marriage. In India we have “no Live In” relationship, either you are legally married or in “common law marriage”. There is no other union in the legal framework of the country.
The SC held that for all purposes the relationship under common law marriage is pretty much the same as marriage. There is no legal sanction to start or end such relationships. SC upheld that habitual live-ins are not common law marriage. Neither is live in relationship illegal as adults have the right to decide their lives. It held that you should have been living, and perceived by society as such, for all practical purposes a “committed couple in marriage”. That is you should assume the responsibilities of a marriage, which means taking care of elders children/relatives etc. The court clearly distinguished such common law marriages as distinct from habitual live in relationships. In the court’s view what is the additional responsibility in the relationship which is much more than “a service provided by a keep, or a live in maid” is a genuine but poorly worded question. Now the focus is on the wording and not the issue that court has pointed out.
The court has established that if you want the benefits of a legal union, then even if your “union” doesn’t have legal sanction, it should have abided by the rules of the societal marriage/relationship for that entitlement. E.g. if both of you are already married and say that we want to live-in and give us the benefits of a marriage, it can’t happen. It is this simple fact that SC has pointed out.
It is really sad that all the “pseudo intellectuals” who are screaming that this judgment is retrograde are forgetting a simple axiom in life “You can’t have the cake and eat it too….”, i.e. rights and responsibilities come together you can never choose rights alone….
No comments:
Post a Comment