Live-in is Stigma, Imported Philosophy From Western Countries: Chhattisgarh High Court

Bilaspur: Emphasising the complexities of personal laws and interfaith marriages, the Chhattisgarh High Court has deemed the live-in relationship as a “stigma” to the Indian traditional tenets calling it an “imported philosophy” from the western countries. The Chhattisgarh HC made the observation, while dismissing an appeal of a man seeking custody of a child born from his live-in relationship. Holding that the institution of marriage no longer controls the people as in the past, the high court stated that a live-in relationship is against the expectations of Indian tenet.

Reports suggest that a division bench of Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Sanjay S Agrawal observed, “Live-in relationship which is followed in certain sections of the society still continues as a stigma in the Indian culture as it is an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian tenets”.

The court remarked, while pronouncing an order on April 30, in a plea filed by one Abdul Hameed Siddiqui (43) of Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada district. The petition in his plea stated that he was in a live-in relationship with a woman from a different faith, during which she gave birth to a child.

Apathy towards matrimonial duties has probably given rise to the live-in relationship concept: HC

Abdul Hameed Siddiqui had moved to the Chhattisgarh High Court after a family court in Dantewada rejected his plea for the child’s custody in December 2023. Siddiqui stated in his petition that he was in a live-in relationship with the woman for 3 years before marrying her in 2021 without conversion.

In his petition, Siddiqui mentioned that a child was born out of their relationship on August 31, 2021 and about 2 years later, on August 10, 2023, he found the mother and child were missing. Following which, he filed a habeas corpus petition seeking that the woman be produced before the high court this year.

It was found that the respondent (woman) in the matter was the petitioner’s second wife. Siddiqui was a married man before being in a live-in relationship with the respondent and also had 3 children from his first wife, as per the order by the court. The woman in her response had informed the court that she was living with her parents as per her own wish.

Following her response, Siddiqui again moved the High Court after the Dantewada family court did not give him the child's custody. In the HC, Siddiqui’s counsel said the two had married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, as it was an interfaith union. Under the Mahomedan Law, the counsel claimed, Siddiqui was allowed to perform a second marriage.

Calling the marriage between Siddiqui and the woman valid, the counsel said his client was entitled to the child’s custody as he was the natural guardian. He prayed that the family court’s order be set aside.

The woman’s lawyer contended that since she did not convert, the claim of a valid second marriage and to bring it under the ambit of the Act of 1954 “when the first wife is living” is not permissible.

In such a situation, Siddiqui cannot claim to be a legal guardian of the child born out of a live-in relationship, argued the woman’s lawyer.

Dismissing Siddiqui’s plea, the HC said it was not inclined to stay the family court’s decision.

The HC said that the provisions of personal law cannot be invoked before any court of law until and unless the same is pleaded and proved as custom.

“The close inspection of society shows that the institution of marriage no longer controls the people as it did in the past due to cultural influence of the Western Countries and this significant shifts and apathy towards matrimonial duties has probably given rise to the concept of live-in relationship,” the court said.

However, it is crucial to understand and protect the women in such relationships, as they are most often the complainant and victim of violence by the inmate partners of live-in relationships, held the court.