https://sputnikglobe.com/20210806/sociologists-ngos-spring-to-help-indian-woman-seeking-protection-from-husband-for-live-in-relation-1083541130.html
Sociologists, NGOs Spring to Help Indian Woman Seeking Protection From Husband for Live-in Relation
Sociologists, NGOs Spring to Help Indian Woman Seeking Protection From Husband for Live-in Relation
Sputnik International
Live-in relationships in India were made lawful by the country’s Supreme Court in 2010. It categorised them as “domestic relationships” safeguarded under the... 06.08.2021, Sputnik International
2021-08-06T08:19+0000
2021-08-06T08:19+0000
2022-12-10T11:40+0000
newsfeed
world
indians
indians
law
law
law
law
modern society
sputnik
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/107978/68/1079786852_0:0:3641:2048_1920x0_80_0_0_5d0af296d04a62b02f9e6c28a24c6d91.jpg
Sociologists and non-governmental organisations in India have come out in support of a woman who approached the court seeking protection from her husband so that she can live with her live-in partner.After hearing the petition, Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh said that “live-in-relationships cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this country” and ruled the relationship illicit.After the court's ruling, a number of sociologists and non-governmental organisations (NGO) have taken the woman's side. They believe that a marital dispute could be dealt with independently but granting protection against harassment should have been the court's priority.Sandeep Chachra, Executive Director of ActionAid Association, a Delhi-based NGO, told Sputnik: “The Honourable Allahabad High Court should have granted relief to the petitioners in their request for protection against harassment by the respondents - including the husband of one of the petitioners, the local police and authorities."The court could have stated that its order "would have no prejudice to the legal case relating to the marital dispute,” he added. He said that his NGO has been working with abused women who are often forced into oppressive relationships because autonomy is denied them.“We do not wish to comment on the petitioner’s present relationship but feel that the subjectivity of the woman in question and her side of the story needs to be heard with the sensitivity it requires,” he added.Considering the matter, Akhilesh Pathak, a trained sociologist who wrote 'Duality of Human Marriage' and is a research associate at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, told Sputnik: “The social fabric which Honourable Allahabad High Court is talking about depends on which kind of society you are living. If the court feels that upholding the social fabric should be the priority of any individual then this decision is right but if individual freedom is the priority then it is wrong”.“I think that the petitioner should have been granted protection. The decision proves that the Bench of Justices of Allahabad High Court is not giving priority to individual freedom. The Supreme Court of India legalised live-in relationships but there is a possibility that Allahabad High Court is still living in the past about it," he added.Woman Seeks ProtectionThe married woman filed an instant protection plea before the court, stating that her husband was trying to put her peaceful life with her live-in partner at risk. Therefore she needed protection from him.The woman said she was not married to her live-in partner but was having a relationship with him. She said she was driven into the relationship because of her husband's apathetic and torturing behaviour.In its order dated 29 July, the court said that if the woman's husband had barged into the house of her live-in partner, it would be a criminal dispute for which she could file a criminal case against him.The court dismissed her plea, stating that it doesn't permit such illegality as petitioners in future may feel that the court has permitted their illicit relations. However, the judges concluded by clarifying that the Bench was not against live-in relationships but was against illicit relations.
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
2021
Rahul Trivedi
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e5/05/12/1082926121_0:-1:627:627_100x100_80_0_0_d882e1a63f627c25b7a534fb8b8234d7.jpg
Rahul Trivedi
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e5/05/12/1082926121_0:-1:627:627_100x100_80_0_0_d882e1a63f627c25b7a534fb8b8234d7.jpg
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rosiya Segodnya“
Rahul Trivedi
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e5/05/12/1082926121_0:-1:627:627_100x100_80_0_0_d882e1a63f627c25b7a534fb8b8234d7.jpg
newsfeed, indians, indians, law, law, law, law, modern society, sputnik, sputnik, sputnik news, society
newsfeed, indians, indians, law, law, law, law, modern society, sputnik, sputnik, sputnik news, society
Sociologists, NGOs Spring to Help Indian Woman Seeking Protection From Husband for Live-in Relation
08:19 GMT 06.08.2021 (Updated: 11:40 GMT 10.12.2022) Live-in relationships in India were made lawful by the country’s Supreme Court in 2010. It categorised them as “domestic relationships” safeguarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Sociologists and non-governmental organisations in India have come out in support of a woman who approached the court seeking protection from her husband so that she can live with her live-in partner.
After hearing the petition, Allahabad High Court in Uttar Pradesh said that “
live-in-relationships cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this country” and ruled the relationship illicit.
Justices Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Subhash Chand said: “Directing the police to grant the couple protection may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relationship”.
After the court's ruling, a number of sociologists and non-governmental organisations (NGO) have taken the woman's side. They believe that a marital dispute could be dealt with independently but granting protection against harassment should have been the court's priority.
Sandeep Chachra, Executive Director of ActionAid Association, a Delhi-based NGO, told Sputnik: “The Honourable Allahabad
High Court should have granted relief to the petitioners in their request for protection against harassment by the respondents - including the husband of one of the petitioners, the local police and authorities."
The court could have stated that its order "would have no prejudice to the legal case relating to the marital dispute,” he added.
He said that his NGO has been working with abused women who are often forced into oppressive relationships because autonomy is denied them.
“We do not wish to comment on the petitioner’s present relationship but feel that the subjectivity of the woman in question and her side of the story needs to be heard with the sensitivity it requires,” he added.
Considering the matter, Akhilesh Pathak, a trained sociologist who wrote 'Duality of Human Marriage' and is a research associate at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, told Sputnik: “The social fabric which Honourable Allahabad High Court is talking about depends on which kind of society you are living. If the court feels that upholding the social fabric should be the priority of any individual then this decision is right but if individual freedom is the priority then it is wrong”.
“I think that the petitioner should have been granted protection. The decision proves that the Bench of Justices of Allahabad High Court is not giving priority to individual freedom. The
Supreme Court of India legalised live-in relationships but there is a possibility that Allahabad High Court is still living in the past about it," he added.
The married woman filed an instant protection plea before the court, stating that her husband was trying to put her peaceful life with her live-in partner at risk. Therefore she needed protection from him.
The woman said she was not married to her live-in partner but was having a relationship with him. She said she was driven into the relationship because of her husband's apathetic and torturing behaviour.
In its order dated 29 July, the court said that if the woman's husband had barged into the house of her live-in partner, it would be a criminal dispute for which she could file a criminal case against him.
The court dismissed her plea, stating that it doesn't permit such illegality as petitioners in future may feel that the court has permitted their illicit relations. However, the judges concluded by clarifying that the Bench was not against live-in relationships but was against illicit relations.
