CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

SALES OF GOODS ACT, 1930

SUBMITTED TO: DR. VIJAY KUMAR VIMAL

(FACULTY OF CONTRACT LAW-II)
S UBMITTED BY: SHIVAM (1434)
[2 ND YEAR, 3RD SEMESTER]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Writing a project is one of the most significant academic challenges I have
ever faced. Though this project has been presented by me but there are
many people who remained in veil, who gave their all support and helped
me to complete this project.
First of all I am very grateful to my subject teacher Dr. Vijay Kumar Vimal
without the kind support and help of whom the completion of the project
was a herculean task for me. He donated his valuable time from his busy
schedule to help me to complete this project and suggested me from
where and how to collect information and data.
I am very thankful to the librarian who provided me several books on this
topic which proved beneficial in completing this project.
I acknowledge my friends who gave their valuable and meticulous advice
which was very useful and could not be ignored in writing the project. I
want to convey a most sincere thanks to my parents for helping me
throughout the project.

SHIVAM
ROLL NO. 1434
3rd SEMESTER

CONTENTS
1. Acknowledgement.2
2. Introduction...5
2.1. Aims and objectives...7
2.2. Hypothesis..7
2.3. Research Methodology..7
3. Live-in Relationships and the common man.9
3.1. Live-in Relationship in India.9
3.2. Analysis and Impact of the status of live-in couples with the status of married couples.10
3.2.1. Marriage.10
3.2.2. Maintenance...10
3.2.3. Inheritance..12
3.2.4. Divorce...12
4. Children out of Live-in Relationships..14
4.1. Status of children from Live-in relationships...14
4.2. Legitimacy of children..14
4.3. Maintenance Rights of children14
4.4. Guardianship and Custodial rights14
4.5. Inheritance Rights of children..15
5. Live-in Relationships outside India.16
5.1. France...16
5.2. Philippines16
5.3. United Kingdom...16
5.4. Scotland16
5.5. Canada..17
5.6. China.17
5.7. Australia17
5.8. Ireland...17
5.9. USA..17
6. Response of Indian Judiciary to Live-in Relationships...19
6.1. Virendra Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr.21
6.2. Velusamy v. D. Patiachammal & ors21
7. Protection of Women in Law...24
7.1. Excerpts from Landmark Supreme Court Judgement..25
8. Suggestions and Recommendations.28
9. Conclusion...30
10. Bibliography32

LIST OF CASES:
3

Revanasiddappa & other vs. Mallikarjun & others 2011 (2) UJ 1342 (SC)
Lata Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 5 SCC 475 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 478
Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231
S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan 1992 Supp (2) SCC 304
Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530 : 1988 SCC
(Cri) 182
Malti v. State of U.P 2000 Cri LJ 4170 (All)
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636; 2005 SCC (Cri) 787
Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla v. Manjeet Singh Chawla AIR 2008 Del 7
Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga (2005) 2 SCC
33
Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary (1985) 1 SCC 637 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 145
M. Palani v. Meenakshi AIR 2008 Mad 162
Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai (2008) 2 SCC 238 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 451
Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520
Dimple Gupta v. Rajiv Gupta (2007) 10 SCC 30: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 567
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha
D Velusamy Vs D Patchaiammal
A Dinohamy v. WL Blahamy, AIR 1927 P.C. 185
Alok Kumar v. state crl. M.C. No. 299/2009, Cr.M.C.No. 299/2009, Decided on 9
August 2010
Badri Prasad v. Dy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1557
Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2685
Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari AIR 1952 SC 231
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma Criminal Appeal No. 2009 of 2013, decided on 26th
November,
Khushboo Case, JT 201 (4) SC 478,Crl. App. No. 913/2010, arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 4010 of 2008, MANU/SC/0310/2010, (S.C. 28 April, 2010)
Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P, Crl. Appl. No. 867/2009
MANU/SC/0689/2009 (S.C. Sept. 24, 2009)
Marvin v. Marvin,(1976) 18 C3d660
Md.Amin V.Vakil Ahmed, (1952), S.C.35
Mohabhat Ali v. Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, AIr 1929 PC 135
Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and others, 2001 (3) AWS 1778
Patel and others Case, (2006) 8 SCC 726

INTRODUCTION
The Sale of Goods Act, 1930 governs the contracts relating to sale of goods. It applies to the
whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
The contacts for sale of goods are subject to the general principles of the law relating to contracts
i.e. the Indian Contact Act. A contract for sale of goods has, however, certain peculiar features
such as, transfer of ownership of the goods, delivery of goods rights and duties of the buyer and
seller, remedies for breach of contract, conditions and warranties implied under a contract for
sale of goods, etc. These peculiarities are the subject matter of the provisions of the Sale of
Goods Act, 1930.

