You are on page 1of 20

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA :MR.

VK DIXIT

LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS:BLOT ON
YOUR MORALITY
for: COMPARATIVE
JURISPRIDENCE
MOHAMMAD AARIF

My morality Vs States Morality

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
The Project deals with the issue of live in relationship with regard to the debate of morality
which is very common these days. However, law on this issue is not very clear either in India or
abroad. While case by case basis court is adumbrating the law with regard to live in
relationships, there are many questions that need to be answered. The rights guaranteed to
female live in partners along with the rights of child born out of such relationships ought to be
secured. However, it has to be kept in mind that when law is giving legal sanction to live in
relationships, it does not impede upon the institution of marriage as many a times men who get
into live in relationship is already married. If live in relationships are recognized prima facie
then it may implicitly promote bigamy. Law should have a discernible stance with respect to live
in relationships and the aftermath of such relations.

It involves continuous cohabitation between the parties without any responsibilities or obligations towards one another. also called as matrimony or wedlock. Apart from maintenance under personal laws. Although the legal status of live in relationships in India is unclear. This is a relationship in the nature of marriage but unlike a marriage. Live-in relationship in simple terms can be explained as a relationship in the nature of marriage where both partners enjoy individual freedom and live in a shared household without being married to each other. the aggrieved live-in partner can take shelter under the Domestic Violence Act 2005. This concept of matrimony has continuously evolved with time. With the ever-changing society and human psychology. Thus. The court has liberally professed that any man and women cohabiting for a long term will be presumed as legally married under the law unless proved contrary. 2005. is a socially/ritually recognized union or contract between spouses that establishes certain rights and legal obligations towards each other. The upcoming generations are considering relationships ever more liberally. However. The status of the children born during such relationship is also unclear and therefore. as and when. . One such concept of live-in relationships is being adopted by numerous couples around the world. There is no legal definition of live in relationship and therefore the legal status of such type of relationships is also unsubstantiated. the court has provided clarification to the concept of live in relationships through various judgments. Difference between live-in relationship and marriage Marriage. Women can seek for additional maintenance apart from the maintenance received by her under any other law as per Section 20(1)(d) of theProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). such relationships are considered a taboo in the Indian society. The relationships where two people cohabit outside marriage without any legal obligations towards each other are known as live-in relationships. they will to do so. The Indian law does not provide any rights or obligations on the parties in live relationship. 1973 also provides for maintenance inter alia a wife is unable to maintain herself. the concept of marriage and relationship has also evolved.INTRODUCTION Marriage in the Indian society has been considered as a sacred bond since the Vedic period. the Supreme Court has ruled that any couple living together for a long term will be presumed as legally married unless proved otherwise. This concept has slowly paved its way in the Indian scenario as well. There is no law tying them together and consequently either of the partners can walk out of the relationship. which provides protection and maintenance and thereby grant the right of alimony. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2005 and the individual facts of the case. Law like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. nonetheless various other laws such as law of marriage. needs to be changed to give full protection to woman in live in relationship. provides for the protection and maintenance thereby granting the right of alimony to an aggrieved live-in partner. 1955 such child will be legal. laws are not very clear on live in relationship. the definition and ambit of live in relationship is very unclear. there is no specific legislation in India on this subject. the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Legal Status of Live-in Relationships . nevertheless there is no such law apart from HMA. under Hindu Marriage Act. FACETS OF LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS The whole notion of live in relationship is not as simple as it appears but is multi-dimensional bringing along with it many issues and complications. there is a dire need to recognize such relationship in form of a new legislation that will clearly dictate the ambit of live in relationship and the rights and obligation of partners in such relationship. though court has shown willingness in recognizing their rights. Nevertheless. Though at global level as well. Live in relationship form a characteristic feature and style of living of couples. showing a common theme of aloofness and hesitation amongst countries to recognize such relationships. succession etc. and the laws are in the form of court verdicts which varies from case to case. However. and 1955 that endorses presumption of legality of child born out of live in relationship. As far as the right of child born under such relationship is concerned. Though the common man is still hesitant in accepting this kind of relationship. 2005 recognizes right of woman in such relationship. The right of woman in such relationship is also not very certain. as far as Indian scenario is concerned. especially those in metropolitan areas.The right to maintenance in live in relationship is decided by the court in accordance with the Domestic Violence Act.

court in recent cases have postulated that live in relationship are not illegal per se. Director of Consolidation [3]. WL Blahamy[1]. The Allahabad High Court. wherein the Supreme Court for the first time recognized live in relationships as valid marriage. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. Moving on from the initial time when the court recognized live in relationship which were of considerably long period. in earlier cases the court tended to presume marriage based on the number of years of cohabitation. a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. Although the presumption is rebuttable. Mohammad Ibrahim Khan[2]. The rights and obligation which such couples have towards each other and the status of children born out of such a tie exudes a blurred shadow.“Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife. 11 (1928) 1 MLJ 388 (PC)2AIR 1929 PC 135 3 AIR 1978 SC 1557 .1 the Privy Council laid down a broad rule postulating that.The legal status of such live in couples lacks a definition. that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. the law will presume. In the cases prior to independence like A Dinohamy v. When it comes to live in relationships. It was held by Justice Krishna Iyer that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long term as husband and wife. putting a stop to questions raised by authorities on the 50 years of life in relationship of a couple. the law is adumbrated in the court rooms via myriad cases. After independence the first case that can be reviewed is Badri Prasad v. Dy. in 2001. No law on the subject has been formulated.” The same principle was reiterated in the case of Mohabhat Ali v. . unless the contrary be clearly proved.

of kidnapping Sharma. accusing Singh. Mishra stated. There is a difference between law and morality. The Agra police arrested her and Singh on the basis of an FIR lodged by her father. along with Ramendra Singh. This may be regarded as immoral by society.in –relation between two adults without a formal marriage cannot be construed as an offence. It was held that one of the crucial pre-conditions for a child born from live-in relationship to not be treated as illegitimate are that the parents must have lived under one roof and co-habited for a considerably long time for society to recognize them as husband and wife and it must not be a "walk in and walk out" relationship. Sharma had approached the Allahabad High Court when she was forced to live in Nari Niketan at Agra. The case of the prosecution was that the comment of the actress Khushboo allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex will adversely affect the 24 2001 (3) AWC 17785 (2006) 8 SCC 726 6 (2008) 4 SCC 520 7 JT 2010 (4) SC 478 . and others[4].[5] the Supreme Court observed that live. The Supreme Court provided legal status to the children born from live in relationship.in Payal Sharma v. even without getting married. Justice M Katju and Justice R. the court also granted the right to property to a child born out of a live in relationship. with whom she had a live-in relationship.B. an already married man.[6] where the long term live in relationship was recognized as equivalent to marriage. The same proposition was upheld in the case of Tulsa v. stated that a live-in relationship is not illegal. Nari Niketan. but is not illegal. Therefore. “In our opinion. Durghatiya 2008. a man and a woman. The further sanction to live in relationship was granted by judgement of Supreme Court on 23rd of March. 2010 in the Khushboo case[7]2. the court directed the authorities to set her free.“ In Patel and others case. On the basis of this evidence. can live together if they wish to. Payal Sharma produced documentary evidence evincing the fact that she was 21 years old. It also stated that there is no such statute which postulates that live in relationships are illegal. following her arrest. Superintendent.

S. it provided a positive impetus to live in relationships.Velusamy vs D. (d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time. (c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage. The court further added.G.No. “When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Balakrishnan.M. 38 Alok Kumar v. Dhingra noted. commented that there is no law that prohibits pre-marital relationships.C. The court further said “Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. Chauhan observed. It cannot be an offence“. “People who choose to have live-in relationship cannot complain 3of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married man and unmarried woman or vice-versa”[8]4\ D. State Crl. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married :(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses. A three judge bench comprising of Chief Justice K. However.N. Justice S. in a recent case. 299/20099Criminal Appeal Nos. (b) They must be of legal age to marry. The Delhi High Court. “There are no legal strings attached to this relationship nor does this relationship create any legal-bond between the partners”. 2010 In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. 2028-2029 of 2010 4 . while quashing the charges framed on Khushboo.moral fabric of society. this position is not all binding. observed that a live in relationship is a walk in and walk out relationship. Living together is a right to life“. Though this was an obiter dictum. thereby referring to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B. The Court.Patchaiammal on 21 October. including being unmarried.

