live-in relationships between couples have become a mark of progressive society and Western culture.
However much we may decry the concept, these anomalies are bound to occur as we move towards a materialistic culture and nuclear families.
The current insecurities of marriage and the causes of breakdown are factors which impel youngsters to get into a nonpermanent arrangement.
Such relationships are seen mostly among professionals who are financially independent and don’t need the sanction of parents and society.
Especially, those who are in high pressure jobs do not want additional responsibilities of an extended family like looking after in-laws, etc.
Sometimes, live-ins start between friends at the student level and continue after they get their jobs.
When they work so hard, they would like to minimise their responsibilities on the home front. It’s almost like living from day to day and enjoying work and personal life.
I spoke to a few women and found that they don’t want the in-laws angle to influence their personal life. As they earn well, they would prefer to send money to in-laws and parents and keep them out of their relationship or space.
These are more evident in the metros where people have no time or interest to know their neighbours. In Bangalore and Pune which happen to be education hubs, live-in relationships start much earlier, i.e., at the student stage.
At that time, it could be two or more couples staying together for financial constraints, but once they get their jobs they branch out into nuclear families. The main fact remains that each is financially independent and has the option to opt out at any moment. landlords have no objection to such arrangements.
Problem arises when in the States like ours; the woman may or may not be working and is at the mercy of the male partner. Probably, it no longer becomes live-in and assumes the status of a kept or mistress. Scope of abuse, uncertainty and separation may lead to the female partner to seek intervention of the police and courts to establish her rights.
Many do not go into such ambit for fear of social stigma and continue to suffer such abuse as they can’t return to their families due to age factor and stigma which will not allow them to get married again.
To overcome insecurities these women after reaching the age of thirty plus want to have children and get married, but by then they are at the mercy of the male partner who is the finance provider.
However in the case of professionals, they say they would take enough time to establish their financial security and then consider marriage and children. This is usually during mid-thirties. By then, they say that they would have adjusted with the partner that they love. Some couples prefer not to have children and continue in the live-in relationship with the thought that finance is better security than children who may or may not look after them in old age.
There is a new concept of live-in prevalent where both partners want their own individual space and maintain a romantic relationship without staying under the same roof. This is being observed among the retired and elderly crowd and between two financially independent partners where the children are married and staying far off.
At that age, the couples do not want to get into any controversy due to their status in society. Gradually, the law is veering towards protection of the couples’ interest as existing in the Western countries, but here the arrangement is purely one based on emotional reasons. The practicality of the relationship and Supreme Court guidelines are thought about when things go wrong. As mentioned earlier, it is the financially dependent partner who has to seek the protection. The independent woman partner can just walk out any day as she is mentally prepared.
At this point of time, social constraints or court guidelines may not be able to systemise the relationship as it’s a very recent phenomenon in India and an incidental matter in our State.
Probably, it will take another decade when it will become a common phenomenon and gain acceptance of the society and guidelines of the judiciary. Besides it’s a matter of the heart and not of the head where the pros and cons can be evaluated by the partners.