, and look after each other. A change is visible in our society from arranged marriages to love
marriages and now live-in relationships. If an analysis is made of need of such relationships,
avoiding responsibility would emerge as the prime reason. The lack of commitment, the
disrespect of social bonds and lack of tolerance in relationships have given rise to alternative to
marriages. Going together implies sexual exclusivity; living arrangements adds to this routine to
combine living arrangements and marriage the implication of permanence. Living arrangements
are the midpoint between the least restrictive (going with someone) and the most complex (the
marriage). The very nature of closeness allows a couple to provide with feedback so that they
may recognize and modify relationship defeating behavior. It contains an element of
convenience.
In most of the cases people agree to live together in order that at a later stage it may take the
shape of marital relationship. Still in spite of bonafide intentions of the couples taking out
way decision most live in relationships do not take the shape of eternal bonding.
Marriage is necessarily the basis of social foundation from which important legal rights and
obligations emerge. In ancient times, marriage was considered to be decided by the God and
divinity was associated with it. It is considered to be a sacred social institution. Marriage
according to the Hindu Law is a holy union for the performance of religious duties. It is not a
contract but it is a sanskar or sacrament. Hindu marriage protects a woman by guaranteeing her
legal rights for restitution of conjugal rights in case of desertion, legitimacy of the children, relief
in case of cruelty, adultery, impotency, claim of maintenance and alimony etc. Live-in
relationships in India are often seen as a taboo and a sin. Currently in India, marriage as a
lifelong social bond is being questioned. There is a rising tendency to enter into live- in
relationship instead of marriage which leads to conjugal disloyalty and disquiet. The live in
relationship is a living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term
relationship that resembles a marriage. In every day parlance, it is cohabitation. Live-inrelationship/ Cohabitation, sometimes called consensual union or de facto marriage, and refers to
unmarried heterosexual couples living together in an intimate relationship. Cohabitation is
defined as a situation in which opposite-sex couples live together outside the bond of marriage.
5

In some jurisdictions cohabitation is viewed as legal as common law marriage, either for a
specified period, or after the birth of a child, or if the couple holds themselves out to society as
being akin to spouses.
Live-in-relationship is neither recognized by The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 nor by The Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973, nor by The Indian Succession Act 1925. However, the expression
Relationship in the nature of marriage which is included within the definition of domestic
relationship has been defined in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(PWDVA) as follows:
Section 2(a) 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;
Section 2(f) 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;

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

The researcher wants to explore the dimensions of live-in relationships in

India, the reasons

of its introduction in India, and why it is becoming increasingly popular.

6

 The researcher wants to understand the social acceptance of live- in relationships and the
ethical and moral grounds of live-in relationships in India.
The researcher wants to explore the socio-legal position of live-in relationships in India as
compared to other developing and developed nations.
The researcher intends to critically examine the legal status in India in regards to live-in
relationships with study of appropriate case-laws and judgements.

HYPOTHESIS:
The general view of the researcher is that live-in relationships in India is not just popular among the
affluent class but among the young generation irrespective of their background .And that it is gaining
acceptance fast due to the many reasons like an easier exit option, no wedding expenses or dowry demands
,no in-laws or mandatory care-givers, no partner loses his or her identity or freedom of choice, no
prescribed gender roles and a greater sense of commitment as living together is based completely on
choice.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The researcher has used doctrinal method in her research, that is, extensive use of literary sources
and materials. The researcher mainly uses secondary sources to provide substance to the research
analysis. The researcher has also put down immense effort in order to understand the terms and
concepts related to the subject which enriched the study to a great extent. In some cases, the
researcher shall be bound to extract materials directly from the literary work of certain authors which
the researcher intend to adequately cite and notify in due course of time. Doctrinal research or
traditional research involves analysis of case laws, arranging, ordering and systematizing legal
prepositions and study of legal institutions, but it does more it creates law and its major tools
through legal reasoning or rational deductions. In the opinion of Boomin, this kind of research
represents more a practical regulative ideal of how the judicial process ought to be conceived by the
judiciary than a theoretical analysis of its actual structure and functioning.
SOURCES OF DATA:
The researcher has used both primary and secondary sources of data
1. Books
7

