Live- in relationship II
Last day the Supreme Court spoke through its judgment on live-in relationship and found that there is nothing wrong in this respect. One cinema actress namely Khushbu had in 2005 gave statement in respect of this theory and opined in favour of the same. Few activists filed criminal cases before magistrates and few writ petitions in the High Court. The Supreme Court quashed all the criminal cases against her.
The day on which the court pronounced its judgment perhaps the TV media had no other sensational news to kill 24 hours time; it took this subject to high light. In fact there is nothing special in the judgment to comment. The opinion expressed in the judgment is neither dogmatic nor pragmatic. It is just a routine judgment and as usual TV media highlighted it.
In fact practical approach to such a relationship is just exception to Section 376 of the IPC where barring few exceptions rape with a woman of any age is offence provided it is done with free consent and that consent should be by a woman above the age of 16 years. When there is consent, sexual relations will not amount to rape. Therefore if a man has sexual relations with a woman, with her free consent, there is certainly no offence. But, in case of homosexuality mutual consent for such acts will also amount to offence.
In such cases consent has so relevancy as law does not permit such acts even done with consent. What is important is what would be the fate of such women having consented relations after the contractual period is over? What are her and her children’s right of maintenance. There are so many legal problems that the legislature had never thought about it in anticipation. Thanks to Lord McCauley in whose regime law reforms took place and laws more than 100 years old are yet relevant as they were framed anticipating future consequences. After independence no such laws have been framed.
Our system of legislation is cut and paste and to frame laws on ad hoc basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment