DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
UPCOMING TYPES OF FAMILY AND LAW

SUBJECT
SOCIOLOGY-I

NAME OF THE FACULTY

LAKSHMIPATHI RAJU

Name of the Candidate

Roll No. & Semester
M. Aruna Sri Satya, 2015067
Semester 1, Section A

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION.4
2. ORIGIN OF FAMILY5

3. TYPES OF FAMILY..8
4. LEGISLATIONS REGARDING FAMILIES.14
5. THE IMPACT THE UPCOMING FAMILIES HAD ON THE SOCIETY15
6. CONCLUSION..18
7. BIBILIOGRAPHY19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to our respected Prof.
Lakshmipathi Raju for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project regarding

upcoming types of family and law. I have tried my best to collect information about the project in
various possible ways to depict clear picture about the given project topic

1. INTRODUCTION:
People have many ways of defining a family and what being a part of a family means to
them. Families differ in terms of economic, cultural, social, and many other factors,

but what every family has in common is that the people who call it a family are making
clear that those people are important in some way to the person calling them his family.
Families are essentially care institutions that vary across cultures and change over
time. Their essential function, historically, has been to contribute to the basic economic
survival of family members. Thus the structure of families often adapts to the economy,
and cultural ideologies and laws are created to reinforce that adaptation. Over time,
societies grow and become more complex and stratified, and the nature and quality of life
Among families become differentiated based on varying economies and the particular
position of the family within the economic system.
The question of what constitutes a family is a prime area of debate in family sociology, as
well as in politics and religion. Social conservatives tend to define the family in terms
of structure with each family member filling a certain role (like father, mother, or
child). Sociologists, on the other hand, tend to define family more in terms of the
manner in which members relate to one another than on a strict configuration of
status roles. Here, we will define family as a socially recognized group (usually
joined by blood, marriage, or adoption) that forms an emotional connection and
serves as an economic unit of society.
Sociologists understand families to be social institutions that perform vital functions for
their members and societies. They produce, nurture, and socialize children. Care for frail
and elderly family members. Provide the laborers needed for the economy and meet the
emotional needs of family members. To describe families as social entities recognizes the
fact that they are socially created and defined and vary across cultures. To refer to them
as institutions means that they embody a set of interrelated roles and responsibilities.
Cross-cultural differences, the changing nature of families and political forces often have
made defining the family a matter of some contention.1
Sociologists identify different types of families based on how one enters into them. A
family of orientation refers to the family into which a person is born. A family of
procreation describes one that is formed through marriage. These distinctions have
cultural significance related to issues of lineage.
2. ORIGIN OF FAMILY
The evolution of the family in prehistoric times consisted in the continual narrowing of
the circle originally embracing the whole tribe within which marital community between
1http://ftp.iza.org/dp4637.pdf,15/10/15,6:00am
4

the two sexes prevailed. By the successive exclusion first of closer than of ever remoter
relatives and finally even of those merely related by marriage. Every kind of group
marriage was ultimately rendered practically impossible and in the end there remained
only the one for the moment still loosely united, couple, the molecule with the dissolution
of which marriage itself completely ceases. This fact alone shows how little individual
sex love, in the modern sense of the word had to do with the origin of monogamy. The
practice of all peoples in this stage affords still further proof of this. Whereas under
previous forms of the family men were never in want of women but on the contrary, had a
surfeit of them. Women now became scarce and were sought after. Consequently with
pairing marriage begins the abduction and purchase of women widespread symptoms but
nothing more of a much more deeply rooted change that had set in.2
The pairing family itself too weak and unstable to make an independent household
necessary or even desirable did not by any means dissolve the communistic household
transmitted from earlier times. But the communistic household implies the supremacy of
women in the house, just as the exclusive recognition of a natural mother, because of the
impossibility of determining the natural father with certainty signifies high esteem for
women that is for the mothers. That woman is a slave of man at the commencement of
the society is one of the most absurd notions that have come down to us from the period
of enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Woman occupied not only a free but also a
highly respected position among all savages and all barbarians of the lower and middle
stages and partly even of the upper stage. Let Arthur Wright, missionary for many years
among the Seneca Iroquois, testify what her place still was in the pairing family: As to
their family system, when occupying the old long houses. It is probable that some one
clan predominated, the women taking husbands from other clans. Usually the female
portion ruled the house; the stores were in common; but woe to the luckless husband or
lover who was too shiftless to do his share of the providing. No matter how many
children or whatever goods he might have in the house ,he might at any time be ordered
to pack up his blanket and budge and after such orders it would not be healthful for him
to attempt to disobey. The house would be too hot for him and he had to retreat to his
own clan or as was often done go and start a new matrimonial alliance in some other. The
2 http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc121e.pdf,15/10/15,7:30am
5

women were the great power among the clans as everywhere else. They did not hesitate
when occasion required knocking off the horns as it was technically called from the head
of the chief and sending him back to the ranks of the warriors.3
As wealth increased it on the hand gave the man a more important status in the family
than the women and on the other hand created a stimulus to utilize this strengthened
position in order to overthrow the traditional order of inheritance in favour of his
children. But this was impossible as long as descent according to other right prevailed.
This had therefore to be overthrown and it was overthrown and it was not so difficult to
do this as it appears to us now. For this revolution one of the most decisive most
experienced by mankind need not have disturbed one single living member of a gen. All
the members could remain what they were previously. The simple decision sufficed that
in future the descendants of the male members should remain in the gens, but that those
of the females were to be excluded from the gens and transferred to that of their father.
The reckoning of descent through the female line and the right of inheritance through the
mother were hereby overthrown and ale lineage and right to inheritance from the father
was instituted. We know nothing as to how and when this revolution effected among the
civilized peoples. It falls entirely in prehistoric times. That it was actually affected is
more than proved by the abundant traces of mother rights which have been collected
especially by Bachofen. How easily it is accomplished can be seen from a whole number
of Indian tribes, among whom it has only recently taken place and is still proceeding
partly under the influence of increasing wealth and changed methods of life and partly
under the moral influence of civilization and the missionaries. Of eight Missouri tribes
six have male and two still remain the female lineage and female inheritance line. Among
the Shawnees, Miamis and Delawares it has became the custom to transfer the children to
the father gens by them one of the gentile names obtaining therein, in order that they may
inherit from him. Innate human causuistry to seek, to change things by changing their
names and to find loopholes for breaking through tradition. Within tradition itself
wherever a direct interest provided a sufficient motivel. As a consequence hopeless
confusion arose and matters could only be straightened out and partly were straightened
out by the transition to father right. This appears altogether to be the most natural
3https://www.aeaweb.org/assa/2006/0106_0800_1104.pdf,16/10/15,6:00pm
6

transition. As for what the experts on comparative law have to tell us regarding the ways
and means by which this transition was effected among the civilized peoples of the old
world almost mere hypotheses of course.4
The first effect of the sole rule of the men that was now established is shown in the
intermediate form of the family which now emerges the patriarchal family. Its chief
attribute is not polygamy of which more anon but the organisation of a number of
persons, bond and free, into a family under the paternal power of the head of the family.
In the Semitic form, this family chief lives in polygamy, the bondsman has a wife and
children, and the purpose of the whole organisation is the care of flocks and herds over a
limited area. The essential features are the incorporation of bondsmen and the paternal
power. The Roman family accordingly constitutes the perfected type of this form of the
family. The word familia did not originally signify the idea of our modern Philistine,
which is a compound of sentimentality and domestic discord. Among the Romans in the
beginning it did not even refer to the married couple and their children but the slaves
alone. Famulus means a household slave and familia signifies the totality of slaves
belonging to one individual. Even in the tie of Gaius the familia, id est patrimonium was
bequeathed by will. The expression was invented by the Romans to describe a new social
organism the head of which had under him wife and children and number of slaves under
the Roman paternal power with the power of life and death over them all. The term
therefore is no older than the ironclad family system of the Latin tribes which came in
after field agriculture and after legalized servitude as well as after the separation of Greek
and Latins. To which Marx adds The modern family contains in embryo not only slavery
but serfdom also, since from the very beginning it is connected with agricultural services.
It contains within itself in miniature all the antagonisms which later develop on a wide
scale within society and its state.5
Such a form of the family shows the transition of the pairing family to monogamy. In
order to guarantee the fidelity of the wife, that is the paternity of the children, the women
is placed in the mans absolute power. If he kills her, he is but exercising his right.
4 http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/legislation/shareddocs/family-law/notesbinder.pdf,17/10/15,6:00pm
5http://readingfromtheleft.com/PDF/EngelsOrigin.pdf,17/10/15,7:15pm
7

