Abt Everything

awww....now u r here..it's a crime to leave without posting your comments !!

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Supreme Court and Live-in Relationships

Recently Supreme Court declared that live-in relationships are not offensive in any way!

In any way??

How could a responsible judicial system dish out a verdict like this?

I'm not going to take a moral stand on this issue.

I agree, when 2 consenting adults decide to live together without the binding, humdrum legalities of matrimony, it's not an offense.
It's their fundamental right.

But, in the name of fundamental rights, judiciary let out the vicious evil scot free which is extremely offensive to the familial setup we enjoy in India.

Live-in relationships boasts of nothing but lust! Of course lust is a positive, healthy emotion. But Lust comes with a lot of strings..like procreation.

Condoms are NOT foolproof! Accidents happen!

What of the children born out of wedlock?

Dont our so-called Judiciary has any responsibility towards children , the future rulers of this country??!!

After all. by recognizing such live-in relationships, Judiciary is stomping unconcernedly on such children's fundamental Rights!

Children have no fundamental rights?

Western world has so many good things to ape ! But why we always hellbent on aping the worst from them? Just by watching them, we all know what happens when giving
in to the popular term 'fundamental rights'! Single mothers, foster homes, ever increasing Juvenile homes, resulting in more heinous crimes.

It's influence on one's emotional equilibrium is more dangerous and disastrous. Thus developed the western society which is full of bitter, cynical,
emotionally robbed off, extremely lonely people!

Do we want that here in India?

Live-in relationships are nothing but Lust of convenience! Those who don't trust each other, who are commitment-shy, who hate responsibilities, who lack mutual respect
indulge in such relationships. If this is what live-in relationships offer, is it advisable to advocate it? It's definitely, undoubtedly anti-social!

Indulge in lust as much as u want! There ends that couple's so-called Fundamental Rights! Coming out of ur house, voicing ur anti social thoughts is crime..cz it
influence many innocent, uncorrupted young minds. It's a known fact that bad things attract!

Fundamental rights are alright..only when practiced in good causes. Exploiting it at every given opportunity and Judiciary joining hands with such attitude is highly worrying!
After all. Judiciary is not only responsible for keeping the constitutional rights. It has social responsibilities too!

If judiciary is going to act like "we act according to law and within law '..then they better stay out of such socially affecting, grossly misleading verdicts.

The pathetic thing is..the Judge quoted from Hindu mythology 'Krishna and Radha' to support his verdict.

If so..polygamy should also be acceptable..should be considered as fundamental rights!

A woman can have 5+1 husbands!

All brothers can marry the same woman!

Being a Playboy like Krishna is laudable!

Wooing and lusting after another man's wife [Radha]is not a crime!

Infidelity [Radha] attains god-like status!

All the above mythological deeds are..by far and above..comes under fundamental rights.

But..if we apply it in our real life in the name fundamental rights..it's a sure, potent cocktail
for total destruction of our civlised, social set up.

Humans are polygamous by nature. But civilization demands certain discipline. If procreation is not involved in this issue, Live-in relationships are not going to cause that much problem
with societal setup.

IndiBlogger - The Indian Blogger Community


aativas said...

Certainly some of the issues you have raised are important .. however, that does not mean that SC decision is completely wrong! Whenever a new lifestyle is introduced, there will be problems.. does not mean that the established lifestyle runs smooth for everyone..

Umbrella said...

@aativas- I agree that whenever a new lifestyle is introduced there will be problems. But..wht's the need for the Judiciary to step -in and publicly supports such things? Already SC has given it's verdict on children born out of such relationships..that they should be considered as legal heirs. Now they r indirectly 'legalising' such relationships?

Lakshmipriya said...

I agree with you to a great extent. I however got much more censure from people, not that I mind:)
Heartening to see this post!
There is also a difference between legalising something and adding it as a fundamental right. When a child is born in this world, he/ she has to right to live in :O

S.R.Ayyangar said...

Blindly following western culture is not good. There is nothing wrong in age old practice of arranged marriage but it has to be reformed in the present day context. You can also have a look at my article on the same topic.

Mohan said...

You have explored deep into one face of the system. There is another face too and that is what Supreme court has given a good thought of. With all due respect to the honorable court verdict, i still feel too much of rationalism has gone through the law protector's mind and they have given a nod for the modern lifestyle.

It takes a while for us to digest this new lifestyle and might prove over a period of time that our time and tested marriage system is the best among all!

Umbrella said...

Read ur post on the same topic. It's "nail and hammer"! lolz. Thank you for ur input.

Umbrella said...

I read ur post sir. But cdnt post my comment there since it's in Sulekha network. I agree with ur take on the same issue. Enjoyed reading ur post. Thanks for ur input here.

Umbrella said...

yeah..i agree with u. Thanks for ur input.

Gomathi Reddy said...

Hey, good to see you wrote about this same topic ! I am glad it has touched upon so many sensitive women to come out openly about it. With all due respect to all the concerned people, too much is made out of our institution called marriage. Yes, it worked all these centuries because we like to huddle up and take refuge in established norms of the clan and so we did. But it would help if we evolve as less of hypocrites and more of human beings with self-esteem and respect for the individual, intact. I believe that should be the goal and not trying to fit into frame works. I still believe that children supposedly born outside of wedlock cannot be punished for deeds of irresponsible parents - its totally unfair. But a lot of other points that you had raised were awesome...and fiery! Keep up the good work

Praveen said...

"If procreation is not involved in this issue, Live-in relationships are not going to cause that much problem"
that says it all...
As long as these relationships doesnt end up with an orphan, its ok between two consenting adults. Just because of the blind lust of two adults, a child should never suffer..

Anonymous said...

I do not think the supreme court was primarily dealing with the wanna be westerners having a platonic relationship. Their main concern is with the rights of the second wife. Second marriage is illegal and most of the woman in such relationships are not economically independent and need support after the death of the man. Hence the court has acknowledged their status.
Radha was never Krishna's lover. Krishna lived in Brindavan as a child, she was his friend and Bhagwatam says that of all forms of bhakti the 'Sakhi' is the highest form ..