Challenging Tradition: Chhattisgarh HC Reflects on the ‘Stigma’ of Live-In Relationships in Indian Culture

In the recent case of Abdul Hameed Siddiqui vs. Kavita Gupta, the Chhattisgarh High Court delved into the complex landscape of live-in relationships, shedding light on a societal phenomenon often considered taboo. Despite their prevalence in certain segments of society, live-in arrangements are still perceived as a “stigma” within Indian culture, the Court remarked, suggesting that they challenge traditional norms and values deeply ingrained in Indian tenets.

Here’s what the Court said on this matter:

1. The bench comprising Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal highlighted that neglect of matrimonial duties has spurred the rise of live-in relationships.
2. They emphasized that live-in arrangements lack the security, social acceptance, progress, and stability provided by marriage.
3. While exiting a live-in situation is easy for a married man, the court stressed its responsibility to protect vulnerable survivors and children born from such relationships.
4. The observations were made while dismissing Abdul Hameed Siddiqui’s appeal against a Family Court’s order denying custody of his child.
5. Siddiqui claimed that he and the respondent, his alleged second wife, had been in a relationship for three years before marrying without conversion in 2021.
6. Siddiqui’s first wife was alive, and he had three children from his first marriage.
7. He sought custody of the child born in August 2021, alleging that the respondent took the child to her parents’ home in August 2023.
8. Siddiqui argued that their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, was legal under Muslim law, entitling him to custody.
9. However, the respondent contended that Siddiqui’s second marriage was invalid as his first wife was alive, thus challenging his claim to guardianship.
10. The High Court disapproved of Siddiqui’s assertion of the right to a second marriage under Muslim Law, highlighting that personal laws couldn’t be invoked in court without proper pleading and proof.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International