3. TYPES OF FAMILY:
Family structure has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. The "Leave it to
Beaver" family is no longer the standard, and several variations on family have been
created. There are six specific types of family structures identified by society today.
The following types of families exist today, with some families naturally falling into
multiple categories. For example, a single parent family who lives in a larger extended
family. While these types of families are distinct in definition, in practice the lines are
less clear.
NUCLEAR FAMILY:
The nuclear family is the traditional type of family structure. This family type consists of
two parents and children. The nuclear family was long held in esteem by society as being
the ideal in which to raise children. Children in nuclear families receive strength and
stability from the two-parent structure and generally have more opportunities due to the
financial ease of two adults. According to U.S. Census data, almost 70 percent of children
live in a nuclear family unit.
EXTENDED FAMILY:
This is a family consisting of a series of close relations along either the male or female
line, usually not along both.
A woman, her husband, their children and her married daughter, with her husband, would
be one form of an extended family. This kind of family is sometimes found in the west
and among tribals in South Africa. In our country, the extended family is known as joint
family.6
JOINT FAMILY:
The Indian family in general is a joint family. However, due to increase in migration and
social mobility, we see nuclear families more and more.
Iravati Karve defines the joint family as one where members live under one root, have a
common hearth, share common property, have a common purse and worship a common
deity. K.M. Kapadia and LP Desai consider the generation depth yet another
characteristic of the joint family.
On a broader plane a joint family is defined as a group of several related conjugal or
nuclear families in one household. In this family labour is pooled and all are responsible
to the same authority. Tribals do not have the joint family which is a standard pattern

6http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlresources/units/Gallagher2004Fall/DifferentKindsFamilies.pdf ,
18/10/15,8:00pm
8

found among the high caste Hindus. Among the tribals residence is generally separate for
each nuclear family though economically the family is joint.
In our country we have more than 400 tribal groups and among them the north east tribals
are in many ways different from the heartland tribals. These groups have the kind of
family which suits their geography and economy
SINGLE PARENT FAMILY:
The single parent family consists of one parent raising one or more children on his own.
Often, a single parent family is a mother with her children, although there are single
fathers as well. The single parent family is the biggest change society has seen in terms of
the changes in family structures. One in four children is born to a single mother. Single
parent families are generally close and find ways to work together to solve problems,
such as dividing up household chores. When only one parent is at home, it may be a
struggle to find childcare, as there is only one parent working. This limits income and
opportunities in many cases, although many single parent families have help from
relatives and friends.
Living together and working toward common goals, such as raising the children and
keeping up with the household duties. Many extended families include cousins, aunts or
uncles and grandparents living together. This type of family structure may form due to
financial difficulties or because older relatives are unable to care for themselves alone.
Extended families are becoming increasingly common all over the world.7
CHILDLESS FAMILIES:
While most people think of family as including children, there are couples who either
cannot or choose not to have children. The childless family is sometimes the "forgotten
family," as it does not meet the traditional standards set by society. Childless families
consist of a husband and wife living and working together. Many childless families take
on the responsibility of pet ownership or have extensive contact with their nieces and
nephews as a substitute for having their own children.
STEPFAMILY:
Over half of all marriages end in divorce, and many of these individuals choose to get
remarried. This creates the stepfamily, which involves two separate families merging into
one new unit. It consists of a new husband and wife and their children from previous
7http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01586133#page-1, 19/10/15,4;00pm
9

marriages or relationships. Stepfamilies are about as common as the nuclear family,

although they tend to have more problems, such as adjustment periods and discipline
issues. Stepfamilies need to learn to work together and also work with their exes.
GRANDPARENT FAMILY:
Many grandparents today are raising their grandchildren for a variety of reasons. One in
fourteen children is raised by his grandparents, and the parents are not present in the
child's life. This could be due to parents' death, addiction, abondonment or being unfit
parents. Many grandparents need to go back to work or find additional sources of income
to help raise their grandchildren.8
THE DIVORCED FAMILY:
Society has believed for some time that divorce is extremely negative and only hurts the
children involved. However, divorce does not have to be all negative; it can have positive
and beneficial effects as well. Before we can discuss the effects of divorce, we must look
at why couples get divorced in the first place. Reasons for a couple getting divorced can
often times not be narrowed down to one in particular, generally it happens because of a
combination of events. One sociological theory about divorce is that, the primary purpose
of marriage today seems to be the satisfaction of personal needs for affection and
emotional support. Several observers have suggested that a decline in commitment to
marriage as a bond for life may be contributing to the high level of divorce. In other
words, people today see marriage as a very different institution than they did in the past,
the biggest difference being that people no longer see marriage as a lifelong commitment.
When a couple divorces there are many different outcomes that can come to be. One of
the biggest and most important is the effect divorce has on children. Each year
approximately one-million children will experience the divorce of their parents. In the
beginning stages and sometimes for great lengths of time after that, children can be
negatively affected by this change in their family. Extensive research indicates that
children of divorced parents have more behavioral, emotional, health, and academic
problems are more likely to have conduct problems and show signs of psychological
maladjustment. They have lower academic achievement, more social difficulties, and
poorer self esteem. However, the differences in these areas compared to children whose
parents are still married are not large and can fade overtime. Behavior problems have
8https://www.scoe.org/files/ccpc-family-structures.pdf, 20/10/15,5:30pm
10

been shown to return to pre-divorce levels approximately two -years post-divorce and as
low as one tenth of adults whose parents divorced in their childhood show continued
divorce related problems.
All-in-all, divorce can be extremely negative on a child but it does not have to be. If
parents take the right steps, many of these issues can be avoided and children can lead
very normal lives. Children with divorced parents are the majority but that does not have
to be a bad thing, and for many children, it is not.9
THE BLENDED FAMILY:
The blended family is one that has started to become the focus of many more studies in
the last couple of decades especially when the family is formed after a divorce. In the
past, these types of families were not studied as much and were classified as a type of
nuclear family. They are much different but, with some hard work and determination can
be as successful as the nuclear family. A blended family consists of two adults, the
children they have from previous marriages or relationships, and the children they may
have together. Blended families are very common in today's society, as we have said
before, approximately 70% of divorced adults will remarry, however 60% of the blended
families that are formed will end up in divorce. These divorces are more likely to happen
in the first two years of the marriage because of the tremendous amount of change and
stress a new marriage can put on the members of the new family. Many new blended
families believe that this new family will work much like their previous nuclear family
but that is not the case. Studies have shown that in first time marriages the satisfaction
felt by both parties starts off extremely high and then lessons after the honeymoon period
is over compared to blended families where the initial satisfaction starts off at a medium
level and then rises over time. It is when families expect everything to be wonderful from
the start that they get into trouble. The three types of blended families are the Neo
traditional family, the Romantic family and the Matriarchal family. A Neo traditional
blended family eventually ends up looking very much like the traditional nuclear family
model that was described earlier and it is the type of blended family most likely to
succeed. The spouses reported very high levels of marital satisfaction and the children
have a lower level of behavioral problems than did children in other forms of blended
families. The second form, the Romantic blended family, is the type most likely to
9http://www.helpguide.org/home-pages/family-divorce.htm, 22/10/15,9:00pm
11

dissolve. Romantic families want to have the lives of the Neo traditional families but
they want it without the hard work involved, they expect the positive results immediately
instead of letting them develop over time through hard work. Lastly, the Matriarchal
blended family makes up about 25% of all blended families. The Matriarchal family is, as
the name suggests, a family that is headed by a woman with a high degree of domestic
competence, and a strong desire to be the family leader. Matriarchal blended families
have been shown to be very successful if the husband has similar values. Blended
families can have extremely different outcomes; it all depends on the people involved. If
the marriage does not last, it can have detrimental effects on the child.10
THE HOMOSEXUAL FAMILIES:
Gay men and lesbian women have had more than their fair share of obstacles and
problems over the years and one that is in the forefront today is their decisions to have
families. It is estimated that currently more than one in five same sex couples are raising
children which means more than a quarter of a million children have gay or lesbian
parents. And even more of these couples desire to have children but haven't been able to
do so due to a variety of reasons. Society tends to think that children being raised by gay
or lesbian parents are at a disadvantage but statistics prove otherwise. The homosexualparent family is one that is extremely misunderstood. The first misconception that society
has is the belief that successful homosexual parent families are white and upper class but
the reality is that there are more non-white gay and lesbian parents than there are white.
Gary Gates says, African-American and Latina women in same-sex couples are more
than twice as likely as their white counterparts to be raising a child. And gay AfricanAmerican men and Latinos are three times as likely to be raising children as are gay
white men. Consistent with this finding more than half of the children of same-sex
couples are non-white. Same sex couples are also not as wealthy as people seem to
believe. They make between 10 and 20 percent less money than do married heterosexual
couples of their same race. Society also has some major misconceptions when it comes to
the development of the children being raised in this type of family. The most common is
the belief that children raised by homosexual parents will end up being homosexual when
they get older. This has been proven to not be true, in fact children of gay or lesbian
10 http://vwordpress.stmarys-ca.edu/ces10/files/2012/08/Types-of-Familiesnp9dwb.pdf,23/10/15,6:30pm
12

parents are just as likely to be homosexual as any other child. Another concern is that
these children will be confused when it comes to their own gender-identity and won't
know how to show appropriate sex-role behavior. Again, these claims have been proven
multiple times to not be true. Author Suzanne Slater confirms these studies when she
writes that, Studies comparing children raised by lesbian and heterosexual mothers
repeatedly and little or no distinction in the children's gender identity, sex role
socialization, or personal sexual orientation. Overwhelmingly, the research indicates that
lesbian parenting closely resembles the child-rearing practices of heterosexual families.
In fact the major difference in children raised by a heterosexual couples and children
raised by a homosexual couple is that the children with Homosexual-parent families are
very common and do just as well of a job raising their children as heterosexual parents
do. Society needs to recognize the statistics and fully start accepting this beautiful type of
family.11
4. LEGISLATIONS REGARDING FAMILIES:
Family Violence Protection Act 2008:
The purpose of this Act is to maximize safety for children and adults who have
experienced family violence, prevent and reduce family violence to the greatest extent
possible and promote the accountability of perpetrators of family violence for their
actions.
This Act aims to achieve its purpose by
(a) Providing an effective and accessible system of family violence intervention orders
and family violence safety notices
(b) Creating offences for contraventions of family violence intervention orders and family
violence safety notices.
The Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012:
It recognizes that freedom from domestic and family violence is a human right and that
people subjected or exposed to domestic and family violence can experience physical,
emotional and psychological harm. The Act states that the protection and safety of
individuals who are experiencing or who fear domestic or family violence, including
children, is paramount. The Act aims to protect people from domestic and family violence
and to ensure those who are affected are treated with respect, and that practical
consideration is given to minimizing disruption to their lives. The Act aims to hold
11http://www.thinkingwithtype.com/misc/Type_Family_Demo.pdf, 25/10/15, 4:00pm
13

