Live in relation is no sin- rules apex Court

The apex court is not the competent authority to declare live in relation or premarital sex or extra marital sex as no act of sin. It can only judge a relationship only on the light of the law of the country. Divine or religious law is not its domain.

Live in relation is no sin. Says supreme Court. As 'sin' is a religious and not legal concept, obviosly here 'sin' means 'crime or offence under law'. In fact even casual consensual sex is not unlawful. The apex court has also given some guidle lines for safeguarding the women in such relation. Living in same house, appearing in society as man and wife, joint bank account etc are some ways to decide whether the couple are in live in relation.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/live-in-relationship-no-sin--sc-033801702.html

Yes I read it. Apex court eight guide lines to decide a live in relation. Some thing courts can not decide. These are purely social matter. It is right live in relation is not sin but it will give birth to many sins.

Live in relation is no sin. Says supreme Court. As 'sin' is a religious and not legal concept, obviosly here 'sin' means 'crime or offence under law'. In fact even casual consensual sex is not unlawful. The apex court has also given some guidle lines for safeguarding the women in such relation. Living in same house, appearing in society as man and wife, joint bank account etc are some ways to decide whether the couple are in live in relation.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/live-in-relationship-no-sin--sc-033801702.html

Now, spouse can be like husband and wife, but what abt. society, they will not ever accept such relationship, and that will be felt by couple when their children grown up and waiting to be marry.

The apex court is not the competent authority to declare live in relation or premarital sex or extra marital sex as no act of sin. It can only judge a relationship only on the light of the law of the country. Divine or religious law is not its domain.

I think Apex court can and does have the authority to make changes as and when required depending on the changed circumstances.If one is particular about religion they need not seek the help of the court but sort it according to their belief but for others it is very relevant and a step in the right direction...

Societal acceptance is important and in these cases, society sees different especially to ladies, for this it is always a nice idea for backing up laws, as earlier it was not there, but still there are some unanswered questions which can only be solved through active reforms within societies.

Live in relation is no sin. Says supreme Court. As 'sin' is a religious and not legal concept, obviosly here 'sin' means 'crime or offence under law'. In fact even casual consensual sex is not unlawful. The apex court has also given some guidle lines for safeguarding the women in such relation. Living in same house, appearing in society as man and wife, joint bank account etc are some ways to decide whether the couple are in live in relation.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/live-in-relationship-no-sin--sc-033801702.html

Now, spouse can be like husband and wife, but what abt. society, they will not ever accept such relationship, and that will be felt by couple when their children grown up and waiting to be marry.

Simple. If the couples care for what the society thinks and the repercussions of living together, they should not go for Live in relation. Choice is theirs. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

Live in relation is no sin. Says supreme Court. As 'sin' is a religious and not legal concept, obviosly here 'sin' means 'crime or offence under law'. In fact even casual consensual sex is not unlawful. The apex court has also given some guidle lines for safeguarding the women in such relation. Living in same house, appearing in society as man and wife, joint bank account etc are some ways to decide whether the couple are in live in relation.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/live-in-relationship-no-sin--sc-033801702.html

Now, spouse can be like husband and wife, but what abt. society, they will not ever accept such relationship, and that will be felt by couple when their children grown up and waiting to be marry.

Simple. If the couples care for what the society thinks and the repercussions of living together, they should not go for Live in relation. Choice is theirs. You cannot have the cake and eat it too.

It is right that it is matter of choice and we need not to care about it. But we are part of society and any bad or good also affected us.

Though it may not be sin rule but still people don't accept it easily. I have seen people living in live in relation they are always seen with haterd by neighbors. :blink:

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

They cannot marry, as acc. to Hindu marriage act when a man marries second time he will be arrested and the lady will not get his surname, Boney Kapoor never divorced his first wife, so it is live in relationships as both Sri and Boney are living together under same roof and they have two girl child's. It is the similar case as that of Hema Malini.

Ok. You say according to Hindu law a man cannot marry another woman without divorcing the first wife. Thats an offence. But live in relationship is not applicable to only married people and living together. An unmarried man and woman also can live under the same roof as man and wife. And that's not an offence. That's what the Apex court says.
Bony Kapoor and Sridevi before marriage they did not live together. Its not the same as Boney kapoor marrying Srdevi without divorcing his first wife.

They are living together before marriage, and after the so called announcement, they are living together, if they announce as married couple the court will arrest Boney. Live in relationships is staying together as husband and wife but not married, it is this case.

The whole world knows they are married. Why Bony kapoor was not arrested ?

May be he was not arrested because his first wife never filed a case against him. In case of Hema Malini they both accepted Islam religion first according to which one is allowed to have more than one marriage. :laugh:

Peeping into the history of legislation or more aptly laws one can easily understand this development in its true light and perspective. Most or many of laws which came to be adopted and accepted in their modern form preexisted as such in the form of customs and social practices. A good number of them bearing the genius of our forefathers formed parts of our modern laws with suitable changes and amendments as societies advanced mainly because these were rational and logical. Law, being a very dynamic domain , hates any form static resistances, undergoing transformation keeping in mind the needs of society. Now coming to Supreme Court's decision in this regard, I must say that acceptance of any custom is decided by the majority of society and once again I am stressing the word 'Acceptance' and 'Acceptability' to be very important. Legalizing 'live-in' would not ensure its acceptance or enhance its acceptability in Indian societies. It can ,at best, hope to have a 'niche' existence - nothing more or less!!

We Indians are the worst hypocrites ever ! I know of families where the man is openly having a mistress and accepted by others but give it a modern name 'living together' it becomes westernised and not acceptable...Has anyone denounced Hema malini,Jaya Prada or for that matter so many other celebrities who are all in live in relationships since whatever marriage they may have had is not legal...

Sri devi also, she married to Bony Kapoor despite his first marriage, as you have mentioned man can stay in society but the lady who is living with man can have torrid times, I do not know why this is happening, man and woman should have same respect or same denouncement. Are we living in a patriarchal society?

Sridevi married Bony kapoor. It was never a live in relationship.

Boney Kapoor has first wife, and his son from first wife is aready in film industry, the protagonist of "Ishaqjade", he never divorced his first wife and this means, with Sridevi the marriage is not approved, so it is live in relationships.

Live in relationship means a man and woman living under the SAME ROOF AS HUSBAND AND WIFE WITHOUT GETTING MARRIED Sri devi married Bony kapoor. They never lived together before marriage.

It is a live in relationship since the marriage itself is not valid or legal, the same case with Hema Malini since Dharmendra has a wife who he has not divorced..It was the same with Gemini Ganeshan who had three wives including Savitri who which were are all live in relationships except his legally wedded wife all else including Pushpavalli who was Rekhas mother were his mistresses..