2. Law journals
3. Newspaper articles
4. Supreme Court cases

LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS AND THE COMMON MAN

Law takes its own time to articulate such social changes through a process of amendment.
That is why in a changing society law cannot afford to remain static. If one looks at the history
of development of Hindu Law, it will be clear that it was never static and has changed from time
to time to meet the challenges of the changing social pattern in different time.- Honble Justice
A.K.Ganguly & G.S. Singhvi in Revanasiddappa & other vs. Mallikarjun & others
India is a country, which is slowly opening its doors to western ideas and lifestyles, one of which
is the concept of live in relationships. A relationship of a man with a women in legal parlance is
legitimate if is based on proper marriage and illegitimate if not as per Marriage Laws. The live in
relationship is a living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term
8

relationship that resembles a marriage. In every day parlance, it is cohabitation. The basic idea of
conducting 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
see no benefit or value offered by the institution of marriage or that their financial situation
prevents them from being married on account of marriage expenses. Whatever the reason, it is
quite clear that in a traditional society, where the institution of marriage is considered to be
sacred, an increasing number of couples choose a live-in relationship, sometimes even as a
permanent arrangement, over marriage. In such situations, various social, economic and legal
issues have arisen and continue to do so. This article analyzes the impact of live in relationships
on marriage and family institutions. It also aims at comparing the status of live in relationships
with the status of married couples with the help of judicial decisions in India. It argues that it is
difficult to fit the concept of live in relationships within personal laws governing the institution
of marriage and legitimacy of children.
The Live-In Relationship in India
Live-in relationships in India are often seen as a taboo and a sin. However, it is not very
uncommon to find unmarried people in big metropolitan area staying together as husband and
wife. None of the statutes dealing with succession or marriage such as the Hindu Marriage Act
1955, the Special Marriage Act 1954 or the Indian Succession Act 1925 and so on recognize livein relationships specifically. However, under the Hindu Marriage Act, children born out of such
relationships are considered to be legitimate and have been granted the right to succession. With
no clear and specific legal sanction, there has been a huge societal change in the attitude towards
live-in relationships together with multinational companies providing health insurance benefits to
domestic partners of the employees.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 recognizes the right to protection of
a person in a relationship in the nature of marriage from domestic violence, with access to
monetary and other reliefs under the Act. The law does have a concept called presumption of
marriage which could be used to recognize such relationships. A presumption is available if a
man and woman are living under the same roof and cohabit for a number of years. Continuous
and prolonged cohabitation raises a presumption in favor of marriage.
Analysis and Impact of the Status of Live In Relationships with the Status of Married
Couples
There is no legal hurdle to prevent a man and a woman cohabiting together without entering into
formal marriage in the form of live-ins. The traditional Indian society however disapproved of
such living arrangements, for several reasons. First, society revered the institution of marriage.
Secondly, if a woman was financially dependent on the man, the instability of such a relationship
created a subservient status for the woman. Till recently and even now in small towns and cities,
there is much social criticism and stigma attached to such live-in relationships, forcing them to
remain largely secretive.
Marriage:

The Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P held that the live-in relationship is permissible
only in unmarried persons of heterosexual sex of the age of majority. The brothers of Lata Singh
had alleged that she was mentally unfit when they had protested her marriage. However this was
held to be untrue when she was examined by doctors. The live-in relationship if continued for
such a long time, cannot be termed as a walk in and walk out relationship; there has to be a
presumption of marriage between them. In Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari the court cautioned
that the couple would not get legitimacy, if the evidence of them living together was rebuttable.
These decisions only served to recognize marriages which were doubted, on the basis that a longterm live-in relationship existed. However the courts did not recognize live-in relationships as
independent of the institution of marriage, that is the presumption of marriage was a key
element.
In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan the Supreme Court held that if a man and woman are
living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be a presumption
under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children
born to them will not be illegitimate. This decision suggested that the law treats long live-in
relationships as good as marriages. The courts could subsequently interpret live-in relations to
mean living together as husband and wife to exclude those who enter into a live-in relationship
by choice without intending to be married, as that is still a matter of doubt and debate.
Maintenance:
The Supreme Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav held that where
a man having a living lawfully wedded wife marries another woman, his second wife had no
claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even though
she might be unaware of his earlier marriage. The Court refused to give any recognition to the
fact that they had lived together even if their marriage was void. The man was allowed to take
advantage of this, although he had failed to disclose his earlier marriage. The Supreme Court
held that it would not grant any rights to the woman in such a live-in relationship of
circumstance. In Malti v. State of U.P, the Allahabad High Court held that a woman living with
a man could not be equated as his wife. In this case, the woman was a cook in the man's house
and she stayed with him and shared an intimate relationship. The Court however refused to
extend the meaning of the word wife as denoted in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to include such a live-in partner's maintenance claims.
In Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court went further to the extent
of observing that the fact that the respondent was treating the appellant as his wife is really
inconsequential because it is the intention of the legislature which is relevant and not the attitude
of the party. Even the plea that the appellant was not informed about the respondent's earlier
marriage, when she married him, is of no avail, because the principle of estoppels 1 cannot be

1 Estoppel.- When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative
shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny
the truth of that thing, Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
10

pressed into service to defeat the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2
Thus, as per the present provisions of Section 125, there is no escape from the conclusion that
the expression wife refers only to the legally wedded wife. Hence, the Court granted
maintenance to the child and not to the second wife. Under the law a second wife whose
marriage is void on account of the survival of the first marriage is not a legally wedded wife, and
is, therefore, not entitled to maintenance under this provision.
In Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla v. Manjeet Singh Chawla, the Court took a liberal view and stated
that the second wife has a right to claim maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956.3 In this case the husband had not disclosed the facts of his first marriage
and married the appellant and maintained a relationship with her for 14 years as husband and
wife. The Court also took support from the provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005,4 and held that if we do not give maintenance to the second wife it
would amount to giving premium to the respondent for defrauding the appellant. The Supreme
Court in Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v. Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga tried to
distinguish between the legality and morality of relationships. Where the Supreme Court
observed that keeping into consideration the present state of statutory law, a bigamous marriage
may be declared illegal because it contravenes the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
but it cannot be said to be immoral so as to deny even the right of alimony or maintenance to
spouse.
The increasing incidents of live-in relationships, especially those which occur by
circumstance, however ensured that the need for reforms was recognized. In 2003, the
Malimath Committee Report on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System suggested an
amendment of the word wife in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to include a
woman who is living in with a man for a reasonable period. Ironically, back in 1985, the
Supreme Court in Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary had held that where a man and woman
were cohabiting for a long time and were treated by society as husband and wife, marriage is to
be presumed for awarding maintenance. However, the courts have not extended this principle to
include purported live-in partners. Significantly, the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act 2005 became the first statute to give live-in partners the same recognition as
married couples. The protection under this Act does not qualify live-in partners to get the same
benefit under personal law.
In M. Palani v. Meenakshi the respondent had filed a claim for maintenance of Rs 10,000 for
food, clothes, shelter and other basic necessities from the plaintiff, who had been in a live-in
relationship with her. The said application was filed under Section 20 5 read with Section 26.6The
petitioner contended that the respondent was not entitled to any maintenance since they had not
2 Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3 Section 3 (d) and Chapter III on maintenance, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
4 Section 20 (1) (d) , Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
5 Monetary reliefs, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
6 Relief in other suits and legal proceedings, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
11