3. In this case.2005 and provided certain guidelines to get an insight of such relationships. including the individual factors. but a relationship other than “in the nature of marriage” and the appellant’s status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. there should be a close analysis of the entire relationship. Such relationship can lead to a conviction under Indian Penal Code for the crime of adultery 4.K. entered knowingly. and this change has been reflected and recognized by Parliament by enacting The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. the appellant admittedly entered into a relationship with the respondent despite of knowing that the respondent was a married man with two children born out of the wedlock who opposed the live in relationship since the . Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married male.Indian society is changing. Following are the categories: 1. The Court in this case affirmed that the relationship in the present case is not a “relationship in the nature of marriage” because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage. the law does not cut a clear picture as can be observed from the recent Delhi High Court judgement. entered unknowingly 5. Hence. Domestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female. entered knowingly. though more or less uniformity has been exuded in a positive direction by the court when it comes to live in relationships. 2013[5] The recent judgment of the Supreme Court has illustrated five categories where the concept of live in relationships can be considered and proved in the court of law. both unmarried.Sarma. Domestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried woman. It is the most uncomplicated sort of relationship 2. all facets of the interpersonal relationship need to be taken into account. in other words. V. Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married woman. Also. 2005.V. Indra Sarma vs. Domestic relationship between same sex partners ( gay or lesbian) The Court stated that a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of women Against Domestic Violence Act.

any act. The child ought to be entitled to have share. However. and the status of the appellant was that of a concubine. “If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage. by reason of being embraced within the term “domestic relationship” under Section . voidable or valid marriage. the future of the child comes into question. in case. legality of the child born out of such relationship is doubtful. credited to the recent statutes and recommendation by the committees. The statutes like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Status of child born under a live in relationship When it comes to the right of child born under live in relationship. if the live in partners and the parents desire to get out of the relationship. none of the parent wants to keep the child with him. However. Protection of Rights of Female Partner in Live in Relationships The rights of female partner in live in relationship tend to be secure. Courts also display alacrity to protect the right of female partner in such relationship as exhibited by judgements given in number of cases. irrespective of birth out of a void. relationship by marriage and live-in partner i. Court may appoint a guardian to look after the interest of child. There must be a provision to secure the right of the child. we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently. there is no such presumption of legality of child in any other religion or law. The Court further added. Another important matter that needs to be taken note of is that. 2005 protects woman both in the categories of wife i.inception. we again find the law to be groping in the dark. The Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage. the Domestic Violence Act does not take care of such relationship which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of section 2(f) of the DV Act. would not amount to “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the DV Act.e. which is restrictive and exhaustive.e. both in mother’s and father’s property. relationship in nature of marriage[9]. The Hindu Marriage Act. as there is also no evidence of a live-in relationship between the appellant and the respondent as per the given guidelines”. Furthermore. they don’t have property and maintenance rights. 1955 gives the status of legitimacy to every child. in such cases. omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship.

they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.) No. they cannot be divorced. the case of live in partners. Ganguly while denying the contention of defendant that section 498A does not apply to him since he was not married to his live in partner held that. State of A. including being unmarried. 2008 when it accepted the proposal made by Malimath Committee and Law Commission of India which suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time. However. Veluswami v. The positive opinion in favour of live in relationship was also seconded by Maharashtra Government in October. recently it was observed that it is divorced wife who is treated as a wife in context of Section 125 of CrPC and if a person has not even been married i.K. it is necessary that.” In June. 4496 of 2006 .e. In the Supreme Court. and hence cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. Justice Arjit Pasyat and A. to get the benefits arising from “relationship like marriage”. they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage. they must be of legal age to marry. Patchaimmal[10]5. the defendant used to harass his live in partner for dowry. D.[12] The Apex Court even went on to protect the live in female partner from harassment for dowry. In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v.2(f) of the Act. This view was supported by the judgement in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. 510Supra. note 911 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2008. State Of Maharashtra and Others[11]. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship”. The National Commission for Women recommended to Ministry of Women and Child Development made suggestion to include live in female partners for the right of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. “the nomenclature ‘dowry’ does not have any magical charm written over it. However as was discussed in D.2218 OF 2007 12 Supra. note 9 13 SLP (Crl. “couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.P[13]. she ought to enjoy the legal status as given to wife.

