Court Says Live-In Relationships Against 'Middle-Class Norms', Harm Women More—We Wonder Why

While granting bail to a man accused of sexually exploiting a woman under the false pretext of marriage, the Allahabad High Court observed that a woman suffers more in a live-in arrangement and it is difficult for the woman to find a life partner after a breakup. The single-judge bench of Justice Siddharth noted that courts have been flooded with such cases ever since live-in relationships were “legalised” by the Supreme Court.

Credit: Pexels

The court also observed that while the concept of a live-in appeals strongly to the new generation, the after effects are harmful as the idea is against the settled middle-class norms. Justice Siddharth noted, “The concept of live-in-relationship goes against the interest of the women since a man can marry even after live-in-relationship (with) a woman or a number of women, but it is difficult for the women to find a life partner after a breakup.”

He further added, “This court finds that after live-in-relationship has been legalised by the Apex Court, the court had fed up such cases. These cases are coming to the court because the concept of live-in-relationship is against the settled law in the Indian middle-class society.”

Live-in relationships are not the problem, patriarchy is

This court clearly thinks that live-in relationships are a problem, and refuses to highlight how the real problem is patriarchy. Why should one care about middle-class values that are inherently biased against women and care little about their agency? If marriages alone were such a powerful shield of protection for women, why do they still face abandonment, abuse, and dowry deaths?

Credit: Pexels

If the state really cares about protecting women, no matter the kind of arrangement she chooses, it should strengthen legal protections and laws that make her an equal in any relationship. If a “middle-class value” is harming half the population of this country, then the focus needs to be on erasing it rather than using it as an argument against a woman’s right to choose.

What was the case?

The bail application was filed by a man, Shane Alam, who was accused by a woman of having a sexual relationship with her based on a promise of marriage. She claimed that Alam later refused to marry her.

Credit: Pexels

The Supreme Court considers live-in relationships as legal but the couple does not have the same rights as a married couple. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court has held that a woman, who has been in a long-term live-in relationship, may not be able to claim she was forced into a physical relationship by her partner under the promise of marriage and later file rape charges against him.