Madras High Court judge Justice C Karnan’s unusual interpretation of what constitutes a recognised wedding between couples appears to have opened up the Pandora’s Box.
The judge while settling a dispute over the award of maintenance to a deserted Muslim woman on Monday had held that sexual relationship between adults of legally marriageable age is sufficient to declare that their relationship had consummated.
“If the couple chooses to consummate their sexual cravings, then the act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow. Therefore, the usual marriage formalities such as tying of thaali, exchange of garlands, exchanging rings and circling around matrimonial fire pit or registering at a registration office, are to comply with certain religious customs and for the satisfaction of society,” the judge had said.
However, legal experts feel that this could be a prescription for disaster in a society where promiscuous relationship and extra-marital indulgences are not unheard of.
“You cannot force someone to be in a relation just because they were in a sexual relation once. Many people change their partners often even before marriage. The present generation has dating culture which may be mistaken as marriage as per the judgment,” cautioned leading lawyer and women’s rights activist Geetha Ramaseshan. “Producing proof for a sexual relation is not possible and people may possibly go for morphing or other activities. Such things could even be misused,” she added.Women’s Lawyers Association president D Prasanna felt the court ruling is like a double-edged sword. “In one way it will be a check on men who intend to trap innocent women into physical relations since (as per the verdict) there is a legal bonding in the relation. On the other hand many girls may use promiscuous relationship for exploiting a financially sound person,” she said. The judgment would put a question mark over persons having multiple affairs also. “Will all women with whom a male might have sexual relationship be treated as his wives,” she asked adding there is no clarity over the fate of live-in partners.
Tamil Nadu Bar Council Chairman D Selvam, however, argued that the judge’s interpretation in the instant case cannot be applied universally. “In this case, the judge has given such an interpretation only to ensure that the father is not allowed to go away without compensating his wife. But the same interpretation of a sexual relationship cannot be applied to other cases as it could lead to complications,” he explained.