Drawing parallels with the law which recognizes the legitimacy of children born of void and voidable marriages. LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES Live in relationships in various countries are either recognized as it exists or it’s finding recognition via implied provisions of different statutes that protect property rights. Many countries provide for live in relationship contracts in which partners can determine their legal rights. The contract binds “two adults of different sexes or of the same sex. it explained its stand asking: “Can a person who enters into a marital agreement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage. Bringing in such limitations and obligations even without the formal shroud of marriage will run contrary to the whole idea of freedom and liberty associated with live in relation. Another point to be taken note of is that recourse to such relationship was taken to circumvent the obligations. the question of dowry does not arise?” An important observation to be noted here is that to recognize the right of female partners in live in relationship and consequently the protection granted via some statutes will have to be accompanied by changes in laws of succession. . there is the provision of “Civil Solidarity Pacts” known as “pacte civil de solidarite” or PaCS. housing rights. marriage as well if we move in the direction of legalisation of such relationship. The contract can be revoked unilaterally or bilaterally after giving the partner. bondage and legality attached with marriage. FRANCE. housing and social welfare. adoption. However. when it comes to the right of child born under such relationship. in order to organise their common life” and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded to married couples in the areas of income tax. passed by the French National Assembly in October 1999 that allows couples to enter into a union by signing before a court clerk. law of various countries exudes a uniform tenor of protecting their rights. three month’s notice in writing.

live in relationship couple’s right to each other’s property is governed by coownership rule. couple can enter into Cohabitation Agreement containing stipulation with regards to their rights and liabilities. of the Family Code. Section 28 of the Act gives a cohabitant the right to apply in court for financial support. the nature of the relationship during that period and the nature and extent of any financial arrangements. Partners do not have inheritance right over each other’s property unless named in their partner’s will. Section 25 (2) of the Act postulates that a court of law can consider a person as a co-habitant of another by checking on three factors. This is in case of separation and not death of either partner. live in couples does not enjoy legal sanction and status as granted to married couple. live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage. SCOTLAND.14 UNITED KINGDOM. CANADA recognizes live in relationship as “Common Law Marriage”. Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. However. unmarried couples have no guaranteed rights to ownership of each other’s property on breakdown of relationship. as well do not provide the live in relationship couple with the rights as enjoyed by married couple. Laws in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. . the law seek to protect the right of child born under such relationship. Both parents have the onus of bringing up their children irrespective of the fact that whether they are married or cohabiting [15].PHILIPPINES. Nonetheless. the length of the period during which they lived together.The live in relation were conferred legal sanctity in the year 2006 by Family Law (Scotland) Act. There is no obligation on the partners to maintain each other. As per a 2010 note from the Home Affairs Section to the House of Commons. Article 147. their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. in case of breakdown of such relationship. The couple is accorded legal sanction if the couple has been living in conjugal relationship for a year or the couple is parents of a child born by birth or adoption[17]. the survivor can move the court for financial support from his estate within 6 months[16]. If a partner dies intestate.

com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Love-liveins/articleshow/6386392. While some countries have passed legislation according legal status to live in couples.php?article=1266(last visited on 22nd august) 17 Supra 18 Supra. 615Love ‘live-ins’ – Man-Woman – Relationships – Life & Style – The Times of India http://timesofindia. the legal progress of laws with respect to live in relationship and the sweeping increase in number of such live in relationships are not running parallel to each other. The position that emerges with respect to live in relationships is not very discernible and lacks a definition in majority of the countries. law is exhibiting a tendency of giving legal tinge to live in relationships.6 The laws of IRELAND AND AUSTRALIA also recognizes live in relationship.com/articles/index. The law needs to whiz up to prescribe and proscribe speculation with respect to live in relations. via various decisions of the court. while in Ireland the impetus is towards greater recognition to live in relationship as there has been demand for right to maintenance by separated live in couples. the fact remains.indiatimes. Nevertheless.cms#ixzz0xKIknHki (last visited on 23rd August) 16 http://airwebworld.In CHINA. note 14 . In India as well. The rights of the child are secured as the child born outside the wedlock has the same benefits as enjoyed by the child born under a marriage[18]. some countries are granting greater legality to such couples by the implied provision of their statutes as discussed. The family law of Australia recognizes “de facto relationship” between couples. couple can sign a contract for live in relationship.

