Daily Times

Recently, in an interview with British Vogue, Malala Yousafzai, a Nobel Laureate from Pakistan answered a question about marriage thus: “I still don’t understand why people have to get married. If you want to have a person in your life, why do you have to sign marriage papers, why can’t it just be a partnership?” This shocked many Pakistanis, who took strong exception to her words, particularly when Malala has herself reached marriageable age. The religious right reacted sharply against her statement, while in intellectual circles, the kind of marriage she alluded to became the subject of debate. Surprisingly, little has ever been discussed or written about in our part of the world on this fast-emerging trend in the West which sanctions co-habitation outside the framework of marriage.

We must, at the outset, concede that Malala is no ordinary person and has full right to freely hold her opinion, which she candidly expressed in the interview. She has lived in Britain for a long time and has keenly observed life and traditions there. Thus what she says is only her personal opinion. She has not yet entered into any kind of relationship to invite such a bitter reaction. Her father has categorically denied the news and stated that she was quoted out of context. Whatever may be the case, it is good that she has drawn our attention to a trend of cohabitation, which remains absolutely alien to our society, and whose genesis we must at least explore for our own understanding.

Marriage in our culture is a function between two families, whereas a live-in relationship is only between two people and is entered into independently, of free will. And if a child is born to the couple in such a relationship, it cannot be called illegitimate. Rather, the father is obliged to support the child. Though the mother may decide whether his name is included on the birth certificate.

In our context, living with someone before marriage remains taboo, especially since our society pre-supposes that the bride-to-be must be a virgin, and not impure. This is our traditional thought which is widely accepted.

Couples in a live-in relationship are not obligated to support one another after separation, unless they have settled the terms by legal instrument. This can lead to financial issues for one or both partners

Young couples enter into live-in relationships because they feel that this gives them a sense of freedom in the choice of their partner without any restrictions imposed by the institution of marriage. In a live-in relationship, one can leave or stay whenever he or she feels things aren’t working out. But marriage, on the other hand, aims at keeping the couple together for a lifetime. Hence the dissolution of a duly registered marriage (which is a social contract) becomes a time consuming exercise.

Here, in Pakistan, a certain religious sanctity is attached to marriage; which is believed to be made in heaven. Thus, subconsciously, couples work hard to make their relationship last for a long time; till death do them part. Therefore, many consider marriage a stabler form of relationship. By contrast, a live-in relationship, which does not bind the couple through a legal document, may be be temporary and volatile. With no support from society, it also makes the partners feel unstable and insecure.

There are many reasons why people choose to live together without getting married. Many couples view it as a trial period before tying the knot. Some avoid marriage because of the fear of adjustment, in which case they have to go through a cumbersome procedure to seek divorce. Whereas in a partnership, they can easily walk out of this live-in relationship as they feel, without neither social pressure nor legal restriction. Many people live with partners for economic reasons, especially when the cost of living in urban areas is too expensive.

The dynamics of cohabitation, like many other changes, have undergone a paradigm shift in the new millennium. More often, these couples live together without a marriage certificate, and feel happy and more independent than those who are formally married.

There are, however, many disadvantages in live-in relationships. When it ends, the emotional shock may be as severe as that of a legal divorce.

A live-in relationship has no legal guidelines to govern its terms. Thus there are a lot of difficulties in the division of assets through mutual consent of both parties. In case of deadlock, seeking legal remedy becomes more confusing, which is its biggest drawback.

Another disadvantage is that such relationships do not automatically cover inheritance in the event of death. In the case of common-law spouses, the burden of proof may be a tedious process; with other family members staking legal claim. If one of the partners dies, the joint property will be automatically inherited by the surviving partner. However, if the property is legally owned by only one partner, they will need to make a will to ensure that the other is provided for. In the absence of a will, the asset will be inherited by the next of kin.

Couples in a live-in relationship are not obligated to support one another after separation, unless they have settled the terms by a legal instrument. This can lead to financial issues for one or both partners.

The rules governing inheritance in live-in relationships are always clear-cut. While a child born in wedlock On the other hand a child born to a married couple is the legal heir of all their assets and the responsibility of financially supporting the child rests on the parents. The institution of marriage is a more secure form of commitment for a long-term relationship. The young generation is too impetuous and cannot wait and appraise all aspects of a relationship before entering it. Most live-in relationships are made in post-haste and are established on a love- at- -first-sight basis, and without regard to long-term consequences. But our young men and women must understand that any relationship demands physical, economic, social and emotional security. Not just love.

The writer is a former member of the Provincial Civil Service, and an author of Moments in Silence