UPSC MAINS SOCIOLOGY SYLLABUS
Paper 2 – Section B – Social Structure
(v) Systems of Kinship in India:
(a) Lineage and descent in India.
(b) Types of kinship systems.
(c) Family and marriage in India.
(d) Household dimensions of the family.
(e) Patriarchy, entitlements and sexual division of labour.
INTRODUCTION
Sociology of family is the area devoted to the study of family as an institution central to social life. The basic assumptions of the area include the universality of family, the inevitable variation of family forms, and the necessity of family for integrating individuals into social worlds. Family sociology is generally concerned with the formation, maintenance, growth, and dissolution of kinship ties and is commonly expressed in research on courtship and marriage, childrearing, marital adjustment, and divorce. These areas of research expanded in the twentieth century to encompass an endless diversity of topics related to gender, sexuality, intimacy, affection, and anything that can be considered to be family related.
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
Live-in relation i.e. cohabitation is an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married. People may live together for a number of reasons. These may include wanting to test the compatibility or to establish financial security before marrying. Some individuals may also choose cohabitation because they see their relationships as being private and personal matters, and not to be controlled by political, religious or patriarchal institutions.
THE INDIAN SCENARIO
The emergence of live-in relationships is in many ways linked with global perception changes regarding marriages and their strong grip on social life. In India, this perception change involved a lengthy and arduous route. The reason for this is that the institution of marriage in India holds tremendous social and religious strength, and has done so for centuries. Coupled with this is the emphasis Indian society has historically placed on community living and family ties. Combined, these factors have encouraged the court of public opinion in its endeavours, especially when it comes to relationships and sexuality. Individual choice, for the most part, was secondary to familial and public opinion. This can be illustrated through the prevalence of arranged marriages in India, where the families of the spouses would arrange the marriage for them based on how suitable they found a ‘candidate’. This was especially true for women in India, whose future relationships and lives would depend primarily on how their father would view a prospective suitor. The prevalence of such marriages is overwhelmingly common even today.
THE INDIAN JUDICIARY ON LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
The judiciary has tried to categorise what kind of a relationship living in can constitute, what rights or obligations it confers upon its participants and their descendants, and what happens to the property held by the participants of the relationship, among others.
The first, and arguably most important question of absolute legality was commented upon by the Allahabad High Court in 2001. The court unequivocally stated that living together was a matter of choice of the concerned individuals, and that the law cannot forbid them from doing so.
In Badri Prasad, a couple living together for 50 years was presumed to be married by the Supreme Court. The court said that such a presumption was definitely refutable with appropriate evidence, but the long-lasting nature of such relationship would give rise to the same in the first place.
The emphasis that is placed on the duration of the relationship in determining its recognition as marriage was illustrated in Himani and another v. State of Haryana, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court said that merely living together for a few days cannot lead to a presumption of marital ties within a relationship.
Departing from the marriage- not marriage dichotomy came the landmark case of Indra Sarma. This case drew notice to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 and the wording used in the statute, specifically to refer to the category of relationship termed there as one ‘in nature of marriage’. It said that the time spent in the relationship, the domestic living arrangements, pooled resources and finances, cohabitation, sexual relations, offspring, social behaviour, and intention of the partners, are all factors that must be considered.
Another important rule was laid down in Indira Sharma, which stated that live-in relationships where either of the partners is already married to someone else can’t fall under the category of marriage, as this would mean adultery or bigamy.
When it comes to the right to inheritance though, partners in these relationships are not entitled to any property as per succession laws, since personal law doesn’t recognise live-in relationships as ones that can extend or create a family. Hence, the judiciary took the onus of providing for such rights to women in live-in relationships. The caveat here though, is that this right to inherit property is limited to the individual property of the partner, and not the partner’s ancestral property.
Women and children born to live-in relationships have been given various rights and protections in India. The judiciary has stepped in time and again to ensure their welfare, especially in areas where legislation has failed to do so.
CONCLUSION
With the rapid social growth of our society, live-in relationships have become an important and prevalent part of social and family relationships. However, social stigma around the issue still persists, and family laws have failed to catch up with societal and judicial progress. Hence, at this juncture where such relationships have engrained themselves in the social fabric and can’t be uprooted, we must adapt and accept them, and attempt to frame inclusive legislation to regulate them and protect the rights of those involved.
