Revision summary
Courts recognised some live-in unions as in the nature of marriage for protection. They did not abolish marriage or copy a Western pact. Census and NFHS still show near-universal marriage and endogamy. Future: plural legal recognition at the margin; honour marriage at the centre. Feminist protection, not lifestyle, is the sociological core of the cases. Caste control continues beside the bench.
Model answer
Introduction
Indian courts have, in several judgments, treated long, consensual live-in unions as attracting some protections of a relationship in the nature of marriage, especially for women and children. That intervention does not abolish marriage. It signals a legal future in which family is more than one ritual form.
Body
What the courts did
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act recognised relationships in the nature of marriage.
- Supreme Court observations on live-in as not criminal, and on legitimacy and maintenance in some fact-patterns, reduced the monopoly of the wedding as the only door to rights.
- The judiciary did not create a full French-style civil pact. It patched harm.
Marriage and family as they stand
- Census and NFHS still show marriage as nearly universal, early for many women, and caste-endogamous.
- Irawati Karve’s regional kinship and patriarchal residence have not vanished because a bench spoke.
- Family remains the site of care, property, and honour. Ulrich Beck’s individualisation is only a thin urban layer.
Future paths
- Pluralisation: marriage stays the honourable default; live-in becomes a legally seen margin in cities.
- Women’s property and exit rights may slowly follow the court, as they did after maintenance case law.
- Backlash: families and personal-law politics may tighten control, which is a Durkheimian sacred of the group.
- Children of live-in unions push the law toward parentage over ritual.
Sociological reading
- Anthony Giddens’s confluent love describes the aspiration, not the Indian majority.
- Feminist legal studies, after Ann Oakley and Indian women’s groups, treat the intervention as protection, not as a lifestyle ad.
- Caste panchayats still punish choice. The future is dual: court file and street honour.
Discussion
- The future of marriage is likely modification, not death.
- The future of family is continued centrality with more legally visible non-marital cores in a minority.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD CT[Judicial intervention] --> RGT[Some rights without wedding] MAR[Marriage honour] --> FAM[Family as default] LIVE[Live-in minority] --> RGT HON[Caste honour] --> RES[Resistance]
Conclusion
Judicial intervention on live-in relationships uncoupled some rights from the wedding without dethroning marriage. NFHS and Census still describe a marrying society. The plausible future is a legally plural family field under a still-strong marital honour code. Courts opened a side door; they did not rebuild the house.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
How, according to Merton, are deviant subcultures generated ?
Next question in the 2019 paper (Q8). View answer →
-
Did the Supreme Court legalise live-in as marriage?
It treated some unions as attracting protections. It did not make a new personal-law status equal to nikah or saptapadi.
-
Will family disappear?
Unlikely. Care and property still sit in households. Forms may pluralise.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2021 · Q7(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Explain how the pattern of patriarchy is being altered in a family and at the workplace in the present context. -
2021 · Q8(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 20 marks
Discuss the changing nature of kinship relations in the contemporary world. -
2018 · Q1(e) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
What are the new forms of family in developed societies? Discuss -
2018 · Q6(b) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Distinguish between family and household with reference to the concept of development of the household. -
2017 · Q5(d) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Examine 'patriarchal bargain ' as gendered division of work in contemporary India -
2017 · Q7(a) · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Examine the relationship between the contemporary trends in marriage and changing from family -
2016 · Q8(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
Distinguish between family and household as sociological concepts. -
2015 · Q6(c) · Sociology GS 1 · 15 marks
How do the rules of descent and alliance in kinship differ from each other? Illustrate.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2019 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Discuss the historical antecedents of the emergence of Sociology as a discipline
Sociology
Sociology emerged when industry, the state, and revolution made society a problem. Enlightenment comparison and Saint-Simon–Comte positivism supplied permission. Nisbet’s conservative themes of community and authority also fed the field. Marx, Durkheim, and Weber turned the name into a discipline. Census offices made method a public craft.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2019 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
Davis and Moore made it clear that social stratification is a functional necessity and also an unconscious device. Discuss
Stratification and Mobility: Concepts
Davis and Moore: unequal rewards fill important roles; the device is unconscious. Tumin: importance is politically defined. Marx and Weber add exploitation, status, and party. Caste and gender close talent before sorting begins. Use the thesis for incentives; do not use it as a full theory of inequality.
Q1(c) · UPSC Mains 2019 · Sociology GS 1 · 10 marks
What is the Marxist concept of 'fetishism of commodities'?
Sociology
Fetishism of commodities: social relations among producers appear as relations among things. Exchange-value hides labour time as price. The illusion is socially real, not a personal superstition. Lukács extended it as reification. Gig pay and piece-rates still carry the appearance.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.