January 12, 2025
Puru Purohit
Abstract
This article examines the legal framework and social implications of live-in relationships in India. While no specific legislation exists, judicial precedents have established their validity through constitutional rights including the right to life, privacy, and freedom of association. The article analyzes key Supreme Court judgments, women’s rights under existing laws like the Domestic Violence Act 2005, and provisions for maintenance and child legitimacy. Despite legal recognition, challenges persist due to social stigma and lack of comprehensive legislation. The article emphasizes the need for specific laws and increased social acceptance to protect individuals in live-in relationships.
Keywords: Live-in relationships, Indian law, domestic violence, maintenance rights, constitutional rights, social stigma, judicial precedents, relationship legitimacy, women’s rights, child rights
Introduction
A live-in relationship denotes an intimate arrangement where two individuals cohabit without formal matrimony[1]. In India, this arrangement is increasingly prevalent owing to its perceived advantages over traditional marriage, offering couples enhanced autonomy and adaptability. Nonetheless, the legal framework surrounding live-in relationships in India remains ambiguous.
No specific legislation in India addresses live-in relationships. However, judicial precedents have established that such unions are not unlawful, affording participating couples certain legal entitlements. These entitlements encompass maintenance, residency, and protection from domestic abuse.
This article will delve into the legal recognition of live-in relationships in India, delineating the rights conferred upon women in such arrangements and examining the inherent challenges and constraints encountered by female participants.
Legal Recognition of Live-in Relationships
The legal recognition of live-in relationships in India is based on the following constitutional rights and freedoms:
- The right to life and liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution)[2]
- The right to privacy (Article 21 of the Constitution)
- The right to equality (Article 14 of the Constitution)[3]
- The right to freedom of association (Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution)[4]
The courts have held that these constitutional rights and freedoms protect the right of individuals to choose to live in a live-in relationship. In the landmark judgment of . Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 475.[5], the Supreme Court held that “the right to live with a person of one’s choice is a part of the right to privacy and personal liberty.”
The courts have also upheld the validity of live-in relationships in a number of other judgments, including Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation, Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Gurwinder Singh & Anr v/s State of Punjab and Ors., etc.
Validity of Live-in Relationships
The Supreme Court has held that live-in relationships are not illegal and do not constitute an offence. In Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527, [6]the Supreme Court recognised a 50-year-long live-in relationship as a valid marriage for the purpose of land reform laws.
In Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, 2001 (3) AWC 1778[7], the Allahabad High Court held that “a lady who is major has a right to go anywhere and that anyone – man and woman, even without getting married, can live together if they wish.”
In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 600[8], the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship comes within the ambit of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible, and the act of two adults living together cannot be considered unlawful or illegal.
In Gurwinder Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab and Ors., CRM-M No.29790 of 2020[9], the Supreme Court ordered protection for a couple who faced threats from their families due to their inter-caste live-in relationship. The Court observed that “the petitioners have a fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, which includes their choice to live together.”
Presumption Regarding Live-in Relationships
The Supreme Court has held that there is a presumption of marriage when a couple lives together for a long time as husband and wife. In Alok Kumar v. State, the Supreme Court held that “if any couple chooses to marry against the customary norms relating to eligibility with regard to caste, creed, religion, etc., then such living may be termed as living under adharma, but then this is not an offence punishable under law.”
In Madan Mohan Singh & Ors v Rajni Kant & Anr 2010 SCC 9 209, the Supreme Court held that “the law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.” The Court further held that “where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock.”
Issue of Lack of Legislation
There is no specific legislation in India that deals with live-in relationships. However, some provisions of existing laws can be applied to such relationships by judicial interpretation.
For instance, Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[10], defines a domestic relationship as “a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point in 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.”
The term “relationship in the nature of marriage” can be interpreted to include live-in relationships. However, there is no clear definition of what constitutes such a relationship.
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469[11], the Supreme Court laid down some conditions for a live-in relationship to be considered as a relationship in the nature of marriage, such as:
- 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.
- They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
However, these conditions are not exhaustive and may vary from case to case.
Rights of Women in Live-in Relationships
The Domestic Violence Act of 2005 applies to women in live-in relationships. The Act defines domestic violence as “any act, omission, or commission by a person, which is of such a nature as to cause physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological harm to the aggrieved person” and includes acts such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse, and stalking.
The Domestic Violence Act provides a number of rights to women in live-in relationships, including the right to:
- Maintenance
- Residence
- Protection from domestic violence
- Custody of children
- Financial assistance
- Compensation
The courts have also held that women in live-in relationships are entitled to the same rights as married women under other laws, such as the Hindu Succession Act and the Indian Succession Act.
Maintenance in Live-in Relationships
The Supreme Court has held that women in live-in relationships are entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[12], which provides for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.
In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 141[13], the Supreme Court held that “where partners lived together for a long spell as husband and wife, a presumption would arise in favour of a valid wedlock.” The Court further held that “if a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant, it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.”
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court held that “not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such a benefit, the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence.”
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
The Supreme Court has held that women in live-in relationships are protected from domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005.
In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755[14], the Supreme Court held that “a ‘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.”
The Court further held that “in case there is no proof of valid marriage between the parties, no presumption can be drawn about their living together as husband and wife, and their relationship would come within the expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage,’ satisfying all other ingredients/requirements spelt out by us hereinabove.”
What are the rights of children born out of live-in relationships?
The Supreme Court has held that children born out of live-in relationships are legitimate and have inheritance rights under personal laws.
In Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 483[15], the Supreme Court held that “the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for the number of years.” The Court further held that “children born out of such a relationship will have inheritance rights [16]over the properties of their parents.”
In Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 1[17], the Supreme Court held that “the view taken by this court is that even if we assume that Appellant No.1 was born from an illicit relationship between his mother and deceased Mallikarjun, he would still be entitled to a share in ancestral property.”
Challenges and Limitations
Despite the legal recognition of live-in relationships, women in such relationships still face a number of challenges and limitations. These challenges include:
- Lack of social acceptance and stigma: Live-in relationships are still not widely accepted in Indian society. This can lead to women in live-in relationships being stigmatised and discriminated against.
- Lack of clear legal framework and uniformity: The absence of specific legislation for live-in relationships has resulted in varying interpretations and inconsistencies in legal matters.
Conclusion
Live-in relationships are a reality of modern society and cannot be ignored or denied. The courts have recognised the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals to choose to live in such relationships and have granted them legal entitlements. However, there is still a need for specific legislation that defines and regulates live-in relationships in India, providing clarity and uniformity on the rights and obligations of the parties involved.
Additionally, social awareness and acceptance of live-in relationships are crucial to reduce stigmatisation and discrimination[18] faced by couples in such relationships. Respecting and acknowledging live-in relationships as a legitimate personal choice can foster a more inclusive and tolerant society.
In conclusion, a well-defined legal framework combined with social acceptance will contribute to the harmonious coexistence of different forms of relationships in India. Upholding the principles of personal liberty and choice, the recognition of live-in relationships will continue to evolve as our society progresses and adapts to the changing dynamics of modern relationships.
[1] Law Commission of India, 205th Report on Live-in Relationships (2008)
[2] Constitution of India, Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty)
[3] Constitution of India, Article 14 (Right to Equality)
[4] Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(c) (Right to Freedom of Association)
[5] Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 475
– Key holding: Right to live with a person of one’s choice is part of right to life and personal liberty
– Relevant paragraphs: 16, 17, 18
[6] Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527
– Key holding: Recognition of 50-year live-in relationship as valid marriage
– Relevant paragraphs: 12, 13
[7] Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, 2001 (3) AWC 1778
– Key holding: Right of major woman to live with anyone
– Relevant paragraphs: 8, 9
[8] S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 600
– Key holding: Live-in relationships fall within Article 21’s right to life
– Relevant paragraphs: 31, 32, 33
[9] Gurwinder Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab and Ors., CRM-M No.29790 of 2020
– Key holding: Protection for inter-caste live-in couples
– Relevant paragraphs: 12-15
[10] The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005)
[11] D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469
– Key holding: Established conditions for relationships “in nature of marriage”
– Relevant paragraphs: 31-34
[12] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125
[13] Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 141
– Key holding: Maintenance rights under Section 125 CrPC
– Relevant paragraphs: 41, 42
[14] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755
– Key holding: Defined “relationship in nature of marriage”
– Relevant paragraphs: 35-40
[15] Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 483
– Key holding: Legitimacy presumption and inheritance rights
– Relevant paragraphs: 22, 23
[16] Indian Succession Act, 1925
[17] Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 1
– Key holding: Children’s rights to ancestral property
– Relevant paragraphs: 36, 37
[18] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 23