Probing corporal safety of women in live-in relationships

The jurisprudence surrounding live-in relationships is replete with a common underlying theme that two consenting adults are at the liberty to live together, and no person would be permitted to interfere in their peaceful cohabitation.

 —–

THE activism of the Indian judiciary in terms of formal recognition of live-in relationships has opened a vista of allied freedoms for live-in partners. However, the reality of women in such relations remains grim.

The right to love stems from the hackneyed fundamental rights to life and freedom of expression guaranteed under Articles 21 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, respectively. The lack of a formal legislation on the subject is seen as a bane instead of a boon as unsaid social rules in India dominate the minds of generations across. The struggles of two individuals, located within the larger history of biases against various forms of social subordination, often on lines of inter-community or inter-religious relationships, are actively sought to be curbed by the society in general.

However, objectively speaking, in intimate partnerships, the desperate pursuance of exercising the right to love also apprehends an enormous two-pronged personal risk, in the form of ruffling an antiquated line of social authority and the corporal safety of women in such relationships. High standards of social morality often overburden the institution of marriage, and demonising live-in relationships is a succinct example of the conflict between social security and individual liberty. It reveals the need for evolution of social norms in terms of accommodating the contemporary necessity of the egalitarian partners whilst also ensuring personal safety.