Jump to content

Live-in relationship morally, socially not acceptable: Punjab HC


Recommended Posts

Posted

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/live-in-relationship-morally-socially-not-acceptable-punjab-hc-7319986/

 

Live-in relationships are socially and morally not acceptable, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed while declining to grant protection to a couple seeking protection of their life.

The petitioner couple — a 19-year-old woman from Uttar Pradesh and a 22-year-old man from Punjab — had moved the High Court seeking directions to Punjab Police to protect their life and liberty from the woman’s family

The bench of Justice HS Madaan, after hearing the matter said, “As a matter of fact, the petitioners in the garb of filing the present petition are seeking seal of approval on their live-in-relationship, which is morally and socially not acceptable and no protection order in the petition can be passed. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.”

These judges gonna teach us what is socially & morally acceptable. I swear these types of people are the first to ask women what she was wearing if they get assaulted. 

Posted

Indian Supreme Court should itself take this matter into it's hand and dismiss the HC orders immediately.

 

Human Right Groups should help the couple and provide them some type of security. 

 

HC judge spoke the same language which we saw from the killers of Nirbhaya and from their lawyers. 

Posted

Kanniammal (2010) 5SCC 600, the Supreme Court held that a living relationship comes within the ambit of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of two major living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful..

 

the judges should stick their moral superiority and customs where the sun dont shine ,

Posted

Yes because that'll stop them from hooking up outside marriage, might as well make cheating on your spouse illegal and call it a day

Posted (edited)

What is wrong with observation? Milord can not provide police protection to every love bird. Its legal to go in livein relationship but thats it in India

Edited by mishra
Posted

If two consenting adults want to live together, than what is everybody's problem?

 

Living together is good way to see if you are compatible with your partner before getting married. 

 

The worst thing is getting married and then realising the two of you can't stand the sight of each other in the same house. Forget sharing the same bed. 

Posted
8 hours ago, mishra said:

What is wrong with observation? Milord can not provide police protection to every love bird. Its legal to go in livein relationship but thats it in India

 


Not all love birds are threatened to death. But those who are threatened, they indeed need a protection and this is the Obligatory Duty of the State to provide them with it. 

 

And the observation was indeed wrong. This observation put the centuries old outdated cultural evils of Indian society above the recognised  Universal Basic Human Rights of modern era.

 

This observation is morally and legally completely wrong. 

 

Posted
On 5/21/2021 at 7:29 AM, MechEng said:

Desis have no idea about what the epidemic of live in relationships can result in. It has created a culture of single mothers with dysfunctional families, have seen it first hand in the US.

It's true. I believe people can do whatever they want as long as they are not harming others. The state should not interfere however I believe it can ruin a society somewhat.

 

 

Posted (edited)
On 5/21/2021 at 11:59 AM, MechEng said:

Desis have no idea about what the epidemic of live in relationships can result in. It has created a culture of single mothers with dysfunctional families, have seen it first hand in the US.

A tightly controlled sexuality with one man-one woman bonding for life is a bedrock of Civilization. 

 

Why does a couple want Live in? They want all the pleasures(sexual or otherwise) of relationship with out the responsibility of building a family. For me they are immature and uncivilized kids. Nothing less nothing more.  

 

 

Edited by kepler37b
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

 


Not all love birds are threatened to death. But those who are threatened, they indeed need a protection and this is the Obligatory Duty of the State to provide them with it. 

 

And the observation was indeed wrong. This observation put the centuries old outdated cultural evils of Indian society above the recognised  Universal Basic Human Rights of modern era.

 

This observation is morally and legally completely wrong. 

 

Its social issue.  I am not opposed to the love birds in livin relationship or providing protection. But Unlike others, I am practical. Police protection is not practically feasible.

 

Also, Unlike west, I doubt Indian law provides any protection if one party (specially male) ditches other. Hence is not moral as you know that there is chance of exploitation 

Edited by mishra
Posted
27 minutes ago, kepler37b said:

A tightly controlled sexuality with one man-one woman bonding for life is a bedrock of Civilization. 

 

Why does a couple want Live in? They want all the pleasures(sexual or otherwise) of relationship with out the responsibility of building a family. For me they are immature and uncivilized kids. Nothing less nothing more.  

 

 

 

Agreed. Live in relationships do feel liberating and appear less stressful than the traditional stringent family system, but these freedoms come at a cost. 

×
×
  • Create New...