This promotes bigamy. For instance Payal Katara v. as there is no such proscription that live in partners should be unmarried. While it threatens the very notion of husband and wife and the cognition of marriage that enjoys high level of sanctity when it comes to India. a person might be married and be living with someone else under the garb of live in relationship. The question that seeks an answer with the elevation of live in relationship is what will be the status of wife.197 here Rajendra Prasad. if a person who is in live in relationship is already married as law also seek to protect the right of live in partner under statutes like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 2005. While the court recognized the right of cohabitation of the plaintiff. Malimath Committee is to recognize live in partner as wife in case of live in relationship of reasonably long time. the right of live in female partner too does not become secure. While 89the right of legally wedded wife remains at stake. the suggestions to include live in female partner under the provision given in Section 125 of CrPC ends up equating the status of live in female partner and wife. it also tends to prop up adultery. 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. The recommendations of Law Commission. Thus. while on the other hand it prohibits bigamy. Along with these. Superintendent Nari Niketan Kandri Vihar Agra and Others. Live-in relationships also endorse bigamy. note 5 8 . The attitude of Apex Court towards such relation also evinces their alacrity in recognising live in relationships. the person with whom plaintiff was living in was already married. Law is ambiguous and disadvantageous for the weaker sex and is not being beneficial to anyone. as the person who is getting into live in relationship might be already married.LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIAN SOCIO-LEGAL CONTEXTCRITICAL ANALYSIS The manifold augmentation in the number of live in relationship couples in India may exude the new metropolitan tenor and bondage free living but also has umpteen lacunae. 719 Supra. what about the right of the wife of the person with whom plaintiff was cohabiting.

Live in relationship sponsor bigamy and adultery while posing a threat to the entire fabric weaved out of values and morals on which the Indian Society stands. couple prefers to get into live in relationship and hence forth circumventing family objection. a person can easily deny the fact of live in relationship to evade liability. In sum and substance the rights of woman remains precarious. although are recognized under Hindu Marriage Act. as the whole idea 9 . The children born under such relationship. however. What will be the rights and liabilities of such partners after separation or the death of one of the partner. While the court in few cases granted the status of married couple to live in couple. it is submitted that the couples who tend to disobey the socially recognized social tenor cannot be supposed to be people of only one religion or to be the one professing Hinduism. Marriages grant social recognition. in some cases court held that live in relationship does not cast any obligation on the couple. Such relationships are fragile and can be dissolved any moment. there is no guarantee that she can actually avail those rights. the rights and liabilities of partners is deficient of delineation. there is no obligation and bondage. many a time. When we talk about the after math of a live in relationship. but there is no proof of live in relationship. legal position with respect to live in relationship does not portray a discernible image. 1955.Even if rights of maintenance etc are provided to the live in female partner. In fact. There is no law of succession and maintenance that mentions the stipulation that protects the right of such live in couples. because of family’s opposition to inter-religion and inter-racial marriage. THE PRESENT NEED The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture keeping in mind the present social context along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that characterises Indian society.

A different point to be observed is that. live in relationship does not find consensus of majority and is accused of tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality. On the one hand it faces speculation from society and secondly legal status of live in relationship evinces contingency. Hence. as we observed many questions with respect to live in relationship remains unanswered.of live in relationship is to evade such bondage. succession. also securing their rights after the dissolution of such relationship due to break up or . Nonetheless. when we look at the masses that define India. then why will a couple prefer to get into a live in relationship. free society. however. evincing a penchant towards an obligation less. another thought that seek attention is that if the law lobs same kind of obligation with respect to maintenance and succession as exist in the institution of marriage. if the rights under live in relationships and marriage are equated. providing the partners as well as the child born out of such relationship with all the legal rights of maintenance. the tenor of live in relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area. when the basis of getting into live in relationship is to evade all bondages and entanglement. live in relationship also faces the social speculation. Laws should be made by the parliament. inheritance as available to a married couple and their legitimate offspring. The more clear approach and attitude of law and the changing time and stance of society will determine the future of live in relationship.live in relationship and will lead to entanglement in judicial meanders if judicial discourse is taken. which should keep a check on the practice of evading bondages. Live in relationships should be granted legal status after specific period of its existence. Outside the legal arena. it will bring in conflict the rights of wife if the person who is in relationship is already married and the rights of live in partner. secondly this will make the circumventing of liability much easier and matters more complicated by shuffling between the rights and liability under marriage.

