Live-in relationships can’t be stereotyped

The Delhi high court’s comments on live-in partners not being entitled to a legal recourse in case of infidelity is off the mark. In a morally-loaded statement that takes a skewed view of the live-in arrangement, justice SN Dhingra said the partners couldn’t claim “infidelity or immorality, as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married man and an unmarried woman or between a married woman and an unmarried man”.

This conclusion ignores many nuances.  There are many reasons why two individuals may choose to cohabit outside marriage. It could be experimentation and it could be commitment phobia. It could also be a mutual decision to live together on a long-term basis. Levels of commitment cannot be conveniently assumed in live-in or marital situations.

Justice Dhingra observed that “live-in is a walk-in and walk-out relationship”. There are plenty of reasons why people marry, many of them having little to do with commitment or fidelity — dowry, loneliness, and so on. Though the legal framework around marriage absolves married couples from such scrutiny, the courts must appreciate the complexity of the situation rather than make sweeping statements and setting broad precedents.