In a time when marriages are souring faster than milk left out overnight, living in seems to be an attractive alternative.
No commitments, no strangling bonds, no accountability... You can supposedly walk in and out as you please, without the accompanying murky legal hassles. It would appear an Utopian situation — all the benefits of marriage without its stifling drawbacks.
But is it really such a paradise? Women in the eye of the world, among them danseuse-publisher Mallika Sarabhai and the late Priya Tendulkar, have termed marriage “a crumbling, outdated institution which stifles an individual with its high expectations and stereotypical roles.”
Even Deepti Naval, the actress best known for her conventional girl-next-door roles, lived in with her “perfect man” for seven years after her marriage broke up; she didn’t feel “any need to be married”.
And the happily-married, feisty actress Lilette Dubey feels free to say, “I tell my daughters, if you don’t want to get married, don’t. It’s your call. I personally believe a marriage is needed for kids, it allows a better atmosphere for children to grow up in. In this day and age, it’s very difficult to bring up kids who are not from a marriage.
"But other than that, isn’t it somewhat an antiquated institution? I feel you can be in a relationship for 60 years if you want."
A piece of paper ensures nothing.” Yes, more and more people are living in... But what is the final scenario? If living in is really the never-ending picnic it appears to be, how come so many of these couples finally settle for holy matrimony?"
CHECKING OUT THE GOODS For many young couples, living in is a “trial arrangement before permanently settling down”, reveals Dr Rashna Imhasly Gandhy, a psychologist and marriage counsellor from Delhi. She feels, “We are not insular any more, values are changing and these changes are influencing everyone. A live-in relationship is essentially to check whether the partnership works.”
Dr Gandhy, also the author of The Psychology of Love, Wisdom of Indian Mythology, emphasises the need for total commitment. “Eros — the basis of living in,” she says, “is unstable, selfish and short-lived. It disrupts the family. And then, there is the future generation to think of.
There is need for commitment and stability for evolution. In the long run, children need these from both parents. They need role models.”
Shrishti and Mac, from California, have just tied the knot after seven years of living in, precisely for this reason. “We want a family, kids,” Shrishti explains, “and I wouldn’t want mine to live in any insecurity.”
Meher and Jaideep Sen of Mumbai have lived together for a while, as their respective families were dead against their marrying. “Thank goodness, they’ve finally understood our love for and commitment to each other,” says Meher. They will be getting married early next year.
While living in works fine as a ‘test run’, more and more people continue to look for long-term stability and security, and marriage still emerges as that ultimate guarantee to commitment.
But cautions Dr Vijay Nagaswami, from Madras, an eminent psychiatrist and author of the recently-released Courtship And Marriage — A Guide For Indian Couples , “It is the commitment that defines a relationship; emotional commitment can be as binding as a legal bond.”
A statement which is beautifully substantiated by Mita and Hassan’s story. At the age of 22, Mita, a stained glass artiste from Hyderabad, had walked away, completely disillusioned, from her first marriage.

“That very day, I met Hassan. I’d gone to the riding club and we got talking. When I said I knew riding, he thought I was talking of the usual hill station trotting and so he didn’t give me his best horse.” “But by the third day, she was riding my favourite horse,” recalls Hassan.
The heartwarming fact is that Mita suffers from multiple sclerosis and Hassan has stood by her throughout like the Rock of Gibraltar — marriage or no marriage.
Mita adds, “It is all about love, faith and unconditional acceptance. I’ve never felt insecure in this relationship.” However, after 14 years of living together, they are now set to marry. But, they insist, “Marriage is a social and religious formality, it’s for making the children feel more secure.”
The legitimacy of it all appears to be a major point in favour of marriage — even if only for the kids to come.
The Third Person Factor