JOIN US
The Supreme Court’s order expanding the scope of the Anti-dowry Act to cover live-in relationships is in line with its recent interpretations of existing laws in the context of new situations and circumstances. The court has ruled that the dowry prohibition law, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and other anti-cruelty laws are also applicable to men and women who live together, though they may not be legally married. The assumption is that women are vulnerable to harassment, exploitation and cruelty because men tend to exercise the authority that goes with the role of husbands even in such relationships. The ruling will help to protect many women who find themselves in such relationships, either of their own volition or otherwise. Live-in relationships are not a new and only urban phenomenon but have always existed in all parts of the country. They are not uncommon in rural areas too.
The order came in a review petition filed by a man in Andhra Pradesh who had faced dowry harassment charges in his marriage and started living with another woman. His claim that the anti-dowry law was not applicable in his case because he was not legally married to his earlier partner was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh high court. The Supreme Court has now concurred with the high court judgement, in the process giving a new definition to the terms husband and wife in live-relationships insofar they are relevant to the anti-dowry law.
There is an element of free will and choice in relationships of co-habitation but this does not make women immune to harassment. In fact the greater vulnerability of women in such relationships is sometimes taken advantage of by men who use them as a cover for polygamy or to exploit them in various ways. A technical and narrow interpretation of the law in such cases will defeat its intent and violate its spirit, as the court pointed out in the judgment. The Supreme Court had last year validated the legal status of live-in relationships as marriages and ruled that children born of such relationships would not be considered illegitimate. The present judgment follows a similar logic and addresses another aspect and consequence of live-in relationships. As the society is undergoing rapid changes, there are increasing numbers of cases of live-in relationships but many women who wittingly or unwittingly get into such situations suffer either by way of loss of rights or inability to stand up to the demands and pressures brought to bear on them. The ruling helps to extend the rights of women in such situations.