LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS

Live in Relationship in India

 In India, live-in relationships are not explicitly governed by law or custom.
 However, through judicial decisions, the Supreme Court has expanded the
recognition of live-in partnerships and established guidelines for handling such
relationships.
 Supreme Court Judgements related to Live-In Relationships:
o Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978): The Supreme Court
observed live-in relationships as legal if they meet the requirements of
marriage, such as legal age, consent, and mental capacity.
o Lalita Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand (2018): SC ruled under the
provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA 2005) the live-in-
partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
o Bharatha Matha vs R Vijay Renganathan & Ors (2010): SC held that the
children born through live-in relations will be considered legitimate children
and will be allowed share in the ancestral undivided property.
o Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013): The Court affirmed that entering into a
mutual live-in relationship is not illegal if both partners are
unmarried, and it does not constitute an offense.
How is Live-in Relationship Affecting Marriage as Institution?
Social change, global influence, urbanization, and cosmopolitan norms have increased
acceptance of pre-marital cohabitation and live-in arrangements, especially among
younger generations.
 Individual Autonomy: The concept of live-in relationships is rooted in the desire
for personal autonomy and freedom of choice, especially in the face of historically
prevalent arranged marriages and societal expectations.
 Evolving Views on Commitment: The concept of commitment has evolved to
emphasize emotional connection, communication, and compatibility, reducing the
sanctity of marriage as the ultimate symbol of commitment.
 Testing Compatibility: Live-in relationships offer a way to test domestic
compatibility before marriage, addressing concerns about restrictive or cumbersome
marriage procedures.
  Legal and Social Dynamics: Despite legal recognition, societal acceptance of live-in
relationships challenges traditional family structures and raises debates on legal
reforms.
 Family Impact: Live-in relationships challenge traditional family structures, leading
to generational conflicts and societal tensions, especially in conservative
communities.
 Economic Considerations: Concerns about financial stability, asset division in case
of divorce, and prenuptial agreements is nudging toward live in relationships.
Legal Rights of Female Partners:
 The Protection of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005, grants economic rights
to female partners in live-in relationships.
 Maharashtra Government proposed granting the status of a wife to women in live-in
relationships for a 'reasonable period,' with determination based on case-specific
circumstances.
 The National Commission for Women recommended amending the definition of
'wife' in the Criminal Procedure Code to include women in live-in relationships for
alignment with domestic violence protection laws.
 The Malimath Committee supported this view, proposing amendments to provide
alimony rights to women in live-in relationships.
Judicial Recognition:
 The Supreme Court observed that women in live-in relationships can claim
maintenance under section 125 now Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code
without establishing formal marriage.
 The Allahabad High Court affirmed the right of adults to live together without
marriage if both parties consent.
 The Supreme Court recognized long-term live-in relationships as equivalent to
marriage, granting legitimacy to children born from such unions.
Pros and Cons:
 The Supreme Court's endorsement of live-in relationships sparked debate, with
concerns raised about its impact on societal values and the institution of marriage.
 Some fear adverse effects such as increased instances of child pregnancies and the
spread of diseases.
 Others view it as a positive step towards individual freedom and pragmatic societal
changes.
Legitimacy of Children:
 The Supreme Court ruled that children born from long-term live-in relationships are
legitimate and entitled to inheritance rights.
 However, inheritance rights are limited to the parents' self-acquired property, not
ancestral property.
 Adultery laws prohibit live-in relationships involving married individuals.
Note
Despite legal recognition, live-in relationships remain non-binding, offering both advantages
and disadvantages depending on individual expectations. The legal landscape is evolving,
with efforts to expand the legal position of live-in relationships in India, reflecting changing
societal norms and attitudes.
Moral and Social Implications:
 The concept of marriage as a sacrament deeply ingrained in Indian culture often leads
to societal taboos surrounding pre-marital cohabitation.
 While urban centers tend to exhibit higher acceptance of live-in relationships, rural
areas maintain more conservative views.
 Misconceptions persist, with some equating live-in relationships to prostitution and
viewing them as fostering irresponsibility and moral decay.
 However, there is a shifting mindset among newer generations, recognizing individual
freedom and choice in matters of companionship.
Viability as Marriage Substitute:
 Questions arise regarding whether Indian society is ready to accept live-in
relationships as a substitute for marriage. Criteria such as the duration of cohabitation
are considered in discussions about legal recognition.
 Distinctions between live-in and marital relationships are emphasized, acknowledging
that not all live-in couples will eventually marry.
 Presently, societal preference leans towards marriage over cohabitation, posing
challenges regarding the status of children born in live-in relationships.
Policy and Legislative Considerations:
 While discussions about legalizing live-in relationships have been initiated, concrete
steps towards legislation are yet to be taken.
 Former Union Law Minister Mr. H.R. Bharadwaj expressed interest in crafting laws
to formalize such relationships, contingent upon societal readiness. However, progress
 in this area remains stagnant, leaving legal recognition of live-in relationships
unresolved.
Why in the news?
The recently introduced Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
Bill mandates compulsory registration for all live-in relationships in the state, irrespective
of residency with registrar.
More on the News
 Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) requires compulsory registration with the
state while starting or ending a live-in relationship for heterosexual couples.
o This record will be kept in a police station.
 There is also provision for providing for maintenance to the woman when
“deserted” by her partner.
 It also prescribes jail term of up to six months for not producing a “certificate” of
the relationship.
 It imposes stringent terms on a consensual relationship between adults and raises
constitutional concerns of privacy and personal liberty.
Legality of Live in Relationships
 Context: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad HC stated that a Muslim cannot claim
rights in a live-in relationship when he or she has a living spouse.
 The couple told the court they were adults in a live-in relationship and that they
sought protection under Article 21 of the IC.
HC’s Observation
 Islamic tenets do not permit live-in relationships during the subsisting marriage.
The situation is different if two unmarried adults choose to live life as they please.
 Constitutional rules might support the couple, even if it means challenging old
customs; however, in this case, Article 21 of IC wouldn’t offer unlimited
support for their rights.
 The sanctity of marriage pre-supposes divorce.
Legal Provisions in Relation to Live-in Relationships in India
 There is no law specifically addressing live-in relationships, but the Indian judiciary
has developed jurisprudence over the years through a series of judgements.
 Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978): The live-in relationships in
India are legal but subject to caveats like age of marriage, consent and soundness
of mind.
  If a man and a woman have lived together for a long time, the legislation will
assume they are legally married unless the reverse is proven.
 A strong assumption favours marriage, but it is arbitrable, and the person
contradicting it bears the burden of proof.
 The legality of the live-in relationship stems from Article 19(a) and Article 21
of the IC.
 Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006): SC ruled that two persons of the opposite sex
living together are not doing anything illegal.
 S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Anr (2010): Living together is a right to life
protected by Article 21 of the IC, and thus, despite being considered immoral by
society, it is not an offence under the law.
 Velusamy vs. D Patchaimal (2010): The SC established legal criteria for live-in
relationships:
1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
2. They must be of legal age to marry.
3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including
being unmarried.
4. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world
as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
Case Laws
 Indra Sarma v. VKV Sharma (2013): The SC ruled that the woman partner in a
live-in relationship is protected under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005.
 Svetlana Kazankina v. Union of India (2015): Marriages and live-in
relationships should not be regarded differently when granting a visa extension,
citing that they are now a reality of life.
 K.E. Krishnan & Another vs K.E. Valsan & Others (2022): The SC ruled that
children born to partners in live-in relationships can be considered legitimate and are
eligible for family succession.
Conclusion
To address the ambiguity that often leads to conflicting opinions and judgments, it is
imperative to enact separate legislation specifically addressing live-in relationships.
Ambiguous clauses in current legislation must be revised to clearly define the status and
rights of children born within such relationships.