APSC CCE Mains PYQ 2023, Essay Paper: Live-in relationship: Rights and responsibilities
The Essay Paper in the APSC Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) is often the deciding factor for aspirants aiming for the top ranks. Unlike General Studies papers, the essay requires a blend of factual knowledge, philosophical depth, and—most importantly—local context.
In the APSC 2024 Mains, one of the most thought-provoking topics was: “Artificial Intelligence is today’s Frankenstein”
For an aspirant from Assam, this topic provides a unique opportunity to juxtapose cutting-edge technology with the state’s deep-rooted humanism. It allows you to move beyond global tech debates and ground the “Frankenstein” metaphor in the local realities of the Brahmaputra valley
Here is a structured, detailed look at how to approach a similar topic “Live-in relationship: Rights and responsibilities”
APSC Mains Essay Paper, 2023: Live-in relationship: Rights and responsibilities
Model Answer:
The traditional architecture of human companionship is undergoing a profound transformation as the boundaries of personal liberty expand in the twenty-first century. While marriage has long been the sanctified cornerstone of social life, the emergence of the live-in relationship represents a shift toward a more contractual and individualistic form of union. In India, this evolution is not merely a lifestyle choice but a significant legal and sociological development that challenges the historical “moral policing” of the state. A live-in relationship, characterized by two individuals cohabiting without the formal ties of marriage, carries a unique set of rights and responsibilities that reflect the balance between personal freedom and social protection. To understand this modern institution, we must analyze it through the lenses of judicial recognition, gender justice, and the evolving “Dharma” of the modern family.
Historically, the Indian legal and social framework viewed cohabitation outside of marriage with a degree of skepticism, often labeling it as “concubinage” or a moral transgression. However, the judiciary has acted as the vanguard of change, recognizing that the “Right to Life” under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to choose one’s partner and live according to one’s values. The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that if a man and a woman live together for a significant period and represent themselves as a couple to society, the law will presume a relationship “in the nature of marriage.” This judicial empathy has shifted the narrative from “criminality” to “civil rights,” ensuring that individuals in such unions are not left in a legal vacuum.
The primary right associated with live-in relationships in the Indian context is the “Right to Maintenance.” Recognizing the vulnerability of women in domestic setups, the judiciary has extended the protection of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 to women in live-in unions. This means that a woman in a long-term cohabitation has the right to claim financial support and protection from abuse, similar to a legally wedded wife. This is a realistic intervention aimed at preventing “structural injustice” where a partner could be abandoned without any resources after years of emotional and physical investment. It acknowledges that while the “contract” of marriage may be missing, the “substance” of the relationship deserves the protection of the state.
Furthermore, the rights of children born out of such unions represent a critical dimension of social justice. In a landmark shift, the law now recognizes these children as “legitimate,” ensuring they have the right to inherit the property of their biological parents. This aligns with the global movement toward the “Best Interests of the Child,” ensuring that the choices of the parents do not result in the “stigmatization” or “disinheritance” of the offspring. In a state like Assam, where customary laws and traditional values are deeply ingrained, these legal protections serve as a “modern canopy” that protects the innocent from the shifts in social morality.
However, the “mirror of rights” is incomplete without the “weight of responsibilities.” A live-in relationship is not a “license for irresponsibility.” Because it lacks the formal vows of marriage, the responsibility of maintaining “mutual consent” and “transparency” is even higher. Both partners carry the responsibility of financial honesty and emotional integrity. Unlike marriage, where the state provides a defined exit route through divorce, the “dissolution” of a live-in relationship is often abrupt and unregulated. This places a heavy moral responsibility on individuals to ensure that the separation does not lead to the exploitation or abandonment of the more vulnerable partner.
From a sociological perspective, the live-in relationship serves as a “testing ground” for compatibility, reflecting a move toward “rational companionship” over “prescribed unions.” It allows individuals to build a life based on “interdependence and cooperation” without the immediate pressure of external family expectations. Yet, this freedom comes with the social responsibility of navigating the “stigma” that still persists in many parts of the country. For the youth in our local urban centers like Guwahati, this choice often involves a difficult negotiation between “personal aspiration” and “parental tradition.” The responsibility here lies in fostering a dialogue that respects the wisdom of the past while embracing the realities of the present.
The ethical dimension of this union revolves around the concept of “Dharma,” which in its truest sense means “that which upholds.” A relationship, whether formal or informal, is upheld by the values of respect, care, and loyalty. When two people decide to live together, they enter into a “tacit contract of care.” The state’s intervention through laws is merely a backup for the failure of this internal “moral code.” The Sustainable Development Goal of “Gender Equality” (SDG 5) is practiced in the kitchen and the living room of these homes, where traditional gender roles are often questioned and redefined.
Critics often argue that live-in relationships lead to the “fragility of the social fabric” and a decline in the “sanctity of the family.” However, if we look through a multidimensional lens, we see that a “voluntary union” based on mutual respect can sometimes be more stable than a “forced marriage” held together by social fear. The goal of a progressive society should be to ensure that every individual lives in a safe, respectful, and dignified environment. Whether that environment is created through a “marriage certificate” or a “cohabitation agreement” is secondary to the “quality of the human bond.”
In the context of the North East, where community bonds and tribal customs often provide their own systems of “natural justice,” the legal recognition of live-in relationships adds another layer of security. It ensures that modern legal standards of “equity and fairness” reach every corner of the land. We must move toward a society where the “Dharma of the State” is to protect the rights of its citizens without encroaching upon their “Right to Privacy.”
In conclusion, the live-in relationship is an institution of “evolving liberties.” It carries the right to be protected from abuse and the right to seek justice, but it also carries the responsibility of integrity and mutual care. It is a reflection of a world that is moving from “status” to “choice.” As we build a “Viksit Bharat,” our legal and social systems must be flexible enough to accommodate these new forms of companionship while remaining firm in their commitment to “justice and equality.”
As we look toward the horizon of a more inclusive society, let us remember that the strength of a nation lies in the “strength of its relationships.” Whether these relationships are “stitched together” by law or by love, they must be “blessed and virtuous” in their conduct. In the immortal spirit of our heritage, which emphasizes the “oneness of the soul,” let us treat every union with the “reverence” it deserves. In the words of the poet, “Siro senehee mor vasa jononi,” just as we protect the purity of our mother tongue, we must protect the “humanity and dignity” of every individual choice, ensuring that our progress is truly “inclusive and fair” for all.
✨ Looking for top-quality APSC Mains Guidance with Personalised Mentor?
🔔 Join Our WhatsApp Study Group!
For exclusive access to premium quality content, including study materials, current affairs, MCQs, and model answers for APSC CCE and other Assam competitive exams.
Click here to join: SuchitraACS Study WhatsApp Group
📚 Want to know more about SuchitraACS’s most affordable courses?
Click here to know more: SuchitraACS Courses for APSC CCE and Assam Competitive Examinations