D. This will ensure the rights and privileges in live in relationship without possessing any threat to the institution of marriage. and provides legality to this concept. A good legal system always tends to adapt to the gradual social changes. note 1021 Rights specific to female live in partner such as right under Domestic Violence Act. The guidelines given in D. the legal status of live-in relationships in India has been evolved and determined by theSupreme Court in its various judgments. The rights of live in couples should be legally recognized while ensuring that it does not impede upon the system of marriage. CONCLUSION Thus. if the person in live in relationship is already married. hence an offence of bigamy. As such. 2005 if the relationship is proved to be “relationship in the nature of marriage”. the burden of proof should be relaxed. The Court held that cohabitation of a couple 1020Supra. dismissed a petition by the petitioner ‘Z’ who worked in the Bollywood and contended that the respondent could not claim the status of a wife to be legally entitled to get maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act. Since. The Supreme Court states that living together is a right to life and therefore it cannot be held illegal. Though the concept of live-in relationship is considered immoral by the society. Veluswami v. In a recent case of May 5th. then live in relationship should be considered as the second marriage. Patchaimmal[2]10} is worth noting in this context and should be followed. specifically female live in partner [21] can be availed. the Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A M Sapre. 2005 . proving de facto live in relationship is difficult. when the number of live in couples is increasing tremendously. 1955. The court has also tried to improve the conditions of the women and children borne out of live in relationships by defining their status under the Domestic Violence Act. but is definitely not illegal in the eyes of the law. so that the rights that are conferred upon partners. However. the law cannot grope in dark. 2015.death of one of the partner.

there are many questions that need to be answered. born out of such kinds of relationships are protected. though. While case by case basis court is adumbrating the law with regard to live in relationships. it does not impede upon the institution of marriage as many a times men who get into live in relationship is already married. however. when we look at the masses that define India. The rights guaranteed to female live in partners along with the rights of child born out of such relationships ought to be secured. However. which should keep a check on the practice of evading bondages. Laws should be made by the parliament. calls for adequate and effective protection. live in relationship does not find consensus of majority and is accused of tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality. If live in relationships are recognized prima facie then it may implicitly promote bigamy. and increasing number of such relationships.would give rise to the presumption of a valid marriage and if a live in relationship breaks down. Hence. bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act. for and against. On the one hand it faces speculation from society and secondly legal status of live in relationship evinces contingency. Legislature. especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship. of course. so that women and the children. the tenor of live in relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area. Thus the Parliament has to ponder over these issues. In the landmark Indra Sharma Case. . the Court stated that such relationship may endure for a long time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability. The more clear approach and attitude of law and the changing time and stance of society will determine the future of live in relationship. Outside the legal arena. the man is bound to pay maintenance to the women. at times. live in relationship also faces the social speculation. it has to be kept in mind that when law is giving legal sanction to live in relationships. such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion. cannot promote pre-marital sex. Law should have a discernible stance with respect to live in relationships and the aftermath of such relations. though such relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage Law on this issue is not very clear either in India or abroad. as we observed many questions with respect to live in relationship remains unanswered.

providing the partners as well as the child born out of such relationship with all the legal rights of maintenance. A good legal system always tends to adapt to the gradual social changes. The rights of livein relationships should be given legal sanctity. the law cannot grope in dark. . And lastly we can say that “Change is the need of the hour” and the social nd moral ethics need to be evolved and as when our legal system allows for the same our society must broaden our mind and must accept the change for good and must move ahead with new and refreshed thinking and Values and accept the concept of live in Reelationship. The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture keeping in mind the present social context along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that characterizes Indian society.As per various Judgments given by Supreme court and various others court. proving de facto live in relationship is difficult. live in relationships should be granted legal status after specific period of its existence. specifically female live in partner can be availed. also securing their rights after the dissolution of such relationship due to break up or death of one of the partner. Since. when the number of live in couples is increasing tremendously. This will ensure the rights and privileges in live in relationship without possessing any threat to the institution of marriage. As such. succession. so that the rights that are conferred upon partners. the burden of proof should be relaxed. inheritance as available to a married couple and their legitimate offspring.

Legal and Social Ramification of Live-in Relationship in India. Jain Book Agency.  Mahendra Singh Adil & Rajiv Raheja. 2011  Magoo Ish Kumar. Yking Books.2011 Articles: Live-In Relationship : A Comparative Approach -Parul Solanki Sharma  Live In Relationship.Review And Analysis -By Srishti Aishwarya . Gyan Publishing House.2011. Law of Maintenance & Child Custody (Grant & Refusal). Live-in-Relationship.Capital Law House.BIBLIOGRAPHY Books : Gaur Sanjay. Live-in Relationship Sex & Beyond.2005  Mathur Vivek.