Marriages, Live-ins and the Money involved
Reading Nita’s latest post on legalising live-in relationships got me thinking about this whole concept of marriage and financial arrangements. First, the story so far. In January 2008, the Supreme Court of India ruled that live-in relationships (if stable over a certain period) were as legal as marriages, and the children of such relationships would have the same rights as those of married couples. As Nita says, Since then the National Commission for Women has requested that benefits such as maintenance also be extended to the female partner in a live-in relationship, “if the man deserts her”.
I think it’s important to take a step back and understand why maintenance benefits for women were instituted in the first place. Firstly, until the 1970s, working women in India (in organised jobs) were a rarity. Man = Breadwinner, Woman = Homemaker was the accepted equation. Most women therefore had not a penny to call their own. Secondly, even as women entered the workforce, few of them continued their careers up to retirement age, unlike men. Many women stopped (and continue to stop) working when they have children, or atleast take a break for many years. This leaves with with no financial independence, or earning less than they could have, as they lose seniority or take part-time, lower-paying jobs. Where the unorganized sector is concerned, many women work, but these jobs tend to be impermanent and low paying. Here too, women would find it difficult to improve their qualifications, say, by studying or learning a new higher-paying skill, because household and child-rearing duties are still mostly theirs. Also, by tradition, they do not work in relatively higher paying areas such as carpentry or masonry. So, when a marriage breaks up, Maintenance is therefore a compensation to the woman for the loss of economic independence and also in a sense, payment for the valuable social services such as taking care of home, children and the elderly that most women provide. Again, maintenance may also be needed because custody of small children may be given to the mother, and as a single parent, she may find it difficult to work for some time.
While a few marriages would not fall in this category, I think just a look around will suffice to show that most Indian marriages would still follow this traditional pattern. I don’t believe that women are eternally entitled to maintenance; the day women stop being the automatic care-giver at home, the equations may change. But society may take a long way to get there. Until then, maintenance is fair compensation. (Though I can’t stand the NCW’s ‘desertion’ talk; what, haven’t they heard of divorce or separation by mutual consent?!)
But, what about live-in relationships? Are the premises the same? For one thing, live-in relationships where two single people decide to live together, are still a rarity in India, notwithstanding the media hype. Such relationships are likely to happen only when both partners are financially independent; few women are likely to get into such a relationship when they don’t have their own money. In the Indian context, I think many long-term live-in relationships will eventually end in marriage, succumbing to pressure from family. But what of the small percentage who don’t? Where kids are involved, women may still take the larger share of responsibility. But otherwise, where women are completely independent, and in a sense, both parties have made a conscious choice not to get into a traditional marriage, is not maintenance again succumbing to the same premise of man, independent, woman, dependent? Infact, this is true not just of live-ins, but of some modern marriages too.
On the other hand, certainly, women who have compromised on their own career (or never had one to begin with) need this protection. And they will be the majority. And it is not fair to discriminate among them, based on whether they have a marriage certificate or not, if in every other way, they have been living as partners. For a small number of high earning and fully independent women, perhaps it is not as relevant, but then, since laws will need to be made keeping in mind the good of the largest number of people, I think I am more or less in favour of women in long-term relationships, whether marriage or live-ins, being entitled to maintenance.
What I find difficult to digest, is such protection being extended to another type of live-ins, which is not really a live-in the Western sense of the word, but what is traditionally called a ’second marriage’. Now, bigamy in India is illegal (except for Muslims, which frankly is ridiculous, and for once, I support the BJP’s demands, for a uniform civil code; it could protect women in many ways). If a woman has been duped into believing that she is the first wife, and is unaware of the man’s first marriage, certainly she deserves all the rights conferred by marriage, and moreover, the man should be prosecuted. But women who enter willingly into such a situation, knowing fully well that the man is already married? I honestly don’t see why they deserve any benefits. Well yes, one can point out any number of extenuating circumstance, but effectively, bigamy is illegal, so I don’t see any someone who knowingly breaks the law should be offered a safety net. So, I think cases of bigamy should be dealt with differently, on a case-by-case and not be clubbed with live-in relationships between single people.
Overall though, I think as a society, atleast we are making a beginning by admitting that marriage need not be the only form of partnership. While societal acceptance of alternative relationships is very far away, giving them legal sanction is still a good start.
- Related Posts You May Like
- Only the virtuous can cover up
- In-laws, Outlaws and Expectations
- Sab Kaam Mummy Kyon Karti Hai?
i always thought a live in was entered into because one was unsure/ hesitant to commit fully and needed the freedom to walk out
by that logic neither the woman nor the man need any compensation once they call off a live in relationship
however if there are children involved- they need to be taken care of by both parents ideally
A living in relationship as far as I understand is partnership between a man and woman without the pressure to make it work even if one sidedly. I do not question the merit of such an arrangement but does it not allow the couple to break off even without trying? Students may hate exams but under pressure they do try to come out with flying colors.No one likes to fail but the pressure to pass makes them work towards it. Liberal laws may not only grant social sanction but may also undermine the efforts of those who have tried and succeeded in modifying an unfavorable marreied status to a congenial one. I worry about the children in question and to them the court ruling may be a boon. But a woman who makes a conscious choice of marrying an already married man or chooses a living in relationship over marriage is perhaps financially empowered and needs no maintenance?
Art, Padma-ji, thank you for your comments.
Art - your point is one way of thinking. But, I thought to myself - is maintenance a compensation for having been married, or is maintenance a compensation for the loss of earning potential? Study after study has shown that around the world, women do much, much more than an equal share of housework and child-care. While live-ins may be portrayed in the media as ‘modern’, I don’t really see household duty sharing to be fundamentally different in a long-term relationship, whether it is a live-in or marriage, and especially once kids enter the picture. There will of course be more egalitarian couples, but by and large, the average norms will apply. So, in that sense, I don’t see the need to link maintenance to marriage. Also, nor do I think that all live-ins are necessarily because of lack of commitment. Perhaps some people simply do not view marriage as the default?
Padma-ji, I think our understanding of live-ins is a bit different. Certainly, some people may not feel any pressure to make it work, but I believe tha, even without societal pressure, there is enough emotional attachment in long-term relationships for most people to feel the pressure. And where it is not there, no legal ties will make it work. For women who choose to marry an already married man, well that is bigamy, and I don’t think that should be falling under the same area. The rest - same as I wrote to Art!
Having said that, yes, perhaps the quantum of maintenance (in both cases) could be decided depending on the circumstances; someone who has never had a career/no qualifications to work may need more support. (I think this is already at the discretion of the courts).