Live-in Relationship, Pre-marital Sex not an Offence: SC


NEW DELHI, Mar 24 (PTI): In an observation that will cheer votaries of pre-marital sex and live-in-partners, the Supreme Court on Tuesday opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.

"When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence," a three judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan observed.

The court said even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology.

The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.

The apex court made the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petiton filed by noted south Indian actress Khusboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-maritial sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005.

The judges grilled the counsel for some of the complainants in the case and repeatedly stressed that the perceived immoral activities cannot be branded as offence.

The argument of the counsel was that her comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and country's ethos.

"Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life," the apex court said apparently referring to Article 21 which granted right to life and liberty as a Fundamental Right.

The apex court further said the views expressed by Khusboo were personal.

"How does it concern you? We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?" the bench asked the counsel.

The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after the said interview.

"How many homes have been affected can you tell us," the bench asked while enquiring whether the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, "Then, how are you adversely affected?"

Khusboo had approached the apex court after the Madrash High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the criminal cases filed against her throughout Tamil Nadu.

 

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • Rammy,, Bangaluru

    Sun, Feb 27 2011

    Definetly, not illeagal. Live-in relation as long as mutual consent exists, cannot be construed as an offence. No individual or society should be affected directly or indirectly. It is an individuals choice and to be taken prudently so, as per the spirit of article 21 of constitution. The relationship between two adult male-female is divine and part & parcel of this great evolution of humankind. It may be through marriage or otherwise as devised by matured human being himself,keeping in view of the requirement of continuous evolution theory. It is a bioligical/physiological requirement of humans too, which needs to be experienced at certain stage of life cycle, for a feeling of fulfillment and gratification etc. Through relations one gets to know the real meaning of this life. But, however, trying to get undue coverage,media hype and popularity in this topic is to be discouraged by judiciary and it did so prudently, congrats and welcom for that. So, let the divine relationships between male and female beings prevail & prosper for ever and accelerate the process of evolution for ever in this planet. By this process, human race gets benifitted immensely through faster rate of evolution and my full support & salutations for its followers.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • anand jeppu, dubai,bajpe

    Wed, Mar 24 2010

    It is worst immoral judgement.if we consider krishna as model, then it  is permissible to marry 16000 girls. is it permissble. rethink about the court decision.

    DisAgree [1] Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Abdulla Madumoole, Abu Dhabi

    Wed, Mar 24 2010

    When Supreme Court says that there is no offense in premarital sex or live-in relationships under Article 21 of the Constitution, it doesn’t mean that Supreme Court has given an open license for premarital sex and live-in relationships. It has just noted that there is no law or any provision in our Constitution which prohibits such an act.

    Please do not misinterpret the Supreme Court observation. But, I feel Supreme Court should not have given the example of Sri Krishna and Radha, when these two personalities are divine, how can we compare our actions to those two. They should have simply observed whether the interview given by Khushboo is her fundamental right of life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution or not.

    DisAgree [1] Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Vernon, Uppoor/Dubai

    Wed, Mar 24 2010

    This is a very good judgement, atleast the number of perverts will come down. Sex is a taboo topic in India and thats why we have perverts.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Lydia Lobo, Kadri

    Wed, Mar 24 2010

    Anamika,

    You contribute to the knowledge of readers by posting your views, i.e. whether you are for or against the ruling. Drawing SRS into the field at your convenience is cunningness.

    Once you drag SNS into the picture, you got to face their nuisance on Valentines day too ! You can't control the Vaanar's you see ?

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • anamika, Mangalore

    Tue, Mar 23 2010

    Here we need organization like Rama sene. This is not our culture. This is a foreign culture and not welcome in India. Muthalik come out and show your might..

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • nisa, abu dhabi

    Tue, Mar 23 2010

    The irony is that the court it self gives green signal to violate and break happy homes. The western countries are back to family / responsibility after wasting more than century of broken marital societies and fed up with mere physical pleasure.

    If pre-marital sex is not an offence, then what is meaning of civil society, civilization. Then why petition for divorce? Who will care to bore parental responsibility?

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Melwin Pais, Mangalore/B'lore

    Tue, Mar 23 2010

    It makes sense at lot of levels. The court doesn't say it recommends it it's just that it is not a punishable offense.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Ozy , Mangalore

    Tue, Mar 23 2010

    This is one of the best judgment that court has delivered.If two souls agree for sex or for that matter want to live together why some one has to object. Hey, Cops now you can't harass people on this pretext and make money

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Ahmed, Mangalore

    Tue, Mar 23 2010

    In our great country people have a habbit of poking their nose in issues which are not related to them at all. I assume, it is the adverse effect of being unemployed and having lot of time to spend on others personal affairs. Rather, its a kind of blackmail.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: Live-in Relationship, Pre-marital Sex not an Offence: SC



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.