The TOI has an in-depth look at the historical background to the SC’s recent ruling on long term, live-in couples. Turns out this was not a new decision, and it was consistent with a previous ruling from 1927.
The apex court’s inclination to consider such relationships, after a long spell of togetherness, as valid marriages could give women a lot to cheer about. For, she could have a right to inherit, claim insurance benefits and family pension in the event of her partner’s death, which she is not entitled to at present.
Was the apex court talking something radical in the Indian context? Was it something new? How long should a couple live together as husband and wife to clutch on to this judgment to claim marriage and enjoy the rights flowing from it? There is nothing radical about the recent judgment. It did not enunciate a new theory.
It was merely reiterating a principle that was first chronicled in 1927 as a ruling of it’s predecessor — the Privy Council.
The court presents pretty stringent rules to be considered married without actually doing the deed:
Cohabit together for a long period (a minimum of 30 years, as per the instances taken note of by the apex court!)
Be known in society as husband and wife. This means either have children or get their names registered in some document, for example by property jointly as husband and wife.
Leave no evidence to allow anyone to rebutt their relationship.
So if anyone’s hoping for a progressive alternative to marriage, this doesn’t really look like it–more like a simulation. Note also the case where ‘rebuttable’ evidence was presented–a couple had lived together for several years but the pregnant woman left the guy and the daughter never remembered the father visiting. Forget that a child hardly even has memories until she’s 4 or 5 years old! I guess then the daughter was deemed illegitimate.
Related posts:
