CHAPTER-III

LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP AND ITS IMPACT IN INDIA

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The rise in cohabitation pre-marital, non-marital, represents one of the most

significant changes in union formation patterns in many developed countries. Non-
marital cohabitation has gained the attention of media and researchers.1 Demographic
transitions i.e. changes in fertility rate, union formation, and family structure are being
noticed worldwide as has been explained in Chapter-II of this study. Many scholars
frame these demographic changes as indicators of ideational change, concomitant
with modernization. From this perspective it is considered that higher or prolonged
education and more educated individuals are the forerunners of value change and
liberalized attitudes toward new family behaviors, such as non-marital cohabitation.
At the same time, a wide range of studies emphasize that understanding the growth of
non-marital cohabitation depends on the local context. As non-marital cohabitation
emerges as accepted family form, its continued uptake over time may reflect different
context dependent upon social, economic or cultural forces. For example, individuals
of different educational backgrounds may have different reasons for opting into or out
of non-marital cohabitation, which reflects the context specific values, norms, or
constraints encountered by different strata of society.2

In the present chapter researcher will explore through various observations and
rulings in different cases non-marital relations in India and its impact on society.
Various reasons and factors which could be considered responsible for the increase in
non-marital union formation have been stated before explaining the different impacts
in India. Researcher have tried to explain positive as well as negative impacts of non-
1
Ernestina Coast, “Currently Cohabiting: Relationship Attitudes, Expectations and Outcomes” in
John Stillwell, Ernestina Coast et.al. (eds.), Fertility, Living Arrangements Care and Mobility:
Understanding Population Trends and Processes 1 (Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 2009)
available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23986/1/Currently_cohabiting_%28LSERO%29.pdf (Last
visited on June 06, 2016)
2
Bernice Kuang, Brienna Perelli-Harris et.al., “The Unexpected Rise of Cohabitation in the
Philippines: Evidence for a Negative Educational Gradient”, available at:
https://paa.confex.com/paa/2016/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper3783/B%20Kuang%20PAA%2
02016%20Educational%20Gradient%20of%20Cohabitation%20in%20the%20Philippines.pdf (Last
visited on June 06, 2016)

- 75 -
marital relationships on Indian society, culture, institution of family and marriage,
impacts on children and aged. The study of concept of live-in relationships in Indian
context and its explanation through various judgments followed by impacts of live-in
relation in Indian society will be helpful in analyzing the societal response towards
the emerging non-marital relationships i.e. live-in relationships and that will lead us to
inculcate the social status of live-in relationships in India.

3.2 CONCEPT OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIAN CONTEXT

Humans have been the victims of emotional tumbling, succumbing inevitably

to the gravitational pull of relationships. Nobody wants to live a lonely life out of
personal choice. All humans seem to be bound by one or the other relationship in their
life to draw a meaning to it. When we talk about relationships, romance can’t be far
behind. India is generally known as a country with strong moral, cultural and
traditional values. The union of a man and a woman is considered as one of the most
sacred acts in this country.3 In India there exists only one kind of relationship between
an unrelated couple of a male and female which is termed as ‘Marriage’. Marriage is
more of a sacrament and divine concept, and is practiced as a ritual since ages;
however, for number of reasons this concept is being unfastened from divineness.
Love cannot be the only reason to marry; sometimes marriages are forced on couples.
Therefore the concept of live-in relationship is introduced in society as an alternative
for marriage; however, presently it is no more an alternative but it is having its own
stand in society.4 Under the practice of live-in-relationship a man and women, usually
both unmarried, enter into an informal agreement to live together and cohabit without
getting officially married. This is common in big cities where man and woman, while
working at the same place, think it convenient and beneficial to live together and
enjoy the life without taking the responsibility of marriage. The bold exhibitions of
romance go for a notice in typical societies, least being something like live-in
relationships in India. It isn’t shocking that living together before marriage is a caustic
grinch for the fierce ethic upholders. However, the new millennium has heralded in

3
Sanjay Gaur, Live-in-Relationship 20 (Yking Books, Jaipur, 2011)
4
Dr. Swarupa N. Dholam, “Socio-legal dimensions of ‘live-In relationship’ in India”, available at:
http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/final%20article%20in%20both%20lanuage%20%281%29.pdf at
page 1(Last visited on July 25, 2016) [See also: Sonali Abhang, “Judicial Approach to ‘Live- In-
Relationship’ In India- Its Impact on Other Related Statutes”, 19(12) IOSR-JHSS 34 (2014)]

- 76 -
great changes even within the country that has forever been enshrouded in a blanket
of rich culture and heritage. The basic idea of entering a live-in relationship is that the
interested couple wants to test their compatibility for each other before going for
some commitment. It may also be that couples in live-in relationships find no gain or
value offered by the institution of marriage or that their financial situation avert them
from being married on account of marriage expenditure and the responsibilities after
marriage.5 Incited by anything from movies and soap opera to lives of Bollywood
persons, the younger generation has started leading a very liberal lifestyle. To know
their partners, they denounce the marriage and get down to living-together
arrangements. With the amount of independence and privacy included in such
relations anyone could think it to be an ideal move.6

Life in India has changed tremendously, at least in urban areas. Not only do
celebrity couples live together without marriage, but they also have children in
today’s more open and liberal society. Many recent examples illustrate the increased
visibility of live-in couples in the celebrity world. Actor Aamir Khan lived in a live-in
relationship with Kiran Rao for a long time before he married her. Tennis ace Leander
Paes and ‘Art of Living’ trainer Rhea Pillai had a baby from a live-in relationship.
Following this trend set by celebrities, thousands of middle-class couples too choose
to live together without marriage.7

Law and society are the two faces of the same coin, one needs the other. They
are not alien to each other. Transformation in society requires that law should also
progress with the time. When this concept has been started to be accepted by new
generation of Indian society, then it demands for its meaning in the eyes of law.
Different High Courts of the country and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of
decisions have tried to explain the concept of live-in relationship. Hence in India
concept of live-in relationship is explained in the form of court verdicts which varies
from case to case depending on the basis of issues before the court.8 ‘Live-in
Relationship’ as defined in Alok Kumar v. State9 :

5
“Live In Relationships and its Impact on the Institution of Marriage in India”, available at:
http://www.westminsterlawreview.org/downloads/Women%20Empowerment.pdf at page 1(Last
visited on June 22, 2016)
6
Supra note 3 at 21
7
Id. at 62
8
Supra note 4 at 3
9
Alok Kumar v. State and Another, Cr. M.C. No. 299/2009, High Court of Delhi

- 77 -
 “Live-in relationship is a walk-in and walk-out
relationship where neither any strings are attached, nor
does it creates any legal bond between the parties. It is
a contract of living together which is renewed every day
by the parties and can be terminated by either of the
parties without the consent of the other party and one
party can walk out at will at any time.”10

The ‘live-in-relationship’ is a living arrangement in which a couple lives

together in a long-term relationship without marriage. Couple present themselves as
husband and wife to the society. 'Live in relationship' means those relationships where
there is no marriage between the parties, in the sense of solemnization of a marriage
under any law. Live-in relationship is a relationship which has not been socially
accepted in India, unlike many other countries. However live-in relationship between
two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even
though it may be perceived as immoral. There are diverse societal opinions on the
growing trend of ‘live-in-relationship’.

In September 2005, India Today a fortnightly news magazine had conducted a

survey on the subject of the sexual habits of people residing in the bigger cities of
India. One of the issues discussed as part of this survey was the increasing incidence
of pre-marital sex. As a part of this exercise, the magazine had gathered and published
the views expressed by several individuals from different segments of society,
including a well known actress S. Khushboo. She expressed her personal opinion
wherein she had noted the increasing incidence of pre-marital sex, especially in the
context of live-in relationships and called for the societal acceptance of the same.11
The publications of these remarks lead to several litigations against the actress for
abusing against the dignity of the Tamil women and for grossly affecting and ruining
the culture and morality of the people of the state. It was alleged that statements could
persuade people to involve themselves in unnatural crimes and that the action of

10
Alok Kumar v. State and Another, Cr. M.C. No. 299/2009, High Court of Delhi, decided on August
9, 2010, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79779528/ at para 6 (Last visited on August 11,
2016)
11
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, JT 2010(4) SC 478 at para 3

- 78 -
actress amounts to commission of offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 504,
505(1)(b) and 509 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 4 of Indecent
Representation of Women (Prohibition)Act, 1986.12 However, Court quashed the
proceedings and held that the disputed statement was a reasonable and fair comment
and fully protected under fundamental right of freedom to speech and expression.13

The sanction to live in relationship was granted by judgment of Supreme

Court on 23rd of March 2010 in the Khushboo v. Kanniammal14. The court, while
quashing the charges framed on Khushboo, commented that there is no law that
prohibits pre-marital relationships. A three judge bench comprising of Chief Justice
K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B.S. Chauhan took note of Lata
Singh v. State of U.P.15 and observed:

“A live-in relationship between two consenting adults of

heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence (with
the obvious exception of ‘adultery’), even though it may
be perceived as immoral. A major girl is free to marry
anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes.”16

Though this was an observation of the court, it provided a positive impulse to live-in-
relationships.17 The Allahabad High Court, in 2001 (Justice M Katju and Justice R.B.
Mishra), in Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan18 ordered:

“In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without

getting married, can live together if they wish to. This
may be regarded as immoral by society, but is not
illegal. There is a difference between Law and
Morality.”19

12
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, JT 2010(4) SC 478 at para 6
13
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, JT 2010(4) SC 478 at para 29
14
JT 2010(4) SC 478
15
AIR 2006 SC 2522
16
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, JT 2010(4) SC 478 at para 21
17
“Live-in Relationship—A Right to Life” available at:
http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=1&do_pdf=1&id=16
506
18
AIR 2001 All. 254
19
Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and Others, AIR 2001 All 254 at 255

- 79 -
 Live-in- relation between two adults without a formal marriage cannot be
defined as an offence and there is no such statute which theorizes that live-in
relationships are illegal.20 So such are the societal responses are in India on issues like
pre-marital relations. However courts have ruled that living together before marriage
and having physically intimate relationship are not illegal though immoral and hence
no offence is committed. Ancient Indian society had rich culture of traditions and
moral values and so Indian people consider concept of living together before marriage
as moral wrong. Judicial viewpoint over the same has been rather circumspect. In the
cases prior to independence like A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy21 the privy council
laid down a broad rule postulating that,

“Where a man and a women are proved to have lived

together as a man and wife, the law will presume,
unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were
living together in consequence of a valid marriage and
not in a state of concubinage”.22

The same principle was reiterated in the case of Mohabhat Ali v. Mohammad
Ibrahim Khan23 and court observed that where a child has been born to a father from a
woman who has not been in a mere occasional concubinage, but a more permanent
connection, and where there is no invincible obstacle to such a marriage, then law
makes a presumption in favour of such marriage i.e. law presumes that marriage has
taken place. After independence of India the first case that can be reviewed is Badri
Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation24 wherein the supreme court recognized
long term cohabitation as valid marriage, putting a stop to questions raised by
authorities on the fifty years of life in relationship of a couple. The same proposition
was upheld in the case of Tulsa v. Durghatiya25 where the long term unmarried
relationship was recognized as equivalent to marriage.

20
Dr. Sangita Laha, “Live-In Relationship–An Analysis Through Cases” , 2(6) IJAHMS 48-
49(June2016) available at: http://ijahms.com/upcomingissue/07.06.2016.pdf (Last visited on March
31, 2017)
21
AIR 1927 PC 185
22
A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy, AIR 1927 PC 185 at 187
23
AIR 1929 PC 135 at 138
24
AIR 1978 SC 1557 at para 1
25
(2008) 4 SCC 520 at para 11, 15

- 80 -
 Of course, things have undergone a change after the enactment of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). The provisions of the Act
also extend to women living-in a relationship in the nature of marriage and by doing
so, even though in a screened manner, the legislature has finally undertook to accept
the contemporary global phenomena appreciated and attempted by some persons
among the new generation.26 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
provides:

‘Aggrieved person’ means any woman who is, or has

been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent
and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of
domestic violence by the respondent.27

The Act further provides:

‘Domestic relationship’ means a relationship between

two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived
together in a shared household, when they are related
by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship
in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family
members living together as a joint family.28

Thus Parliament by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has
shaped a difference between the ‘relationship of marriage’ and a ‘relationship in the
nature of marriage’, and has provided that in either case the person who enters into
either relationship is entitled to the benefit of the Act.

Live-in relationship is not been recognized by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
or by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, or by the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The
expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ which is included within the
definition of ‘domestic relationship’ has not clearly been defined in the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The question, therefore, arises as to what

26
Hemant Kumar, “Dispel Confusion”, Tribune India, Dec. 26, 2015, available at:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101220/edit.htm#6 (Last visited on August 25, 2016)
27
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(a)
28
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(f)

- 81 -
is the meaning of the expression ‘a relationship in the nature of marriage’.
Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in this Act. In D. Velusamy v. D.
Patchaiammal29 the Supreme Court considered the definition of ‘aggrieved person’
and ‘domestic relationship’ together and opined that the expression ‘relationship in
the nature of marriage’ that is included within the definition of ‘domestic relationship’
has not clearly been defined in the Act, hence, an authoritative decision is required to
be taken to elucidate what is and what is not a relationship in the nature of marriage.30
The Supreme Court commented in the course of its judgment that the Indian
Parliament while establishing the two distinct categories viz. ‘relationship of
marriage’ and ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ intended that the enactment
should protect and benefit women in both these relationships. Therefore the Supreme
Court held:

“Relationship in the nature of marriage is akin to a

Common Law Marriage. Common Law Marriages
require that although not being formally married: (a)
The couple must hold themselves out to society as being
akin to spouses, (b) They must be of legal age to marry,
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a
legal marriage, including being unmarried, (d) They
must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves
out to the world as being akin to spouses for a
significant period of time.”31

Thus the judgment considered the essentials of a common-law-marriage and

stated that not all ‘live-in relationships’ will amount to ‘a relationship in the nature of
marriage’. Velusamy case accepts a common-law-marriage to be same as a live-in
relationship to constitute a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’. Indra Sarma
case32, on the other hand, enlists a criteria on basis of which a subjective analysis of
the relationship should be undertaken in order to determine if it constitutes a live-in

29
AIR 2011 SC 479
30
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC 479 at para 20
31
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC 479 at para 33
32
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309

- 82 -
relationship under the purview of Domestic Violence Act. The grounds listed were
neither strictly binding, nor exhaustive. They, however, provided an insight into the
aspects which would bring live-in relationships under the definition of ‘relationships
in the nature of marriage’. The grounds provided in the form of guidelines are:

“(1) Duration of period of relationship:

Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 has used the expression ‘at any
point of time’, which means a reasonable period of time
to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary
from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

(2) Shared household

The expression has been defined Under Section 2(s) of

the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and hence court didn’t
feel the need of further elaboration.

Section 2(s) provides: ‘shared household’ means a

household where the person aggrieved lives or at any
stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly
or along with the respondent and includes such a
household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by
the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or
tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the
aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or
singly have any right, title, interest or equity and
includes such a household which may belong to the
joint family of which the respondent is a member,
irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved
person has any right, title or interest in the shared
household.

- 83 -
(3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements

Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially,

sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties
in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term
investments in business, shares in separate and joint
names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may
be a guiding factor.

(4) Domestic Arrangements

Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman

to run the home, do the household activities like
cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up keeping the house,
etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of
marriage.

(5) Sexual Relationship

Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship,

not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate
relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give
emotional support, companionship and also material
affection, caring etc.

(6) Children

Having children is a strong indication of a relationship

in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to
have a long standing relationship. Sharing the
responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is
also a strong indication.

(7) Socialization in Public

Holding out to the public and socializing with friends,

relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is

- 84 -
 a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the
nature of marriage.

(8) Intention and conduct of the parties

Common intention of parties as to what their

relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their
respective roles and responsibilities, primarily
determines the nature of that relationship.” 33

While interpreting term ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under Section

2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in case of Indra
Sharma34, the Supreme Court differentiated between ‘live-in-relationship in nature of
marriage’ and ‘live-in-relationship not in nature of marriage’. Apex Court ruled that
only ‘relationship in nature of marriage’ is covered under the definition of domestic
relationship, and women under relationship not in nature of marriage are not entitled
to reliefs provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
To make a ‘live-in’ legal i.e. a ‘relationship in nature of marriage’ the Supreme Court
said that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses; they
must be of legal age to marry; they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal
marriage, including being unmarried; and they must have voluntarily cohabited for a
significant period of time. Making an attempt to iron out certain ambiguous situations,
the judges also said that if it is not so, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship
‘in the nature of marriage’.35 Honorable Supreme Court however itself commented
that the view court took in Indra Sarma Case would exclude many women, who are in
live-in-relationship other than a ‘relationship in nature of marriage’, from the benefit
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.36

Thus it can be extracted from these judgements that Indian courts have
differentiated between live-in couples and hence it becomes difficult to say that live-
in relationship is granted legality by judiciary in India. Live-in couples who fulfill the
criteria of a valid marriage are treated as in a ‘relationship in nature of marriage’ and

33
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309 at para 55
34
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309
35
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309 at para 65
36
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma, AIR 2014 SC 309 at para 68

- 85 -
thus dealt differently from ‘relationship not in nature of marriage’ i.e. those who don’t
fulfill the conditions of a valid marriage. Live-in relationship has not been granted
legality legislatively. ‘A relationship of a man with women in legal sense is legitimate
if is based on valid marriage and illegitimate if not as per Marriage Laws’37. In every
day parlance, it is non-marital cohabitation which may also be termed as concubinage.

From the study of Indra Sarma case it is clear that all live-in relationships are
not ‘relationships in nature of marriage’ there exists live-in relations which are not in
nature of marriage and thus the guidelines given by the honorable court could not be
applied to form a definition of live-in relationship. Live-in relationship is a wider
concept than that of relationship in nature of marriage. We have the instances of
married woman living with her lover leaving her husband. Such a relationship is well
included under term live-in relationship though it cannot be a ‘relationship in nature
of marriage’. Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her
husband? In a judgment the Rajasthan High Court allowed a married woman to live
with her lover. The Court said that it is improper to pass an order to hand over any
unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay. While
dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by woman’s husband the court also said that
nobody should consider an adult woman as a consumer product. The court came down
hard on the misuse of habeas corpus petitions by people who want to thrust their will
upon adult women without their consent. The court said the husband was free to
approach the family court for divorce.38 Commenting on the judgment, senior
Supreme Court advocate and noted women’s rights activist Indira Jaising said,
“Though it sounds strange, I am in complete agreement with the high court. At the
end of the day an adult woman has a right to decide whom she wants to live with. She
can’t be forced to go with her husband against her will. In this case it is clear that the
woman was prepared for divorce.”39 Since the woman could not be prosecuted for
adultery under the law in India it is very much clear that a married woman if enters in
live-in relation faces no legal hurdle in that however from the words of Indira Jaising

37
Supra note 5 at 1
38
K.S. Tomar, “Married Woman Can Live with Her Lover: Court” Hindustan Times, Apr. 19, 2007
available at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/married-woman-can-live-with-her-lover-
court/story-wvR68crUBOqSGD5kysqPaJ.html (Last visited on Dec. 23, 2016)
39
Ibid.

- 86 -
it is also clear that in such situations woman should be prepared for divorce. Thus we
can say that a married woman though can enter in a live-in relation but she cannot
marry one and live-in with another, she must be ready for divorce. However this
liberty is not available to married man as he can be prosecuted for adultery.

Thus it is very much clear from the above study that the concept of live-in
relationship, which has not been defined in India by statute, is extremely difficult to
be explained with universally accepted definition and characteristics. The definitions
we have earlier discussed while exploring the global concept of live-in relations and
guidelines given by Indian judiciary in different judgments can only be accepted for
the term ‘live-in relationship in nature of marriage’. Since all live-in relations existing
at present are not relations in nature of marriage and absence of legal definition to
exclude those relation from the purview of legal live-in relationship the concept of
live-in relationship in India becomes more complicated as persons living in extra
marital relationship sometimes also approach courts as live-in couple especially when
the aggrieved party was kept unaware of the married status of the other.

 Increase in Live-in Relationships in India

Economic liberalization, structural changes and changes in social spheres are

in the process of transforming households and families in India. Creation and
expansion of new economic opportunities for both men and women is the one of such
changes. These transformations have meant that more and more young men and
women are economically independent and less reliant on parents for housing and
other needs, along with the trend of young people moving to urban areas in search of
new opportunities and are reshaping living arrangements. Other changes such as
expansion of mass media has uncovered to wider society ‘different possible lives’ and
have affected people’s attitudes and behaviours. These changes in attitudes and
behaviours include those related to family and living arrangements. Along with
economic liberalization and mass media, other aspects of liberalization, structural
changes and changes in social spheres are bound to have an influence on
households.40 In addition, changes in attitude and aspirations coupled with the

40
Premchand Dommaraju, “One-person households in India” 32 Demographic Research 1240 (2015)
available at: http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol32/45/32-45.pdf (Last visited on
March 31, 2017)

- 87 -
weakening of the power exerted by parents and families may promote alternative
living arrangements. However such changes have not radically altered the Indian
social system as they have in many East Asian and Southeast Asian societies. Many
key features of the Indian society such as its kinship, marriage, and family systems
have not been fundamentally altered, and continue to have impact on household
structure.41 The cultural developments towards individualistic lifestyles indicate that
people prefer independent living, and such preferences are much more accepted now
than before. The relatively small number of self-arranged marriages is coherent where
such a marriage connotes promiscuity and is considered to bring disgrace to
reputation of family.

To explain what encourages our young generation into live-in relations, we

have to assimilate the psyche of the younger generation. Cohabiting couples
unanimously state that they want to have fun while at the same time focusing on
elevate their career and earnings. Living together without marriage arrangement
perfectly suits such specifications. They share the domestic assignments and expenses
with their partner, while at the same time enjoying the freedom facilitated by the
status of singlehood. Many of the cohabiting couples also state that without being tied
down by marital responsibilities this arrangement meets their physical requirements
for intimacy and while a partner gets problems with such arrangement they can easily
separate, unlike marriage wherein divorce is an essential legal procedure.42

The reasons why people choose to live-in are many. Anish Nair, a research
scholar, says, "Some past experiences in my life triggered me to take such a decision.
I have a fear of commitment, but I needed a partner to share my thoughts and hopes.
If married, it is not easy to walk out of a relationship. A divorce is a costly affair. The
entire process is highly traumatic too. In a live-in relationship, the couple has the
freedom to breakup mutually without any fights, arguments and legal hassles."43

The attitude of younger generations to the age old customs and values is quite
indifferent and they are quite detached to our great cultural heritage. They sometimes
41
Ibid.
42
Supra note 3 at 95
43
Radhika C. Pillai, “Why Young Keralites Prefer a Live-in Relationship”, The Times of India, Jan.
28, 2014, available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/love-sex/Why-
young-Keralites-prefer-a-live-in-relationship/articleshow/29449484.cms? (Last visited on March
31, 2017)

- 88 -
make mockery of traditions, old ideas and ideals and openly defy them. The love of
our young men and women for Ray-Ban goggles, Addidas shoes, LeCoste’s T-shirts,
Pepe jeans and many other established brands of the West have become a reality.
Boys and girls in schools know little about Pandit Ravi Shanker and Pandit Jasraj.44
They dance to the tunes of Pop stars. We agree that there should be no room for
narrow thinking. Culture and ideas know no geographical limits. Liberalization of our
economy opened gates for the multinational companies in India. Western corporations
are the ambassadors of the western life styles, values and culture. It is the age of
globalization. The world has shrunk to a global village. The modern industrial culture
is the product of western culture. The younger generations like fun, enjoyment and
adventures. Their fascination for the materialistic culture is quite obvious. It is quite
natural that it dominates the cultural scenario of the civilized world. Today,
cohabitation is a common pattern among people in the western world. 45 People may
live together for a number of reasons. Since growing economy and people getting
more and more aware of western concepts, the trend of living together has started
increasing in India. Live-in relationship does not require any formal commitment
from the partner. It is sharing the same house and bed like roommates, satisfying their
physical as well as psychological needs and enjoying life together like friends. If
she/he finds problem in continuing, either due to boredom or incompatibility, then
they have the choice to opt out without any legal hassle. Relationship does not feel as
burden which has to be carried whole life even if unhappy. Women becoming more
educated have come at par or surpassed their male counterparts in many areas.
Awareness of rights and economic independence has aided acceptance of live-in
relationships as it provides her an edge as she is not bound by society.46

While many live-in couples wish to hide their relationship and pretend to be a
married couple however some of the youngsters are quite open about their live-in
status. Many hide their relationship because such relationships are considered
immoral in society. In fact, if couples reveal the relationship status, it would create
more problems for them. A singer from Trivandrum, who is into a live in relationship

44
Supra note 3 at 104
45
Id. at 103-104
46
Id. at 100

- 89 -
with his childhood friend says, "My partner and I are childhood friends, but we don't
want to define our relation with a married tag. But it is easier said than done. Finding
an accommodation became the toughest task, so we had to pretend that we are legally
husband and wife."47

Owing to the changes in the dynamics of romance and marriage, it seems

many young couples are fast embracing a new ‘relationship culture’. And the concept
of live-in relationship is no longer a taboo among the youth. For some of them, it's a
matter of convenience, and for others it's a compatibility test. A few consider a live in
relationship as a testing ground before marriage. Savio, a young doctor from Kochi,
says, "It is always better to know your partner before marriage. My partner, who is
also a doctor, and I started a live-in relationship as we wanted to see how compatible
we are as a couple. Now, even after two years of living together, we are still very
much in love. However, we are not planning to get married anytime soon as both of us
are busy with our studies."48

Thus the people may live together for a number of reasons. These may include
wanting to test compatibility or to establish financial security before marrying. It may
also be because they are unable to marry legally. Other reasons include living with
someone before marriage in an effort to avoid divorce. Some individuals also choose
cohabitation because they see their relationships as being private and personal
matters, and not to be controlled by political, religious or patriarchal institutions.
Some couples prefer cohabitation because it does not legally commit them for an
extended period, and because it is easier to establish and dissolve without the legal
costs associated with divorce.

3.3 IMPACTS OF NON-MARITAL LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS AND ITS

SOCIAL STATUS IN INDIA

It is difficult to study the impact of live-in relationships on individuals, family

and society for a number of reasons. First, as already highlighted, the meaning of
cohabitation is unclear and different groups are likely to understand and be affected
differently by it. Second, cohabitation is a moving target with the norms and

47
Supra note 43
48
Ibid.

- 90 -
meanings associated with it rapidly changing over time. Third, many of the posed
impacts of cohabitation may be due to social selection. In other words, the people who
enter cohabiting relationships may also be disposed to other kinds of behavior so that,
for example, what seems to be an effect of cohabitation on relationship quality is
actually caused by the characteristics of people who choose to cohabit. This study will
also help us to understand the social status of non-marital live-in relationships in
Indian society as the acceptance and impact of a phenomenon go hand in hand.
Therefore researcher have tried to explain the impacts of live-in relationship or non-
marital relations in India, which are as follows:

3.3.1 Impact on Concept of Marriage

Though the sanctity of marriage is still intensely guarded by the Indian society
but in light of the cultural changes it is clear that influence of the west considerably
altering age old customs and traditions of Indian society. Our society has been in a
state of transition from the old world to the new, and the people are adapting to
alternative forms of living arrangements. A live-in relationship is one of these
alternative arrangements that are accumulating momentum and acceptance these days.
It would be incorrect to state that live in relations are new to our society. Generally
speaking, a live-in relationship is defined as a living arrangement in which an
unmarried couple lives together in a long term relationship that resembles a marriage.
The word ‘marriage’ has nowhere been defined under Indian Laws.49 Marriage
depends on the various kinds of customs and traditions that are present in a society.
But a non-ethnocentric definition of marriage is; marriage is a culturally sanctioned
union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations
between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-
laws.’ Marriage in India is considered to be a relationship entered into by two
opposite genders to stay together forever. Under Muslim Law, marriage is a civil
contract which gratifies the parties with various rights and obligations. Under Hindu
culture the union is sacred and indissoluble in life and continues even after the death

49
Srivastav Veera, “Socio - Legal Aspect of Live In Relationships-A Comparative Approach”,
available at: www.lexvidhi.com/article-details/socio-legal-aspects-of-live-in-relationships-a-
comarative-approach-752.html (Last visited on Dec. 03, 2016 )

- 91 -
of the husband. It is treated to be a samskara or a sacrosanct bond of seven lives
between the couple which is unbreakable.50

In India, according to traditional Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrament and not

a civil contract. It is a ‘samskara’ or purificatory ceremony obligatory for every
Hindu. Marriage in India is a holy performance of religious rites. The parents are
morally obliged to find mates for their children, and the children to accept the parental
choice. As such, in Hindu marriage there is no room for romantic love as the basis of
marital selection.51 From ancient times, Hindu religion laid emphasis on man and
woman to achieve four Purusharthas namely- dharma, artha, kama and moksha, the
ideals of life different from western concept of marriage, where marriage is a personal
matter concerned with love and homemaking.52

The Hindu marriage as contemplated by the Hindu Marriage Act is a

ceremonial marriage and it must be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites
and ceremonies of one of the two parties. Non-observance of the essential customary
rites and ceremonies would amount to failure to solemnize the marriage.53 “Edward
Westermark defined marriage as the more or less durable connection between male
and female, lasting, beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the
offspring. According to Horton and Hunt, marriage is the approved social pattern
whereby two or more persons establish a family. H. T. Mazumdar defines marriage as
a socially sanctioned union of male and female, or as a secondary institution devised
by society to sanction the union and mating of male and female, for purposes of a)
establishing a household, b) entering into sexual relations, c) procreating, and, d)
providing care for the offspring.”54

Though not statutorily defined, the concept of marriage stands well

understood. Marriage is an institution which admits man and woman to family life. It

50
Anshul Agrawal, “Live in Relationships: Have They Made Marriage Redundant?” 1(2) IJRA 53
(2013) available at: www.ijra.in/uploads/41587.2152339005Anshul%20Agrawal-%20Manuscript.
pdf (Last visited on June 22, 2016)
51
Supra note 49
52
“Increasing Number of Rape Charges in Live-In-Relationship”, available at:
http://lexhindustan.com/law-articles/increasing-no-of-rape-charges-in-live-in-relationship/ (Last
visited on Sep. 01, 2016)
53
Supra note 50 at 53
54
Sunil, “Brief Notes on Some Definitions of Marriage”, available at:
www.preservearticles.com/201104296023/brief-notes-onosome-definitions-on-marriage.html (Last
visited on July 23, 2016)

- 92 -
can be implied to be a permanent commitment between two people who make a
responsive effort to live harmoniously and cooperatively and in which they are
socially allowed to have children entailing the right to sexual relations.55 It is seen as
imperative to maintain the continuity of a family life which is the basic societal unit.
People marry because they lived in a family as children and cannot get over the
feeling that being in a family is the only proper way to live in society. They do not
marry just because they think that it is their social duty to perpetuate the institution of
marriage or because the scriptures recommend it or because they have fallen in love
with each other. In almost all societies one or the other form of marriage exists.
‘According to sociologists John Levy and Ruth Munroe people get married because of
the feeling that being in a family is the only proper, indeed the only possible, way to
live. A family life requires commitment and it is precisely the lack of this aspect that
either attracts or repels individuals from cohabiting’.56

Marriage as an institution is very old and popular in most parts of the world
but recent trends show that many people are opting out of it and prefer the less
committed form of living-in, in India too it has become a common thing, not yet
popular while marriage in India still remain a strong institution so far but still we hear
of more people live-in unmarried with each other.57 Today’s India is developing at a
pace that was socially unimaginable. The concept like non-marital relationships that
was taken up by the western society is gradually filtrating into our social norms.
Marriage is just another commitment. If people are heading away from marriages, one
reason could be that people are afraid of commitments and are worried of inherent
responsibilities of marriage. Every relationship has its own advantages and
disadvantages. The law and society were traditionally biased in favour of marriage.
Public policy supports marriage as necessary to the stability of the family; the basic
societal unit. To preserve and encourage marriage, the law reserves many rights and
privileges to married persons.58

A non-marital relationship threatens the notion of husband and wife and the
institution of marriage that enjoys high level of sanctity when it comes to India. It also

55
Supra note 49
56
Ibid.
57
Supra note 3 at 24
58
Supra note 4 at 6-8

- 93 -
tends to increase the instances of adultery, as there are no such statutory constraints
that live-in partners should be unmarried. Thus, a person might be married and be
lived with someone else under the garb of live-in relationship. If the rights of a wife
and a live-in partner become equivalent it would promote bigamy and it would arose a
conflict between the interests of the wife and the live-in partner. This encourages
bigamy, as the person who is getting into live in relationship might be already
married. The position of the wife is disadvantageous in such situation. While the right
of legally wedded wife remains at stake, the right of live-in female partner too does
not become secure.59 Non-marital relationships confer none of those rights and
privileges. Though it can be said that non-marital cohabitation has all the headaches
of marriage but it has its own benefits, such as, live-in relationship is without mutual
statutory obligations towards each other and both parties enter into such relationship
with full understanding of the situation. Providing maintenance or recognizing rights
out of such relation will be not less than equating them with husband and wife.
Further long non-marital cohabitation leads to presumption of valid marriage. These
couples face some of the same legal issues as married couples, as well as some issues
that their married friends never acquainted.60

With shifting social norms of legitimacy in modern societies, including ours,

what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate at present. Though our country,
which has strong cultural roots, adherence on morality and social ethics but with
changing times, we have commenced to pursue the Western culture, which is totally
in contrast to Indian culture. A certain section of India too seems to have followed the
Western culture i.e. of live- in relationship. Change in law for a small section would
surely affect the country’s whole population. Chances are fair that the coming
generations might forget the importance of marriage and follow illegitimate
relationships. Live-in relationships directly affect the status of wife, children, family
and whole country. Our society has to play important role of supervisor to deny
concept of live-in relationship and misinterpretation of marriage, failing to do so our
identity, humanity and our rich ancient culture, tradition will be tarnished heavily.61

59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Dr. Kalpana V. Jawale, “Live-in-Relationship: Recent Development and Challenges in India”,
available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2046460&download=yes at page
1

- 94 -
 ‘Our generation of 21st century wants to delay the age of entering marriage
and having children. The liberation process is consisted in sexuality outside marriage
and experiencing a love relationship before institutionalizing it. Pregnancy was
generally considered to be an imperative reason to marry before the birth of a child. It
took almost ten years to realise that this phenomenon was not merely a simple
postponement of entering marriage and institutionalizing a family, but was for a
growing number of couples a new way of life. In the 1980s and 1990s, non-marital
cohabitation became increasingly prevalent, which was connected to the deterioration
of marriage. Thus, increasing numbers of couples decided to begin their conjugal life
without marriage, and even to have first or subsequent children out of wedlock.
Nowadays the unmarried cohabitation is normal way to begin a relationship’.62
However, these transformations of marriage do not mean there has been a rejection of
family life or of children. So non-marital cohabitation is growing steadily and
compensating for the delayed marriages. This postponement in the setting up married
partnerships may be a key transformation, linked to the social and economic
conditions of young people, including a trend to enhance the time for studies, delay in
access to a first job, the pervasiveness of unemployment in the younger generations
and new intergenerational links between them and their parents.63

Marriage leads a man and woman to bonding between them and this bonding
ensures welfare of children. Marriage is a social union or legal contract. Such a union
often formalized via wedding ceremony. Marriage is a social union or legal contract
between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal
relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways,
based on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often entered
into via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony. Therefore, it would be
easily mentioned that live-in relationship is tarnishing the value of marriage which is
recognized as social union unlike live-in relationship where there is only well of two
persons.64

62
Claude Martin and Irene Thery, “The PACS and marriage and cohabitation in France”, 14(3) IJLPF
135-158(2001) available at: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00199963/document at 5
(Last visited on June 10, 2016)
63
Id. at 4
64
Supra note 61 at 5

- 95 -
 The major differences between non-marital relationships and marriage involve
the socio demographic attributes and personal approach that define cohabiting
individuals and a lesser degree of social acceptance for non-marital unions. Age and
socio-economic status are important circumstance in the union formation process and
further, non-marital cohabitation is particularly related to younger generations and
people with either fewer economic resources or from elite class. On most socio-
economic specifications, never married cohabitors feature like single adults more
closely than they resemble married adults.65 Differences in approach and expectations
regarding family life and relationships form another major distinction between
cohabiting and married couples. In general, cohabitors have more liberal attitudes
toward traditional gender roles and place a higher value on individual needs and goals
than married people. These attitudinal differences suggest that cohabiting couples
organize their daily lives differently than married couples, including following
equality in gender division of labor, and these organizational roles could include
assigning family responsibilities different than that in typical marital relationships.66

Weaker social endorsement along with fewer social benefits further

distinguishes cohabitating-couple unions from marital unions. Whereas marriage
creates strong kin affinity and likelihood for familial support and cooperation, the
delicate individual and social endorsement of non-marital unions appears to dilute
commitment between cohabiting couples and discourages regular social and economic
exchanges between their respective families.67 The awareness of uncertainty of
relationship status among non-married partners decrease their incentives for pooling
individual time and financial resources as in marriages generally because the
economic interdependence among non-marital couples is lower than among married
couples. The delicate commitment between non-married cohabitors and scanty social
support for non-marital unions can comprise an undermining effect on non-marital
cohabitation. Even though many couples divorce, marriage being a formal social
contract is grounded by specific obligations and behavioral standards, and most

65
Zheng Wu, “Does Cohabitation Matter? The Effects Of Non-Marital Cohabitation Disruption On
Children’s Behavior”, available at: http://paa2006.princeton.edu/papers/60144 at pages 5-6 (Last
visited on Oct. 15, 2016)
66
Id. at 6
67
Ibid.

- 96 -
people expect that marriages constitute permanent unions. Marriage creates the
interrelationship between couple and wider kinship network that is essential for
establishing and maintaining both union coherence and practical familial relations. On
the other side, the normative vacuum around non-marital relationships slowly leads to
conflict in the relationship and destabilizes union because non-marital relations are
not formal and permanent relationships like marriage. These relationships lack mutual
obligations, behavioral norms, and relationship security, couples living together
unmarried find lower satisfaction and happiness with their unions than the married
couples, and resultantly experience more union conflict and breakdown. Relationship
stability is a remarkable difference between non-marital cohabitations and
marriages.68

Non-marital cohabitation intimidates the concept of husband and wife and the
institution of marriage that cheers the high level of sanctity when it comes to India. It
also contributes in increasing adultery. The mammoth gap that existed between Indian
marriage system and western concept of living together is slowly diminishing. Our
society slowly but actively has started accepting living-in relationships. Live-in
relationships are definitely more alluring and easy but marriage has its own
advantages over such relationships as well.69 Through following points researcher will
discuss that marriage is far superior to non-marital cohabitation at connecting people
to others, work acquaintances, in-laws who are a source of support and benefits:

a) Those who live together before marriage generally put the bedrock of distrust
and lack of respect. A cultured relationship is built on the security of
exclusiveness, knowing that one’s love is exclusionary and there is no one
else. But premarital intimacy causes one to suspect that if he or she has this
little control with me now, there had been others before me and there will be
others in the future too. This suspicion and distrust escalates slowly and one
loses respect in the eyes of the other person. This trust factor is also an
important and essential component in a healthy marriage. The knowledge that
each partner can relax and be him/herself at the most intimate level without

68
Id. at 7
69
Supra note 3 at 26-27

- 97 -
 the fear of doing something that will drive the other away, is missing from the
living-together arrangement. Premarital sex lays the groundwork for
comparisons, suspicions, and mistrust. Real trust grows in the context of the
life-long commitment within a monogamous relationship of marriage. 70
b) Those living together have frivolous and extremely weaker relationships.
Couples who live together before marriage have weaker marriages. Anyone
can make love, but not everyone can carry on a meaningful conversation. A
good relationship is much more than physical intimacy. Beauty is more than
skin deep; there is a deeper intimacy of the mind and spirit that takes the time
and commitment of a marriage to develop to the fullest. Physical attraction is
not sufficient to build or maintain a lasting relationship. A more recent study
at Johns Hopkins University, again confirmed that couples who cohabit have
quite different and significantly weaker relationships than married couples.
They determined that men and women looking for someone with whom they
could cohabit search for characteristics such as education which can reflect a
short-term ability to contribute to the relationship. While cohabitors anticipate
time together, married persons anticipate a lifetime.71
c) Those who live together often have a ‘marriage of convenience’ or a ‘marriage
of compatibility’ rather than a marriage of commitment. ‘Marriages of
convenience’ are disposable; marriages of commitment are lifelong and not to
be dissolved. Commitment means being determined that the both of partners
will stick it out. When there is an agreement without commitment it is easy to
give up. ‘A lack of commitment in the real sense and a dangerous level of
liberty loom over the relationship to topple it over anytime. And for those who
prefer it as a prelude to the real act of tying the knot, the pros and cons of
living together before marriage shape up as even greater challenge, more so
because of the social issues involved in it.’72 When there is a commitment for
life, partners remain tough together in good times and the bad but do not run
away from responsibilities by foresee tough times. Commitments are made

70
“Sociological Reasons Not to Live Together”, available at: www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-
socio.html (Last visited on Sep. 22, 2016)
71
Ibid.
72
Supra note 3 at 21

- 98 -
 and kept ‘before God’ to be the half of the other, accompanying families of
both partners. A lifetime commitment, provided by marriage, is needed in
order for a relationship to be a sacrament.73

d) Those who live together have no life-long commitments or responsibilities.

Non-marital cohabitation engages no public commitment, no pledge for the
future, no official pronouncement of love and responsibility. There is
essentially a private arrangement based on an emotional bond. The
'commitment' of living together is simply a month-to-month rental agreement.
As long as both partners feel happy they remain together. Marriage, on the
other hand, is much more than a partnership of two people; it is a relationship
between two families. It is a public event that comprises legal and societal
responsibilities. It brings together not just two people but also two families
and two communities. It is not a monthly agreement but a commitment for
life. Jessie Bernard in ‘The Future of Marriage’ states: "One fundamental fact
underlies the conception of marriage itself. Some kind of commitment must be
involved...Merely fly-by-night, touch and go relationships do not qualify.
People who marry ‘till death do us part’ have a quite different level of
commitment, therefore a quite different level of security, thus a quite different
level of freedom, and as a result a quite different level of happiness than that
of walk-in and walk-out relationships”.74

e) Here it is worth noticing about love marriage and arranged marriage that love
marriages are much more fragile than arranged marriages; those who have
‘trial’ marriages do not have better marriages. Trial runs or half steps, to test
whether the relationship ‘works’ are not successful; in fact quite the opposite
is true. Couples who live together before marriage have significantly lower
marital satisfaction than those who do not cohabit and they have weaker
marriages, not stronger ones, which itself counters the argument that
premarital relationship helps in finding compatible partners.75 Premarital
cohabitors who eventually marry are more likely to divorce or separate than

73
Ibid.
74
Supra note 70
75
Supra note 3 at 34

- 99 -
 persons who do not cohabit prior to marriage.76 In most industrialized
countries the growing legitimization of cohabitation has made it almost an
expected stage in the marriage process. Among the young cohabitation is
being increasingly viewed as a substitute for marriage. One important
observation in virtually all of the research on this subject is that premarital
cohabitation is usually associated with marital instability. Cohabiting couples
that marry are more likely than non-cohabiting couples to end their marriage
in separation or divorce.77 The incidence of non-marital cohabitation has
increased among young adults. Premarital cohabitation is associated with an
increased risk of later marital dissolution. Beyond an increased risk of divorce,
cohabitation has also been found to be associated with negative relational
outcomes such as lower relationship satisfaction, interpersonal commitment,
and an increased frequency of conflict.78

Thus this study of impacts of non-marital relationships on the marriages

studied including a brief comparison between non-married unions and married unions
makes it clear that though marital rates are not decreasing in India like observed in
western countries, however, delayed marriages, child birth or pregnancies before
marriage, marital dissatisfaction, increasing divorce rate, extra-marital affairs are
some of the indicators of impact of non-marital relationships in Indian concept of
marriage. Though according to present situation live-in relationship cannot be said to
be a threat to institution of marriage in India, however, same might have been thought
in western countries couple of decades ago. The increasing rates of cohabitation over
the last few decades in Western countries have been well noticed. Its increasing
pervasiveness is, in part, a phase in the contemporary social transformation of the
Western family, followed by decreasing rates of marriage and fertility, delay in
marriage, and increasing rates of divorce. Non-marital cohabitation may in fact be a

76
Ronald A. Budinski and Frank Trovato, “The Effect of Premarital Cohabitation on Marital Stability
over the Duration of Marriage”, 32(1) Canadian Studies in Population 69 (2005)
available at: https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/csp/article/download/15943/12748 (Last
visited on August 12, 2016)
77
Id. at 71
78
Brian J. Willoughby and Jason S. Carroll, “Correlates of Attitudes Toward Cohabitation: Looking at
the Associations with Demographics, Relational Attitudes, and Dating Behavior” 33(11) Journal of
Family Issues 1451 (2012) available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192513X11429666 (Last visited on March 31, 2017)

- 100 -
reaction to the delay in marriages rates and rising rates of divorce, and also to the
sense that marriage is becoming a fragile union and it is no more a relationship for
seven lives.79 Cohabiting without marriage is a feasible alternative for couples that do
not feel confident about fulfilling the responsibilities by creating an enduring marital
relationship. Some features of marriage are also present in non-marital cohabiting
unions, such as sharing of home, economic resources, sexual intimacy and sometimes
childbearing. However cohabitation is generally much easier to dissolve than legal
marriage; but for many modern couples it presents the benefits of both being
remaining unmarried and at the same time taking the advantages of married life to
provide; the freedom and independence associated with singlehood, and the
emotional, sexual, and economic advantages of marriage. However at the same time it
has been highlighted in literature that non-marital cohabitation tends to be unstable
and temporary unions that may dissolve by separation or by marriage of the couple,
but even when these unions result in marriage, the marriage often remains unstable,
with a higher possibility of marital breakdown.80

Conventional prudence says it is acceptable to try the shoe on first to see if it

fits or to test drive a car before one buys it. However, for marriage, just the opposite is
true. A newly married couple makes a deliberate effort to accommodate each other
because they know their relationship will be for life. They don’t test it rather try to
build compatibility. Sex is no test of love, for it is precisely the very thing that one
wants to test that is destroyed by the testing. Laura Schlessinger, the host of the
nationally syndicated Dr. Laura radio show, scolds people nearly every day for
hooking up with their partners. Mrs. Schlessinger, listing cohabiting as one of the Ten
Stupid Things Women Do to Mess Up Their Lives in her book of the same name, feels
it the ultimate female self-delusion. She says, dating, not living-in, is supposed to be
about learning and discerning about a prospective mate.81
3.3.2 Impact on Family Relations and Institution

The first and the most important social surroundings to which a child is
exposed is the family and hence is the basic unit of society. Family applies a regular

79
Supra note 76 at 71
80
Id. at 72
81
Supra note 70

- 101 -
influence from the time of birth till the last moment of life. It equips one with the
most enduring relationship in one or other form. It is in the family a child learns
language, the behavioral patterns and social norms in his childhood. Be it any
religion, culture, tribe or community, institution of family exists among the followers
of all religions, cultures, among people of all tribes and communities, in rural as well
as in urban areas. Though the family is universal group but in spite of the permanent
and universal nature of the family the institution of has vast differences in its structure
in different societies. In tribal, agrarian and rural societies people of several
generations live together in one family and one household. These societies have large
and ‘joint families’. In the industrial societies the family is limited to husband, wife
and their children. These families are known as nuclear families. The family is formed
with number of members who live together in a joint household. In this sense the
family is a group. There are certain rules and procedures at the roots of the family and
definite purposes in living together that makes the family an institution.82

The institution of family has crossed through many stages to reach its present
form. The family, marriage, economic system and succession are inter-related. With
the changes in socio-economic order the structure, behavioral patterns and functions
of the family have also been changing. The structure of the family can be understood
on the basis of followed characteristics; the structure of the family is mainly based on
the husband-wife relationship; another basis of the familial structure is procreation;
the third basis of this structure is common residence. The structure of the family is
also depends on economic system. The present nuclear and individualistic structure of
family has been encouraged by the urban industrial system and the occupations.83

The human inception is an extended one. The child which is in need of help at
the time of birth is provided the required protection of the family. Individual own its
life to the family because it is the family that gives the individual his life and a chance
to survive. Family is an institution; no other institution can as efficiently bring up the
child as can the family. This can also be referred to as the function of ‘maintenance’.84
The family ensures the basis for the child’s formal learning. In spite of great changes,
the family still gives the child his basic training in the social attitudes and habits
82
Dr. C. Mahesh, “Family Marriage and Kinship” in Indian Society and Social Change 15 (2011),
available at: http://www.universityofcalicut.info/SDE/BA_sociology_indian_society.pdf (Last
visited on March 29, 2017)
83
Id. at 18
84
Id. at 20

- 102 -
important to adult participation in social life. When the child grows up, child extends
its interests to other groups where he learns to deal with situations outside the home
and family. With all this his intelligences his emotions and his social habits develop
until he wears himself from the original dependence on the mother, father and other
family members.85

Joint families were the oldest intuitions of family structure in India. The nature
and ethos of joint family were glorified in the past and these families were considered
as ideal institutions in Indian society. But the growth of an industrial economy had led
to many changes in this traditional family setup. Further, these traditional values have
undergone changes in the wake of modern society in India. Many of its traditional
beliefs, for example joint property, common kitchen, role of Karta(Patriarch) etc.
could not continue due to large scale migration and development of modem notions of
individualism.86 The modern society has further aggravated the situation by providing
new meanings to the notion of family. Indian culture and tradition is no longer
reflected in joint family ideals as for them joint family is a thing of the past. With
modern day popular notions like live-in relationships, individual family, one man/
one-woman family, etc. gaining ground, joint family seems to be lost in these diverse
groups of families. An interesting fact that was revealed is that co-habitation without
marriage also prevailed among youths in metros, which is popularly called ‘live-in
relationship’. Young generation thinks that before marriage it is very important to
know each other, if possible they would not hesitate to stay together without marriage.
In case they are unable to adjust with each other they can always discontinue their
relationship.87

Younger generations of societies that continue to place a very high value on

the institution of marriage are also likely to follow contemporary lifestyles of world.
In countries like India where non-marital cohabitation is not popularly accepted,
entering non-marital cohabitation as a living arrangement may lead to a disintegration
of familial ties in a young person’s family. While keeping one’s family happy is
85
Id. at 22
86
Manoj Kumar Jena, Information Society and Changing Family Relationships: A Case Study of
Bangalore, (2009) (PhD, Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University) available at:
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/18135/10/10_chapter%204.pdf at page 206 (Last
visited on June 26, 2016)
87
Id. at 207

- 103 -
among the most important sources of happiness, the non-institutional partnerships
among family could potentially lead to a decrease in life satisfaction and further,
parent–child conflict may reduce considerably the well-being among parents and adult
children.88

There is a long-standing debate about the impact of adult children’s life styles
and union formation on the quality of family relations and family members’ life
satisfaction, particularly, the role of the traditional norms and values that adult
children are expected to follow in order to maintain a healthy relationship with their
parents. When young people choose union formation that is in clash with social
attitudes and traditional norms, deterioration in their relations with their parents is
likely to occur. In order to be considered as an adult a person is expected to achieve
the required status after reaching some specific age. The general social expectations
from an individual such as the following of norms and traditions regarding union
formation may be of consideration. In many societies, generally, young people are
usually expected to complete their education, find a stable job, to become a potential
source of support for their parents. These social expectations may also include getting
married according to traditional values and forming their own family. This norm
applies specifically to the countries like India where marriage is very strongly valued.
In such countries, young adults who remain unmarried may be regarded as avoiding
responsibility and commitments, and their unmarried status may have a negative
impact on their relationship with their parents and other family members.89

The norms that put condition of adulthood and maturity on marital status may
overlap with social attitudes towards living arrangements that are an alternative to
marriage, such as non-marital cohabitation. These norms can be related to religious
influences, such as the belief that living in a non-marital relationship is a sin. In
societies where, marriage is recognized as the only moral way of family formation
and living together without marriage is considered as prohibited, the non-marital
cohabiting couple is surely to be ridiculed for not following the societal values and
traditional norms including disrespecting the parents. However, the disparity between

88
A.J. Baranowska-Rataj, “Happiness Studies (2014)” 15(6) JHS 1313-1332 (2014) available at:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10902-013-9477-0 (Last visited on Sep. 22, 2016)
89
Ibid.

- 104 -
social expectations of parents and the relationship choices of young adults does not
automatically affect the family attachment. In other words, the choice of being in non-
marital cohabitation may not itself result into a decreased numbers of meetings or a
lack of family support, even though it may yield some hesitation in relationships.
However the behavioural aspects of family members will not expose any split or
hesitation in the relationship between adult children and their parents. Yet, deciding to
be in non-marital cohabitation may adversely affect the scale of happiness and
satisfaction young couples derive from their relationship with their parents, and may
thus have an impact on their quality of life.90

In a country like India where the extent of societal approval of non-marital

cohabitation is less and the value conferred on status of marriage is high, deciding to
cohabit without marriage may lead to a reduced amount of emotional and material
support from the family. Non-marital cohabitation reduces the satisfaction and
guidance received from the parental relationship. In modern societies the
demographic changes in union formation patterns may result in devaluation of the
quality of intergenerational relationships, particularly when non-marital cohabitation
is progressively becoming a common living arrangement, but has not yet been
completely approved as a union equal to marriage.91

3.3.3 Impact on Partners

As already mentioned, cohabiting relationships tend to be fragile compared
with marital relationships. One way in which the uncertainty is correlated with non-
marital relationships affects quality of available resources to cohabiters from the
kinship networks. There is also a great possibility that young adult non-married
cohabiters receive lesser benefits from parents compared to married young adults. The
relationship termination impacts also differ from married adults to living together
without marriage couples. Although formerly married men tend to be better off after a
divorce, formerly cohabiting men experience little financial change after termination
of relationship and formerly cohabiting women suffer about the same financial loss as
formerly married women. 92 Cohabiting relationships also tend to be more violent than

90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.
92
Stokes Raley(ed.), “Civic Engagement, Cohabitation” in Encyclopedia of the Life Course and
Human Development 58, available at: http://liberalarts.utexas.edu/_files/kraley/StokesRaley.pdf
(Last visited on March 31, 2017)

- 105 -
married relationships although this is likely the result of the least violent cohabiting
couples choosing to marry and the most violent married couples choosing to
divorce.93 Some foreign studies find that non-married cohabiters are comparatively
less healthy than married couples, possibly because unmarried partners have lesser
resources and lower relationship quality. For example, among older unmarried
partners men experience considerably poorer mental health compared with married
men, but cohabiting and married women have similar levels of mental health.
Scholars contemplate that, among older couples, a population for whom care giving
roles are highly gendered, married men benefit from the security of having a care
giving wife, whereas cohabiting women may benefit from having fewer care giving
94
obligations. So overall, although some of the differences between non-marital
cohabitation and marriage in adult outcomes appear to be due to selection, the fragile
nature of non-marital relationships may also contribute to some negative outcomes.

Dr. Ahalya Raghuram, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology in

Bangalore, says that a couple in a live-in-relationship is especially vulnerable as the
partners are under pressure to make the relationship work and also cope with an
unsympathetic society and parental disapproval. Alienation from one’s family,
coupled with the insecurity of the relationship, can play havoc with a person’s psyche.
A women in a relationship who suddenly discovers that she wants to marry, puts her
in a perilous position if her male partner does not wish to marry, and she
unconsciously places him on a position of power, thus negating at one stroke the
power equation a live-in-relationship is supposedly based on.95 Many couples start to
cohabitate with the purpose of marrying after a long time. But cohabiting couples tend
to prolong their marriage or end up breaking.

3.3.4 Impact on Child born out of a Live-in Relationship

As family structure is an important institution in children’s behavioral
learning. There are reasons to admit that non-marital households represent a different
constructive atmosphere in comparison to marital households. The new patterns of
family formation presents new issues and concerns because non-marital cohabitation
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
95
Shoma A. Chatterji, “The Family in Flux” in Sanjukta Das Gupta and Malashri Lal (eds.), The
Indian Family in Literary Transition: Reading and Cultural Texts 257 (Sage Publications Delhi, 1st
Edition 2007)

- 106 -
is fragile and instable than marriage, and children living in unmarried-parent
households are much likely to experience a family transition than those living in
married-parent households.96
Living in a non-marital family influences child’s experiences in a manner
different from living in a marital family, and children living with unmarried parents
face more deprivations than those living with married parents. Normatively it is
expected from married parents to devote to the childrearing process but non-married
parents follow different parenting behaviors than married couples, such as, mostly the
male cohabiting parent invest less time in formal activities with children, which raises
concerns about insufficiency of the parental resources available to children in non-
marital relationships. Compared to other family structures, non-marital relationships
appear to represent inconvenient or inadequate surroundings for ensuring child
development and well-being. In India we do not have specific studies which compare
between children from married and unmarried relationships, however, a recent United
States study demonstrates that children from cohabiting families have more
behavioral and emotional problems than children living with married biological
parents. Other studies observe that children living in non-marital households also
exhibit lower academic results, increased school misconduct problems, and worse
creative performance than children from other families.97
Corinnie Reczek, an assistant professor in the department of sociology at the
University of Cincinnati, advocates that children of unmarried cohabiting couples
don’t do as well as those of married couples in terms of education and health, but
these disparities have been attributed to the insecurity and financial struggles of
couples, rather than their status of being unmarried parents. It is not cohabitation that
is causing worse child outcomes, but the social conditions within which cohabitation
takes place that may matter for child outcomes.98
In western countries an increasing number of children live part of their
childhoods in households headed by unmarried cohabiting couple. Social scientists

96
Supra note 88
97
Ibid.
98
Rachael Rettner, “ More Couples Living Together Outside of Marriage”, available at:
http://www.livescience.com/28420-cohabiting-marriage-cdc-report.html (Last visited on May 15,
2016)

- 107 -
have developed a modest literature investigating how children fare in cohabiting
households. Cohabitation seems to be a compelling source of instability in the lives of
some children; this is exclusively true when a child’s mother or father moves in and
out of several cohabiting relationships while the child is living in the parental home.
Several studies indicate that children and adolescents living with unmarried couple
exhibit more behavioral, health, and educational problems than children living in
married households. 99 It is less clear correlation that the presence of two adults in a
cohabiting household is better for children than a single-parent. However, it has been
suggested that factors such as instability, lower socio-economic status and poor
mental health among mothers in cohabiting relationships may negate any potential
gains that children may accumulate from having a second adult in the household; and
further the research on stepfamilies has shown that the presence of an adult who is not
a biological parent may be a stressor for children. Selection is undoubtedly
responsible for many of the differences between child outcomes in cohabiting
households versus learning in married households. Instability, however, may also
contribute to poorer childhood outcomes in cohabiting households.100 Though these
studies have taken place in western scenario but the impact on the child’s psychology
might remain same throughout regions.

When it comes to the right of child born under live-in relationships, we again
find the law to be exploring in the dark. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the
status of legitimacy to every child, irrespective of birth out of a void, voidable or valid
marriage. 101 There is no such presumption of legality of child in any other personal
law, in such cases, legality of the child born out of such relationship is doubtful.
Marriage leads to a bonding between a man and woman and this ensures security for
children. Let us also caution the exponents of live-in relationships that parting of
ways, for one reason or the other, will leave behind deep scars of being used and
rejected. Progenies of such relationships will also end up as misfits in society.102

Everyone has the moral responsibility to comply the life-enriching norms to

facilitate the future generations to be proud of their birth, cultural traditions and
national identity. Children should not be left to bear the results of irresponsible

99
Supra note 92 at 58
100
Ibid.
101
Supra note 61 at 5
102
Ibid.

- 108 -
behaviour of their parents. Responsible forefathers will leave a valuable legacy and
not vicarious liabilities to their future generations. Another important question that
needs to be taken note of is the future of the child when the unmarried live-in parents
of child desire to get out of the relationship. The future and rights of the child must be
secured through provisions, where none of the parent wants to keep the child with
him/her.
3.3.5 Live-in Relations and Aged People

A group of senior citizens under the banner of 'Jyeshtha Nagrik Live-in

Relationship Mandal' Nagpur, led by a former banker Arvind Godbole has formed an
organisation for helping those seeking a partner at the far end of their lives. Vina
Mulya Amulya Seva (VMAS) Ahemedabad, the charitable trust which had organised
this 'Senior Citizen Livein Relationship Samellan', seven couples who met at this
alliance meet have decided to enter into a live-in relationship.103 The concept has
gathered the attention of social media circles for the openness with which various
aspects of taking up a live-in partner by those who are alone in their old age. This
initiative is to reduce the loneliness, the neglect and isolation that many such single
senior citizens face in the later years of their lives. This is a welcome move by the
seniors.

3.3.6 Impact of Live in Relationship on Society

The concept of live-in relationship is considerably different from that of

marriage. Live-in relationship is an arrangement entered into by individuals who do
not want to enter into a relationship of responsibilities whereas marriage is a lifetime
commitment. Thus those people, who just want to live life in companionship but free
from responsibilities that come along with committed relationship of marriage, go for
live-in relationships. They aspirate the emotional and physical security of a
relationship as well as the freedom and independence of the single status.104 The
increase in cohabitation pre-marital, non-marital and post-marital highlights one of
the most important changes in union formation patterns beside, other related major
demographic shifts, including; increasing rates of divorce, postponement of entry into

103
Supra note 4 at 6
104
Supra note 3 at 52

- 109 -
marriage and childbearing, and a growing proportion of births taking place outside
marriage.105 The analysis of cohabitation continues to unfold the expanding and
changing nature of living arrangements in general and non-marital cohabitation in
particular. Both, as a demographic process and an event, non-marital cohabitation is
fuzzy, ambiguous and diversified. Union formation in general and non-marital
cohabitation in particular is portrayed by growing in numbers and complexity and the
duration of cohabiting unions appears to be lengthening.106

The model of live-in relation has overwhelmed all the youth of the society for
various reasons. No doubt this relation provides two partners the greatest possibility
of individualism, liberty and at the same time an intimate relationship. But nothing
escapes without leaving drawbacks and the negative point has to be considered as
well. People who choose to have a live-in-relationship cannot complain of infidelity
or immorality because live-in relationship is an agreement of living together which is
renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by one without the consent of
the other. However it is a relationship of personnel enjoyment but even if partners
think about family formation, as such relationships are choice of two individuals wish
to make their own family without the will of their parents, there is always likelihood
of fragile relation between couple and the parents of the spouse’s family. Therefore it
is indisputable that there is always possibility of conflict of views and arguments in
the family which ultimately lead to weaken the relation between other members of the
family.107

The relationships like live-in relationships are weak relationships that can be
terminated at any moment without any obligation or requirements; legal position of
live-in relationships does not depict a distinguishable stand. The couples in live-in
relationships do not enjoy the same social status and privileges as enjoyed by married
couples. Disagreements are the part and parcel of any relationship.108 Live-in
relationship is against the settled norms of Indian society. Live-in relationship, on the
one hand, if it is assumed true as believed by some people, decreases the numbers of

105
Supra note 1
106
Id. at 2
107
Supra note 61 at 6
108
Id. at 9

- 110 -
divorce then on the other hand it will increase the chances of unwanted premarital
pregnancies also. If it will give both the partners equal rights and space in a
relationship then it will increase the chances of suspiciousness. Non-marital
relationship results in negatively affecting the mental status and physical health of
live-in partners and other family members also especially when a couple starts
cohabiting together without caring about the family and society.109

A few decades ago, middle-class Indian families were almost unaware of

concept of non-marital relationships. Even if any couple indulged in it, it was without
public knowledge. If in such incidents the involved people were unveiled to public,
they were subjected to a lot of taunting and censure. Men or women with suspicious
character and reputation had far and fewer chances of finding a suitable marriage
partner. Their families also agonized because of such behavior. 110 However, with the
increasing significance of urbanization and cultural influences from the West has
changed the situation in the last decades. Now the young people have many channels
to communicate; through mobile phones, text messages, emails and social networks
without being noticed by their parents. As a result, premarital relations in Hindu
society is now said to be an increasing practice, and more prevalent among the urban
youth who are also indifferent to religious teachings but in the rural areas parents still
have some authority over their children.111 Thus, Indian society is presently vertically
segregated into two major segments. On one side there are the progressives who want
to throw the old order out of the window and live in a free society which they see in
Hollywood movies or read in the Western fiction, and on the other side there are the
traditionalists who advocates that they must return to those traditional eternal values
that distinguish India from the rest of the world.112

Sexual abstinence before marriage is required in Indian society by norms and

considered a part of chastity. As we have already discussed in Chapter II that in most
ethnic and religious contexts, sex within marriage is not considered to be contrary to

109
Ritika Arora, “Live in relationship is Against Indian Culture”, Meri News, Jan. 07, 2009, available
at: www.merinews.com/article/live-in-relationship-is-against-indian-culture/155336.shtml (Last
visited on Sep. 12, 2016)
110
V. Jayaram, “Hinduism and Premarital Relationships”, available at:
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_premarital.asp (Last visited on Sep. 15, 2016)
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid.

- 111 -
notions of chastity, however, sexual activities outside marriage are grave sin. Such
laws are mostly tied to religion and the legal and political traditions.113 Most of the
religions encourage young people not to indulge in intimate relationship before
marriage because it promotes promiscuity and may also lead to emotional scarring,
may result in unwanted pregnancies, and most important, tarnishes the sanctity of
marriage. The negative effects of premarital sex do not impact only couples. Even the
safest sex can result in unwanted pregnancy as birth control works only most of the
time and not all the times. Such pregnancies may then lead to the tragic decision to
end the unborn child’s life through abortion; something a woman carries this suffering
for the rest of her life.114

Thus, in our society where physical relations are also considered under
religious contexts, live-in relations would definitely portray negative impression.
Moreover, divorces, multiple marriages, pre-marital relationships, unwed mothers are
now becoming common in India. These developments cause enormous damage to the
fiber and fabric of the society.

3.3.7 Impact on Legislations

No wonder the live-in relationships hamper the ethical and traditional norms
and values of the Indian society, but Indian law has not considered it illegal. To live in
a non-marital relationship is a very personal selection of a male and female, and in
India no legislation invalidates this personal affair. As per Article 21 of Indian
constitution we all have got right to live and living together is a form of living, then
there are no pointing fingers from legal perspective in this regard.115 The increase in
the number of couples living in relation and the issues related thereto has also been
taken into notice by Law Commissions, governments and Legislatures. This has
resulted in recommendations of Law Commissions and initiative by legislatures to
take notice of live-in couples while drafting statutes. The Maharashtra Government in
October 2008 approved a proposal suggesting that a woman involved in a live-in

113
Nestor A. Toro, “What’s So Wrong with Sex Before Marriage?”, The Real Truth: A Magazine
Restoring Plain Understanding, July 02, 2013, available at: http://realtruth.org/articles/130530-
005.html (Last visited on August 13, 2016)
114
Ibid.
115
Supra note 3 at 60

- 112 -
relationship for a ‘reasonable period’, should get the status of a wife. Whether a
period is a ‘reasonable period’ or not is determined by the facts and circumstances of
each case. However the proposal was not carried forward in the direction of
enactment through legal provision. 116

The Commission to the Ministry of Women and Child Development

recommended that, the definition of ‘wife’ as described in Section 125 of Code of
Criminal Procedure must include women involved in a live-in relationship.117 The aim
of the recommendation was to harmonise the provisions of law dealing with
protection of women from domestic violence and also to put a live-in couple’s
relationship at par with that of a legally married couple. There was a Committee set
up by the Supreme Court for this purpose, called the Justice Malimath Committee,
which observed that if a man and a woman are living together as husband and wife for
a reasonable long period, the man shall be deemed to have married the woman. The
Malimath Committee had also suggested that the word ‘wife’ under Code of Criminal
Procedure be amended to include a ‘woman living with the man like his wife’ so that
even a woman having a live-in relationship with a married man would also be entitled
to alimony.118

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is no provision for a second wife
among Hindus. Hence, enabling the mistress to get the status of a legally married wife
in all matters, including share in property, inheritance, and maintenance is contrary to
the Act as well as Hindu customs. When the Maharastra Government approved a
proposal suggesting that a woman involved in a live-in relationship for a ‘reasonable
period’, should get the status of a wife, the Government on one hand is in favour of
banning dance bars because they are spoiling the social atmosphere, while on the
other it is promoting illicit relationships through such proposals.119

116
Id. at 179-180
117
Himanshi Dhawan, “Maintenance for Live-in-Partner?” The Times of India, June 30, 2008,
available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maintenance-for-live-in-
partner/articleshow/3178050.cms (Last Visited on Sep. 30, 2017)
118
Government of India, Report: Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, (Ministry of
Home Affairs, 2003) available at: mha.nic.in/pdfs/criminal_justice_system.pdf at page 197(Last
visited on 22 August, 2015)
119
Supra note 61 at 6

- 113 -
 In India live-in relationship is considered against the public policy and
portrayed as a threat to the institution of marriage. The Law Commission’s 132nd
Report and Report of Malimath Committee on reforms of Criminal Justice System
recommends to recognize a woman as wife in case of living in relationship for
reasonably long time. This promotes bigamy, as the person who is getting into live in
relationship might be already married. The position of the wife is disadvantageous in
such situation as court on the one hand is giving all the rights of wife to live-in female
partner, while on the other hand it prohibits bigamy. Law is ambiguous and
disadvantageous for the weaker sex and not being beneficial to anyone neither wife
nor live-in partner of married man. Thus giving judicial recognition to live-in partners
and legitimacy to their children has given rise to requirement of several amendments
in relevant statutes concerning women and child.

3.4 SUM UP

If a social phenomenon in the perception of an individual grows more and

more common it means that former negative norms against that phenomenon will be
less effective. 120 As seems to be the case with non-marital relationships, the norms
have changed, the stigma associated with non-marital cohabitation and pre-marital
relationships existing fifteen or twenty years ago have changed. Everyone has the
moral liability to appreciate and follow life-enriching norms to facilitate the future
generations to be proud of their birth, culture, tradition and national identity. Why
should children be made to bear the effects of the skewed behaviour of their parents?
Responsible parents will leave a valuable legacy and not vicarious liabilities to the
progeny. Even when parents normatively raise their children, many precautionary
measures are required to insulate them from the ill-effects of the unsanctioned societal
deviations and the vicious projections of modernity. India cannot afford to throw its
proven and time-tested merits of its custom to the winds.121

In India among middle economic class of the people, as this class is

scrutinized more in the society, one find that live-in relationships is less prevalent. In

120
Jan Trost, “A Renewed Social Institution: Non-Marital Cohabitation” 21(4) Acta Sociologica
313(1978) available at: www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4194254.pdf (Last visited on Sep. 26, 2016)
121
Supra note 61 at 6

- 114 -
contrast to middle class, both the high income group and the lower income group are
in position to freely accept newer kinds of relationships. A girl from family with low
income that is in need of shelter without much hesitation can consider living-in a
relationship with a man of slightly higher financial status without marrying him. In
changing situations even parents have slowly started giving consent to living
arrangements for the sake of happiness of their children. The busy lives do not allow
us to look into background of couple if they decide to live in a new place or city. The
cities in India are examples of faith in marriages on one hand and attraction towards
non-marital living arrangements on the other. A live-in relationships that is not in the
nature of marriage and where the couples do not act as spouses are completely outside
the purview of legislations today. Indeed, if a legal framework were established to
regulate all live in relationships it would defeat the purpose of both, live-in
relationships and marriage. If the same rights and obligations are accorded to live-in
relationships and marriages, it will promote people to just live together unmarried and
not getting married; and if that will happen, the sanctity of marriage and requisite of
getting married to form family would begin to diminish and that would tear the
cultural fabric of our society.

Every country has its own understanding of term cohabitation and its
acceptance. The concept which is considered of western origin is now accepted under
different levels in most of the civilized countries. Researcher discussed the present
concept of non-marital cohabitation in different countries and its acceptance level in
these countries and after that discussed in detail the non-marital cohabitation in India
i.e. Indian concept of live in relationship and from that researcher concludes that
concept is global, however its acceptance, regulation differs from country to country.
Due to much regulation of interpersonal relations in India through various laws
sometimes non-marital relations creates challenges in protection of woman and child
voluntarily or unwontedly involved in these relations. The Indian understanding of
non-marital relationships has various aspects; it ranges from pre-marital non-marital
relationships to adulterous relationships, it is evident from the cases, discussed in this

- 115 -
Chapter III, where court has discussed about relationships in nature of marriage and
relationships not in nature of marriage.

Further, it is clear from the discussion of impacts of non-marital relationships

that it impacts the individuals, family and society severely. These institutions are
interlinked and interdependent; the failure of anyone will paralyze our entire social
fabric, however, the present scenario in India is not that alarming.

- 116 -