The Court said a person not having cordial family relationships cannot contribute to the progress of the nation.

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that there is a “systematic design” to destroy the institution of marriage in India by promoting live-in relationships through films, television etc [Adnan vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others].

Single-judge Justice Siddharth said that the security, social acceptance, progress and stability that the institution of marriage provides to a person can never be expected in live-in-relationships.

But the infidelity to a partner in a married relationship and having a free live-in-relationship are being shown as signs of progressive society and youth in the country are attracted to it, the Court lamented.

“Live-in-relationship shall only be considered as normal after the institution of marriage becomes obsolete in this country, like in many of the so-called developed countries where it has become a big problem for them to protect the institution of marriage. We are proceeding to create great problems for us in future. There is systematic design to destroy the institution of marriage in this country and destabilize the society and hinder the progress of our country,” the Court said.

The Court further opined that a person not having cordial family relationships cannot contribute to the progress of the nation.

“He/she has no anchor in life to bank upon. Hopping from one relationship to another does not lead to any fulfilling existence. The brutish concept of changing partners in every season cannot be considered to be a hallmark of a stable and healthy society. The security and stability the marriage provides to an individual’s life cannot be expected from live-in-relationship,” the single judge said.

Pertinently, the judge also stated that the stability, social, political and economic of a nation depends on the middle-class population and its morality.

In this regard, the Court stated that “for the highest class there is no morality and the lowest class cannot afford to follow the same due to compulsions of poverty.”

“The middle-class morality cannot be ignored in a country like ours. Our country is mostly consisting of the middle class. The stability, social, political and economic of a nation depends on the size of the middle class only. The morality of the highest class and the lowest class has nothing to do with the same since morality dies in riches and chokes in poverty,” the order said.

These observations were made while granting bail to a person accused of rape on false promises of marriage.

The allegation against the accused was that he had befriended the victim and committed rape on the false promise of marriage for one year when he was in live-in relationship with her. 

The Court said that while on the face of it the live-in relationship “sounds very attractive” and lures the youth but as time passes and middle-class social morality/norms start staring at their face such couples gradually realise that their relationship has no social sanction and cannot continue for life. 

“They start feeling that in the absence of social acceptance of their relationship, they cannot live a fulfilling and normal social life. Their children will also face social eradication and may blame them for life. Some fortunate ones, who are only exceptions, continue with the same or get married. In the majority of cases the break-ups take place between the couple,” it added.

It went on to observe that after the breakup, it becomes “difficult for the female partner to face the society” as the middle-class society does not look upon her as “normal”. 

“From social ostracisation to indecent public comments become part of her post-live-in relationship ordeal. Then she somehow tries to get her live-in-relationship with the male partner get converted into relationship of marriage having social sanction,” Justice Siddharth said.

The Court further said the family members of such female live-in partners desperately try to get their “daughter/sister” married to her male live-in partner. 

“While it is not difficult to find another female live- in-partner or wife for the male counterpart of live-in-relationship, it is very difficult for a female partner to find a male partner for marriage and the social middle-class norms, irrespective of the religion of the female partner, militate against her efforts to regain her social status. They do consider a female coming out of such relationship as normal being,” Justice Siddharth said.

The Court also said that no family willingly accepts such a woman as their family member.

It further said there was no dearth of cases coming to the courts “where the female partner of an erstwhile live-in-relationship commit suicide out of disgust caused by socially ill behaviour”.

The Bench blamed films and television serials for contributing to what it called the eradication of the institution of marriage.

While referring to the neighbouring country Pakistan, the Court said the absence of middle class and middle-class morality there is testimony of the social, political, religious, and ethical unrest in that country.

“Most of the problems being faced by Pakistan are mainly due to lack of middle class. The middle class has a vested interest in maintaining social, political, religious and other orders of society since it has optimum means of fair survival and it does not want that it should be deprived of the same. Pakistan consists mostly of the highest class and poor class. The middle class is not much in that country,” the judge said.

While granting bail to the accused, the Court, among other things, took into account the “uncertainty regarding the conclusion of trial”, “one-sided investigation by police”, “ignoring the case of the accused side” and overcrowding in jails.