The Supreme Court in it's infinite wisdom also duly recognised the irrefutable fact that there is no express statutory regulations or laws to regulate live-in relationships that end on an acrimonious note as these relationships do not conform to the laid down tenets pertaining to marriage and are also not given their due recognition by the existing laws of the day......
In the landmark and epochal judgement a bench headed by justice K.S. Radhakrishnan framed the required and necessary guidelines to bring all such relationships under the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" so that the womenfolk involved in these relationships are accorded due protection under the Domestic Violence Act and hence do not fall prey to the avaricious and brutal instincts of their male partners........
It also appealed to the saner instinct of parliamentarians and beseeched them to frame the required laws and guidelines pertaining to the protection of women and children born out of such relationships, even though these live-in relationships might be an anathema to society as a whole and also not conform to the existing tenets and laws pertaining to the age old institution of marriage.......
"Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a sin in the eyes of god or the law even though society as we know it may frown and fret over all such relationships and even go to the extent of condoning or outrightly condemning them. The decision to marry or not to marry or carry on with such a heterosexual relationship is an intensely personal decision and hence may not conform to the sanctimonious views of the purists in this regard", the bench went on to add while duly recognising the fact that a plethora of countries worldwide had already accorded legal sanction to all such relationships.........
The apex court also went on to remark that such legislation is the crying need of the hour as the numbers of people involved in these relationships is exponentially increasing and also because the hapless woman is at the receiving end in most if not all cases of such relationships coming to an abrupt and untimely end without as much as a by your please........
The bench also raised a red herring and said that the legislature cannot legalise and accord due sanction to pre-marital sex and that people may freely express their opinions both for and against pre-marital sex.........
"Most if not all such relationships endure for an inordinately long interim or considerable period of time and protecting the interest of the weaker sex becomes the sworn duty of the government of the day, even though society and the existing laws of the day might not accord due sanction to live-in relationships", the bench concluded........
Will the government of the day pay heed to the Supreme Court's sage advice, buckle down and get down to the business of framing laws that safeguard the interests of women involved in live-in relationships and children born out of such liasions or then will this much needed legislation fall prey to the exigencies of chauvinistic mindsets and holier than thou attitudes largely prevalent amongst the politicians of the day; well your guess in this regard is as good as mine..........
In the landmark and epochal judgement a bench headed by justice K.S. Radhakrishnan framed the required and necessary guidelines to bring all such relationships under the expression "relationship in the nature of marriage" so that the womenfolk involved in these relationships are accorded due protection under the Domestic Violence Act and hence do not fall prey to the avaricious and brutal instincts of their male partners........
It also appealed to the saner instinct of parliamentarians and beseeched them to frame the required laws and guidelines pertaining to the protection of women and children born out of such relationships, even though these live-in relationships might be an anathema to society as a whole and also not conform to the existing tenets and laws pertaining to the age old institution of marriage.......
"Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a sin in the eyes of god or the law even though society as we know it may frown and fret over all such relationships and even go to the extent of condoning or outrightly condemning them. The decision to marry or not to marry or carry on with such a heterosexual relationship is an intensely personal decision and hence may not conform to the sanctimonious views of the purists in this regard", the bench went on to add while duly recognising the fact that a plethora of countries worldwide had already accorded legal sanction to all such relationships.........
The apex court also went on to remark that such legislation is the crying need of the hour as the numbers of people involved in these relationships is exponentially increasing and also because the hapless woman is at the receiving end in most if not all cases of such relationships coming to an abrupt and untimely end without as much as a by your please........
The bench also raised a red herring and said that the legislature cannot legalise and accord due sanction to pre-marital sex and that people may freely express their opinions both for and against pre-marital sex.........
"Most if not all such relationships endure for an inordinately long interim or considerable period of time and protecting the interest of the weaker sex becomes the sworn duty of the government of the day, even though society and the existing laws of the day might not accord due sanction to live-in relationships", the bench concluded........
Will the government of the day pay heed to the Supreme Court's sage advice, buckle down and get down to the business of framing laws that safeguard the interests of women involved in live-in relationships and children born out of such liasions or then will this much needed legislation fall prey to the exigencies of chauvinistic mindsets and holier than thou attitudes largely prevalent amongst the politicians of the day; well your guess in this regard is as good as mine..........
No comments:
Post a Comment