According to Tatia, retired chief justice of Jharkhand High Court and former judge of Rajasthan High Court, no less, live-in relationships are `social terrorism’. “What sort of freedom is this… without notice, (people) start living in with someone else, then a third person… this is infecting the society .“
Why is Tatia so concerned? He feels that if our children are to meet someone in a live-in relationship, they will also immediately start craving one.
Tatia seems to be a man easily frightened. According to him, live-in couples bring a “sense of insecurity“ where they live, creating a “sense of fear, which virtually creates terror…. There may be fights. I am not saying the people who are fighting are right, but it’s the reality …. The question is whether it’s a better alternative to marriage?
What is the control of society… who will intervene when things go wrong?“ He has a point, because it has been a while since the government or the courts started peeping into our homes and bedrooms and telling us whom to marry or have sex with. The `control of society’ is of paramount importance in our country .
Keeping things topical, Tatia also claimed that live-in relationships are more detrimental to women than even triple talaq. The status of women `abandoned’ from a live-in relationship was “worse than divorced women“. A statement that in one fell swoop makes women into victims and makes divorce a permanent scar marring only women.“Two consenting adults don’t have the right to end the dignity of the entire society… live-in relationships need to be registered like a marriage… terminating the marriage also should go through a legal process.“
If Tatia is talking about palimony , that precedent was set in India in 2015, when the Supreme Court ruled that if an unmarried couple was living together as `husband’ and `wife’, they would be considered to be legally married.The apex court had said that the woman would be eligible to inherit her part ner’s property after the latter’s death.
In 2013, the Supreme Court had also requested that Parliament should amend the Domestic Violence Act to protect the interests of women and children in live-in relationships. Registering our live-in relationships legally will make it tantamount to marriage.Clever Tatia.
In February , Tatia had asked people to share their opinion on live-in relationships. Based on which he would make recommendations to the govern ment. Because “what is the status of their children? We have to bear in mind that society has yet to accept live-in relationships… such children are not accepted in schools or in society .“ I would strongly advise Tatia to step ou of his ivory , prejudiced little tower and see that the world has changed.
And it’s not just Tatia. The Rajasthan State Women’s Commission is suppos ed to launch a campaign against live-in relationships. Not a good advert for Rajasthan. Commission chairperson Suman Sharma has said that such relationships were “against our culture“ that women “suffered the most when such relationships ended“ and “that there was no provision to help women in such a case“.
We, women, should really be touched by the concern shown for us by the judi ciary and the legislature. These comments follow the ruling of the Kerala High Court last week nullifying an alleged `love jihad’ marriage by stating, “Marriage being the most important decision in her [Akhila‘s] life can only be taken with the active involvement of her parents…. The marriage, which is alleged to have taken place, is a sham and is of no consequence in the eye of law. Her husband has no authority to act as the guardian.“ And Akhila has no free choice.
Moving. Especially since all these ab surd decisions underline the fact that the be all and end all is that a woman must marry -someone whom her par ents choose. And that even as an adult she has no rights. With protectors like this, who needs enemies?