Live-In Relation Still A "Stigma" In Indian Culture: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has said that the live-in relationship is an "imported" philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian tenets and that it is still considered a "stigma" in the Indian culture.

While dismissing a man's appeal for custody of a child born from a live-in relationship, a bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S Agrawal recently observed that such a relationship is preferred over marriage because it provides a "convenient escape when things fail to work between partners".

"The security, social acceptance, progress, and stability which the institution of marriage provides to a person is never provided by live-in relationship," the bench noted.

"The close inspection of society shows that the institution of marriage no longer controls the people as it did in the past due to the cultural influence of the western countries and this significant shift and apathy towards matrimonial duties has probably given rise to the concept of live-in relationship," the High Court said.

ALSO READ | Madhya Pradesh Court's Unique Order On Breakup After A Live-In Relationship

The petitioner, Abdul Hameed Siddiqui, a resident of Chhattisgarh's Dantewada, had sought custody of a child born from his live-in relationship with Kavita Gupta. Both were in a relationship for three years and got married in 2021 without conversion.

A Dantewada family court had turned down his plea in 2023, following which he moved to the High Court.

He claimed that in August 2023, Ms Gupta had moved with the child to her parent's home, after which he moved to the court seeking the child's custody.

Mr Siddiqui's lawyer said that both parties performed marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and since he is governed by the Mahomedan law, he is allowed to perform a second marriage and that his marriage with Ms Gupta was legal.

It was also contended that he would be the natural guardian of the child born out of such marriage, and was entitled to custody of the ward.

Mr Gupta, however, claimed that a second marriage was not permissible in the facts of the case as his first wife was alive. Her counsel argued that Mr Siddiqui could not claim to be a legal guardian for a child born out of such a relationship.

The bench observed that the provisions relating to more than one marriage of a Muslim man under their personal law "cannot be invoked before any Court of law unless and until the same is pleaded and proved".