The Supreme Court of India has delivered a recent judgment regarding the application of the Prevention of Domestic Violence to women in live-in relationships. With all due respect to the court, the judgment which appears to be pro-woman, actually reveals the general mindset of society, particularly men, towards women and women’s issues. The judges extended the protection of the law against violence to women who were in live-in relationships, which were not marriage, but laid down so many riders that the protection would only become available if the live-in relationship was almost a marriage. The court did not — perhaps did not want to take into account — the plight of hundreds of exploited women who suffer great abuse at the hands of male partners who are not married to them. The court has laid down conditions which include the rider that the woman in a live-in relationship would only be eligible for the protection of the law if both her partner and she were unmarried, and if they had lived together in a way that society had recognised them as partners as in marriage. Their lordships decided that “keeps” or “concubines” would not be entitled to the protection of the law.
The Additional Solicitor General of India Indira Jaisingh justifiably expressed strong opposition to the language used by the court, which was highly derogatory to women. It is insulting and humiliating to call women “keeps”. It is not my intention to pronounce a value judgment on extra marital relationships. Obviously the suffering and humiliation of a wife with an adulterous husband is something, which is very unacceptable, and any right thinking society cannot condone the behaviour of cheating spouses. However, to call someone a “kept” woman, because she is in a relationship with a man who is not her husband, is to objectify and diminish her status as a human being. While not condoning the ethics of extra marital relationships, the fact remains that the woman in that relationship cannot be dismissed like a piece of furniture or a chattel which is bought and paid for. It would be unwise in the extreme to lump perceived “morals” as interpreted by a patriarchical society to blame a woman alone for an extra marital relationship or to presume that she does not have feelings or emotions, does not contribute to the relationship, or is not entitled to the protection of law.
Property and financial rights of those in live-in relationships, and their children would be, and indeed has been the subject of intense legal and jurisprudential scrutiny. It has often been observed that children are never illegitimate, only their parent’s relationship could be termed as illegitimate. This is something that is natural and certainly worthy of debate. After all, if women and men in extra marital relationships enjoy the same property rights as legally wedded spouse, it would create anarchy in our society besides being grossly unfair to the spouse who remains legally wedded to the erring partner. However, domestic violence is an entirely different concept, and needs to be viewed in a different light.
Often women in such live-in relationships are badly exploited by their partners and frequently beaten and abused. The law against domestic violence should certainly be extended to protect them. It is simply wrong to refuse to extend the protection of a law, which prohibits physical violence against a woman, for the reason alone that her relationship with the man is not legal or morally right. Violence, particularly inside the home is abhorrent and should not be condoned in any society, and the legality of the relationship, is quite simply not any consideration at all in this case. This attitude of the court reflects the patriarchical mindset of male judges, who have unfortunately tied up their concept of morality with human rights. It is the duty of the law and the court to protect every citizen from physical violence and to punish those who perpetrate it, and it would be a violation of a woman’s human rights if the law is not extended to her, for the reason alone that her relationship is not sanctified by law.
A similar patriarchical mindset of the court was evident when female flight attendants then called airhostesses, approached the Supreme Court with the complaint that their constitutional right of protection against discrimination on the ground of gender was violated by an order of the management of Air India, which had decreed that while airhostesses had to be grounded when the attained the age of 40 years, male flight attendants could continue to fly until retirement. The Supreme Court stunned all women by asking the lawyer for the airhostesses how he would like to be served by an “old woman”. Presumably for the court old men were perfectly fine. The legitimate grievance of the women was that there should be uniform standards for men and women. While the women’s weight was strictly monitored, and they were made to undergo annual medical examination, such rules were not applicable to men. Outraged activists campaigning for women’s rights demanded to know whether such ugly discrimination was permissible in a civilised society, and if such an enlightened place as the highest court in the land could go so far as to say that only women flight attendants had to be young and attractive. Despite the outcry, the court remained adamant, and it took considerable campaigning by women members of Parliament before Air India amended the internal order to remove gender discrimination.
The Supreme Court is the last court of appeal, a place that every citizen looks up to enforce his/her constitutional rights. Unfortunately the distinguished array of Supreme Court judges contain very few women. Even more unfortunate is the fact that male chauvinist and patriarchical values, which portray woman in a very demeaning light, are reflected in the judgments and utterances of the highest echelons of our legal system. The women of India deserve a better deal than this.

Jayanthi Natarajan is a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha and AICC spokesperson.
The views expressed in this column are her own.