Live-in relationships
Friday 20 December 2013
0
comments
In a nation where the institution
of marriage is considered sacrosanct, the very mention of live-in relationships
as an alternative to marriage results in severe consequences and even lead to
agitations. Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that live-in relationships
are a fundamental right of Indian citizens and are not per se illegal, any
tinkering with the patriarchal family set-up is regarded as anti-family. Not
only are live-in relationships seen as immoral but also as an infamous product
of western culture. It is a common perception among the orthodox Indian
families that live-in relationships weaken the strong familial ties and
encourage promiscuity.
What is conveniently ignored is
the fact that this form of co-habitation provides an opportunity to both the
partners to redefine their relationship and share powers and responsibilities
equally. This form of relationship has the potential to check the climbing
divorce rates. Often, relationships in which men tend to enslave women and
condemn them to certain subordinate roles gives rise to mutual dissatisfaction
and malevolence which ultimately culminates in either divorce or physical or
psychological assault of one partner over the other. In other words, marriage
becomes an exploitative tool in the institution of patriarchy.
In this ever evolving world,
live-in relationships are acquiring ever increasing significance. Individuals
are entering into this form of relationship more out of conviction than for
convenience as they feel liberated and are not bound by the compulsions of
predefined marital roles. Many individuals may be ideologically opposed to the
idea of letting the law dictate their personal lives, while many others may
feel mauled by societal pressures and tribulations. Live-in relationships can
offer great respite to such individuals in pursuing a relationship of
companionship unencumbered by the intrusion of property and inheritance
wrangles.
Absence of legal sanctity,
however, does not necessarily mean that live-in relationships be adopted as a
way of life. The children born put of such relationships are the worst
sufferers. Mutual conflicts, lack of authority over the ‘virtual family’ often
make this relationship a burden. The exploitation of women by their live-in partners
cannot be ignored. It is then that consensual acts between the partners acquire
a form of penal offence. Moreover, these relationships that do not necessarily
encourage an individual to sustain a family may lead to degradation of moral
values and Indian culture.
Choosing a way of life is
certainly an individual’s own decision. But the choice should be made out of
conviction and not merely for convenience.
Categories:
common man,
crime,
dream,
marriage,
opportunities,
sacrifice
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment