Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.


The DNA has reported that, Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra of the Delhi High Court has said, Live-in relationship is a walk-in and walk-out relationship. There are no strings attached in this relationship, nor does this relationship create any legal bond between the parties. People who chose to have live-in relationship cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married man and an unmarried woman or vice versa.

I fail to understand the last sentence of the portion excerpted above. There are specific words, when a married woman has a physical relationship with any man it is  defined ADULTERY by both (if the man knows her to be married to someone else). If a man has  physical relationship with a woman who is not married to anyone;  or if an unmarried woman has physical relationship with anyone irrespective of whether he is married or not, then it is FORNICATION. So how does one generalize this in a live-in relationship?

In all LIVE-IN relationship there is a presumption that the partners are sexually involved, so if the sexual consent is construed as “free” even if there is a promise by one to the other  to “marry” the other, would it not be a breach of Contract if in future the one who promised marriage were to resile from MARRIAGE or future cohabitation?

The Times of India reports that the Court stated, “… [A] contract of living together … is renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without consent of the other party and one party can walk out at will at any time. Those who do not want to enter into this kind of relationship of walk-in and walk-out, they enter into a relationship of marriage where the bond between the parties has legal implications and obligations and cannot be broken by either party at will.”

The Justice has done a great service to the society by DE-LINKING the sexual element from LIVE-IN relationship and has brought it closer to a contract.

Maybe the objective of this judgment is to explicitly state the INSECURITIES of a LIVE-IN relationship, which the younger generation seems to be rushing into unawares!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: