AUTHOR: YASHIKA DATTA WADKE FROM HINDI VIDYA PRACHAR SAMITI’S COLLEGE OF LAW
ABSTRACT
Live-in relationships, once formerly deemed unacceptable in Indian society have secured validation through judicial interpretation rather than legislative enactment. With cultural integration over the years, the Indian Judiciary has played a vital role in defending the rights of individuals non-marital cohabitation. Recent Supreme Court and High Court judgements have resolved core challenges such as the right to life and liberty, protection against harassment, maintenance rights, domestic violence, legitimacy of children and constitutional morality. This research article scrutinizes the developing legal framework regulating live-in relationships in India, examining recent judicial developments and legislative provisions. This analysis embraces a theoretical legal research on case laws, statutes and intellectual discourse.
INTRODUCTION
Indian society conventionally perceived marriage as a holy and requisite practice of family life. Any relationship outside wedlock was usually disfavored and stigmatized. Nevertheless, with accelerated urbanization, advanced education and training, economic independence and exposure to global cultures, the concept of live-in relationships has appeared as another form of companionship. A live-in relationship refers to a categorisation where two consenting adults cohabit without formally entering into a wedlock. Despite the lack of any explicitly stipulated acknowledgment, Indian Courts have gradually admitted live-in relationships under the constitutional framework, especially Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution Of India.1 The Supreme Court has firmly established that live-in relationships are neither illicit nor fundamentally wrong and fall under the jurisdiction of the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary has highlighted that adults have the free will to choose their partners and manner of living without fear of public intervention.
The latest judicial proclamations have further reinforced the legal position of individuals in live-in relationships by enhancing protection from harassment, recognizing maintenance rights and safeguarding women from domestic abuse. This analysis article focuses to examine the legitimacy of live-in relationships in India, directing on recent judicial developments and constitutional principles to regulate such relationships.
METHODOLOGY
This analysis supports a doctrinal method of study. Primary sources such as judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, statutes and fundamental laws have been examined. Secondary sources include commentaries, Law Commission reports and scholarly articles. 2The research is inquisitive and vivid in nature, prioritising evolving legal standards and recent legal updates concerning to live-in relationships.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Scholars and jurists have significantly reviewed the developing validation of live-in
relationships in India. Bina Agarwal underlines the financial distress of women in non-
matrimonial relationships and emphasizes the necessity for statutory protection. 3Flavia
Agnes criticises judicial irregularity in administering redress under personal laws and
strengthens the importance of gender justice.4 Several constitutional scholars opine that the judiciary’s dependence on constitutional morality. However the literature also notes the absence of certain legislation governing live-in relationships.
This study utilizes qualitative methods of landmark and recent judicial verdicts concerning live-in relationships. Comparative study of statutory provisions such as Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, 2005 has been undertaken to acknowledge judicial clarification.5 Constitutional doctrines such as personal liberty, equality and dignity form the logical structure of this research.
LEGAL STATUS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA
There is no particular legislation in India that determines or manages live-in relationships.
However, Indian Courts have admitted such relationships through judicial verdicts. In Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation 1978 AIR 1557, the Supreme Court held that a long-lasting period of cohabitation raises a presumption in favour of marriage.6
In S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal 2010 (5) SCC 600, the Supreme Court unquestionably opined that live-in relationships are not unlawful and are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution Of India.7
Correspondingly, in Lata Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh 2006 (5) SCC 475, the Supreme Court declared that consenting adults have the right to live together without intervention of family or society.8 High Courts in the past few years have frequently counted on these principles to permit police protection to live-in couples subjected to victimisation.
RECENT JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court in D.Veluswamy v. D.Patchaiammal 2010 (10) SCC 469 laid down
indispensable benchmark for deciding whether a live-in relationship is capable of being in the nature of marriage. These include de facto relationship, co-living arrangement and public acknowledgement.9
Further, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma 2013 (15) SCC 755; the Court magnified upon the
theory of relationships in the nature of marriage under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
while admonishing that all live-in relationships merit legal protection. This ruling remains a keystone for comprehending judicial latitude in such matters.10
The significance of constitutional morality as restated in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union Of
India 2018 (10) SCC 1, has indirectly impacted live-in relationship theory by highlighting
liberty and dignity over social mores.11
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS AND MAINTENANCE
Maintenance is one of the most controversial issues regarding live-in relationships. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 which has now been replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, provides maintenance to wives prohibiting destitution. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha 2011 (1) SCC 141, the Supreme Court embraced a liberal interpretation stating that women in live- in relationships resembling marriage may demand maintenance.12
However, judicial rulings have remained at odds resulting in unreliability. Some courts have allowed maintenance to protect women from oppression while others have denied the relief highlighting the lack of marital status.
PROTECTION UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 explicitly covers
relationships in the nature of marriage under Section 2 (f). This has authorised
women in live-in relationships to seek protection orders, residence rights and
monetary relief.13 Courts have constantly clarified this provision deliberately to
promote the object of the act.
LEGITIMACY AND RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
The judiciary has also addressed the rights of children born out of live-in
relationships. In Tulsa v. Durghatiya 2008 (4) SCC 520, the Supreme Court held
that children born from long term cohabitation are legitimate and qualified to
inherit their parent’s property. This progressive approach obviate social stigma
and safeguard the welfare of children.14
PROS AND CONS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA: A LEGAL
PERSPECTIVE
PROS
A)REDUCED FORCED MARRIAGES AND HONOUR CRIME
Security under judicial remedy acted as a shield against honour-based abuse and conjugal slavery which is a violation of human rights. This can be seen particularly seen where families oppose live-in relationships.
B)RECOGNITION OF CHANGING FAMILY STRUCTURES
Judicial affirmation of live-in relationships indicates the court’s welcoming attitude towards the changing family patterns, arranging Indian law with modern existence and shifting legal landscapes.
CONS
A)MISUSE AND FALSE CLAIM CONCERNS
Courts have conveyed concerns regarding exploitation of maintenance and protection laws leading to deep surveillance and sometimes rejection of claim even in bonafide cases. Mostly the maintenance can be claimed only when there is long-term partnership, consensuality or it resembles a marriage. The burden of proof lies with the significant other, claiming this aid.
B)ABSENCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS BETWEEN PARTNERS
Unlike marriage, live-in relationships do not bestow automatic property transfers or
succession rights between partners, often prompts financial insecurity mostly for women after parting their ways. If the partner proves that financial contribution is done by them to buy a property they can claim a share from it.
SUGGESTIONS
1)Parliament should validate extensive legislation governing live-in relationships.
Currently, live-in relationships are generally controlled by way of judgements rather than a ordinance. Parliament should validate extensive legislation to elucidate the legal status, rights and obligations of partners in such relationships. This would lower unpredictability and secure comprehensive security.
2) Guidelines must be framed for maintenance and property rights which are
unambiguous and mandated by law.
Evident guidelines are instructed regarding maintenance, financial support and property
rights of partners in live-in relationships. Ambiguity usually prompts vexatious and
everlasting litigation. Legislative provisions would guarantee impartiality and safeguard
economically weaker partners.
3) Standardized requirements should be sanctioned to avoid inconsistency.
Courts presently apply different standards to diagnose the validity of live-in relationships, leading to conflicting rulings. Standardized benchmarks should be initiated to distinguish relationships that resembles marriage.
4) Legal awareness programs should educate individuals about duties and entitlements.Number of people enter live-in relationships, unaware of their legal rights and responsibilities. Awareness programs can update individuals about maintenance rights, protection against abuse and legal penalties or liabilities.
5)Judicial construction should balance individual autonomy with social cohesion.
While watching over personal liberty and the right to choose significant other, courts must also review about social harmony. A balanced approach would reinforced constitutional morality uninterruptedly social order.
CONCLUSION
In absence of statutory action, the judicial system continues to act as the primary shield for individuals engaged in live-in relationships. However, undue resilience on judicial judgement may result in shattered legal outcomes and uneven access to justice. A complete regulatory framework would not only reduce pending cases but also provide conventional benchmarks for maintenance, property rights and child protection.
Live-in relationships in India denotes a shift in collective norms and personal decisions.
While the judiciary has played an proactive approach in formal legal authorisation and
conservation, the deprivation of a systematised blueprint has led to unpredictability and
ambivalence. Recent breakthroughs connote a liberal jurisprudence guided by constitutional morality and individual autonomy. However, to ensure coherence and clarity in law, statutory regulation is indispensable. A balanced legal construction can defend civil liberties while taking into consideration, India’s social fabric.
REFERENCES
- Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution Of India ↩︎
- Law Commission of India, Report No. 252, Right of the Hindu Wife to Maintenance: A Re- look at Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (2015). ↩︎
- Bina Agarwal, A Field of One’s Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia (Cambridge Univ. Press 1994) ↩︎
- Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India
(Oxford Univ. Press 1999). ↩︎ - Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, S. 125, India (repealed); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, S. 144, India. ↩︎
- Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1557 (India). ↩︎
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 (India). ↩︎
- Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 475 (India). ↩︎
- D. Veluswamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 (India). ↩︎
- Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 (India). ↩︎
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 (India). ↩︎
- Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 (India). ↩︎
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, S. 2(f), India ↩︎
- Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520 (India). ↩︎