people who commit domestic and family violence accountable for their actions. This is
achieved by a court being able to make a domestic violence order that restricts the
behaviour of the person committing the violence and in some instances identifying the
behaviour as a criminal offence. The Act gives police immediate powers to respond to
domestic and family violence incidents, including the power to issue a police protection
notice. Breaching a domestic violence order or a police protection notice is a criminal
offence with serious consequences. 12
CASES LAWS:
MITTEN V. UNION OF INDIA:
The constitution vires of section 13B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1935, was challenged in this
case. It was argued that period of one year separation was unconstitutional, arbitrary and
tantamounts to artificial classification which is impermissible and such object is contrary
to the section 13B further, it was contended that there was no nexus between the object
sought to be achieved and pre condition of one year separate living as contemplated by
section 13B and that it was unreasonable and caused a lot of hardship and inconvenience
which has the effect of interfering with the fundamental freedom guaranteed under the
constitution. The parties in this case have been married for hardly six months. The family
court rejected the petition of mutual consent divorce. The petitioners there upon filed a
writ petition on the ground that the relational. By a very detailed judgment, the court
dismissed the petition.
PRAMILA BHAGAT V. AJIT RAI SINGH:
It was a case under section 34(2) of the Special Marriage Act where the trail court
dissolved marriage under section 28 of the act. By mutual consent, without reconciliatory
efforts. On appeal by the wife the order was set aside and the case remanded for fresh
disposal. It was held that because of the non compliance of the mandatory provisions of
the sub clause (2) of section 34, the decree of the trail court suffered legal infirmity and
so was not maintainable.
5. THE IMPACT EMERGING FAMILIES HAD ON SOCIETY:
Families are essentially care institutions that vary across cultures and change over time.
Their essential function, historically, has been to contribute to the basic economic
survival of family members. Thus, the structure of families often adapts to the economy,
12 https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/communityservices/violenceprevention/legislationexplained.pdf, 25/10/15,7:00pm
14

and cultural ideologies and laws are created to reinforce that adaptation. Over time,
societies grow and become more complex and stratified, and the nature and quality of life
among families becomes differentiated based on varying economies and the particular
position of the family within the economic system.13
Broadly speaking, social scientists have identified four major economies that have
existed across the span of human history: hunting and gathering, agricultural, modern,
and knowledge-based economies. All these economies still exist in various parts of the
world, and nations often have mixed economies. Families of some sort existed and
continue to exist in all of these economies and, as social institutions, are perhaps as old as
humankind. Marriage, on the other hand, is a more recent institution. Because hunting
and gathering societies existed for millennia, it is quite likely that some form of marriage,
or at least temporary partnering between women and men, emerged in the early versions
of these societies. In foraging societies, however, marriage as a stable partnership
between men and women probably took a backseat to family ties. Indeed, it was
membership in the family that best ensured physical and economic survival
Families were gradually reshaped by the discovery of agriculture for example; the right to
own land and pass it on to heirs meant that womens childbearing abilities and male
domination became more important. Rather than kinship, marriage became the center of
family life and was increasingly based on a formal contractual relationship between men,
women, and their kinship groups. The property and gender implications of marriage are
evident in the exchange of gifts between spouses and families and clearly defined rules
about the rights and responsibilities of each marital partner. During the middle Ages,
economic factors influenced marital choices more than affection, even among the poor,
and womens sexuality was treated as a form of property. Wealth and power inequalities
meant that marriages among the elite and/or governing classes were based largely on
creating political alliances and producing male children. Ensuring paternity became
important in the transfer of property to legitimate heirs, and the rights and sexuality of
women were circumscribed. Ideologies of male domination prevailed, and women,
especially those who were married to powerful men, were typically treated like chattel
and given very few rights. The property-like status of women was evident in Western
13http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/publications/Families_and_Households_FINAL.pdf,
26/10/15,9:00pm
15

societies like Rome and Greece, where wives were taken solely for the purpose of
bearing legitimate children and, in most cases, were treated like dependents and confined
to activities such as caring for children, cooking, and keeping house. The marriage trends
of the elites were often embraced, at least ideologically, by the other social classes, even
when they lacked the resources to conform to such ideologies. The focus on legalizing
marriage and male domination became common among all classes, although among the
less affluent there was less property to transfer to legitimate heirs, and patriarchy was
mediated by the contributions of women to the family income.14
The growing emphasis on formal marriage contracts and patriarchy was reinforced in
Western societies by the influence of Christianity and the law. Christianity was initially
seen as a sect of Judaism, but with the conversion of Emperor Constantine in AD 313, it
became the established religion and rose to dominate European social life for centuries.
Christianity may have helped foster monogamy, but it distinguished itself from its
forbearer, Judaism, by breaking away from Jewish traditions which had celebrated
married life, marital sexuality, and especially procreation and providing a more
circumspect view of marriage. The exposure of early Christians to the overt sexuality and
eroticism that was common in Rome, along with the Apostle Pauls denunciation of
marriage and the belief that the return of Jesus was imminent, led church leaders to
eschew marriage and teach that celibacy was a higher, more exalted way of life. For
many, there was an inherent conflict between pursuing the spirit and satisfying the flesh,
and marriage led to the latter. Marriage was allowed, but commonly seen as a union
created as the result of original sin. Thus, in most cases, marriage ceremonies had to be
held outside the church doors, and a sense of impurity surrounded even marital sex and
childbearing. The marginalization of family life and marriage by early Christianity
reinforced traditions that were unique to Western Europe and enhanced the wealth of the
Church. Goldthorpe (1987) points out that bilateral kinship, consensual marriages,
singleness as a viable option, and the nuclear family structure were common in Western
Europe even before the influence of Christianity. But this restricted sense of kinship
helped the Church become immensely wealthy, as its teachings discouraged marriage,

14 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56255/, 26/10/15,9:30pm
16

stated that Christians should put the needs of the Church before family loyalties, and
encouraged them to leave their property to the Church rather than to relatives.
Thus, although states and religious authorities had been given the authority to perform
marriage ceremonies, there was ambiguity over exactly what constituted a legal marriage.
The most common bases for declaring marriages valid were mutual consent, cohabitation,
and sexual consummation of the relationship, although not all of these criteria had to be
met for a legally recognized marriage to exist.15
6. CONCLUSION:
Emerging trends in family laws brought about by modernization, increased urbanization
and the impact of high-tech devices render imperative the need for the law to keep
abreast with global developments and being sensitive to shifting winds of change if we
are not to be laggards in the family of nations.
As we know, family life in our country has changed dramatically in the past few decades.
Families havebeen reshaped by high rates of teenage and nonmarital childbearing, sharp i
ncreases in the divorce rate,postponed marriage and childbearing, smaller families, singl
eparent families, stepfamilies, and dualearner families. Yet as families have changed, thei
r functions have not.Families are fundamental to the lifeblood and strength of our world.
They are the nurturers, caregivers,role models, teachers, and counselors for the next gener
ation. The fabric of the United States and theworld is woven together from many diverse
ethnic and cultural family threads. Each family's uniquetraditions and teachings blend eth
er to build the very foundation upon which we, as an internationalfamily, have grown and
will continue to grow. As the changing world presents new and differentchallenges to bot
h nations and individuals, the family's role must always be to ensure unconditional lovean
d acceptance. We must sustain and support our families so that they can continue to survi
ve and prosper.16
A family is a family. Some individual families are more successful than others but one
family type is not better than any other. The traditional family that American society
puts on such a pedestal never existed when we thought it did and still does not exist
today. The nuclear family in which we try to live up to unreal yet traditional expectations
is the minority in today's world. More than half of all marriages end in divorce and many
15https://aifs.gov.au/publications/families-then-and-now-1980-2010, 27/10/15,4:00pm
16 http://unctad.org/en/docs/iteteb20037_en.pdf,27/10/15,5:30pm
17

more create new families after their divorces. Homosexual-parent families can also be
extremely successful. The key to success in all of these families is the people themselves.
The structure of the family is not as important as the people inside because as we have
seen, all of these family forms have proven to be successful through hard work and
commitment.
7. BIBILIOGRAPHY:
SOCIOLOGY, FOR PRE- LAW FIRST YEAR BY S.R. MYNENI
SOCIOLOGY, PRE-LAW EDUCATION SERIES BY T.K.OOMMEN AND C.N.
VENUGOPAL
AN INTRODUCTION TO SOCIOLOGY BY NAVENDU K. THAKUR
SOCIOLOGY, DR. B. R. SINGH

18