lived together at any point of time. They had only indulged in consensual sexual intercourse
sometimes as friends, without any thought of marriage. He hence contended that mere proximity
at some time for the sake of mutual pleasure (as in their case) could not be called a domestic
relationship 7to invite the application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.
The Madras High Court looked into the definition of domestic relationship as given in Section
2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which did not specify that
the couple should have lived together for a particular period for the relationship to be a domestic
relationship. The Court held that at least at the time of having sex by them, they shared
household and lived together. The Court further held that the provisions of the Act would apply
even in such a case; hence, a maintenance claim under the Act was upheld. Thus the provisions
of the Act would apply even in those cases where man and woman share a frequent sexual
relationship, even if there is no express intention to a long-term commitment from either party.
While some may see this as a weapon which may be used by a woman to seek vengeance on a
man, if he walks out of a soured live-in relationship, a larger issue of protecting the rights and
vulnerability of the other woman has been partially addressed by allowing such claims.
Inheritance:
Partners in a live-in relationship do not enjoy an automatic right of inheritance to the property of
their partner. The Hindu Succession Act 1956 does not specify succession rights to even a
mistress living with a male Hindu. However, the Supreme Court in Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai
created a hope for persons living together as husband and wife by providing that those who have
been in a live-in relationship for a reasonably long period of time can receive property in
inheritance from a live-in partner. In this case property of a Hindu male, upon his death
(intestate), was given to a woman with whom he enjoyed a live-in relationship, even though he
had a legally wedded wife alive.8
Divorce:
Women in live-in relationships are not recognized by their husband's surname, for any legal or
financial matters including opening a bank account, submission of income tax return, applying
for loans, etc. They retain their identity as an individual and are not recognized as a wife or a
domestic partner. Consequently live-in couples can separate informally without any formal
divorce or the intervention of a court. In case of live-in relationship, it is not possible to have a
formal divorce in law among partners. The careful scrutiny of the existing matrimonial laws
indicates that unless this kind of relationship is not recognized in law the partners cannot be
allowed to separate formally. It looks like it is easy to get into live-in relationship whether by
choice or by circumstance but difficult to get out of this relationship formally. Whereas the
7 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, Section 2 (f), Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
8 Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 581
12

consequences of this relationship are left unanswered in law, for example, there is no law in
place which deals with the division and protection of their separate or joint property on
separation

13

CHILDREN OUT OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS

Status of children from live-in relationships
There is an increasing trend of couples entering into live-in relationships, not as a precursor but
rather a substitute of a formal marriage. Such long-term commitments often include procreation
of children. In live-ins by circumstance, the partners may procreate believing that he/she will
become legally married. Either way various legal issues arise about the status and rights of such
children, born out of legal wedlock, in comparison to those born in marriages. Following are the
key issues for consideration.
Legitimacy of children
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18729 provides that legitimacy of a child is proved only
if he or she was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and father.
Mohammedan (Muslim) law too recognizes only those children, who are the offspring between a
man and his wife as legitimate children. Thus children born from a live-in relationship were
illegitimate in the eye of existing law. However the Supreme Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya held
that children born out of such a relationship will no more be considered illegitimate. Again in
Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, the Supreme Court held that even if a person had contracted into
second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage, children from the second marriage
would still be legitimate though the second marriage would be void.
Maintenance rights of children
A legitimate son, son of predeceased son or the son of predeceased son of predeceased son, so
long as he is minor, and a legitimate unmarried daughter or unmarried daughter of the
predeceased son or the unmarried daughter of a predeceased son of predeceased son, so long as
she remains unmarried, shall be maintained as dependants by his or her father or the estate of his
or her deceased father.10But children from live-in relationships do not enjoy this right under the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, whereas Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure provides maintenance to children whether legitimate or illegitimate while they are
minors and after they attain majority where such child is unable to maintain himself. However,
the right to maintenance of children born from a live-in relationship was upheld in 2007, in
Dimple Gupta v. Rajiv Gupta.
Guardianship and custodial rights

9 Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.- The fact that any person was born during the
continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and eighty days
after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate
son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any
time when he could have been begotten.
10 Section 21, The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
14

In Hindu law, after the marriage of a man to a girl who is a legal minor, the husband is the legal
guardian of his wife as a minor and is entitled to her custody. The mere fact that she is a minor
will not disentitle her from claiming such custody to the exclusion of her parents. Where the
father and the mother are not married to each other and a child is born to such parents, the
mother and not the father has the parental responsibility for the child. 11 Section 6(a)12 of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 provides the father as the natural guardian of his
minor legitimate children and the mother becomes the natural guardian in his absence i.e.
where he is incapable of acting as the guardian. Section 6(b) 13 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act 1956 provides the mother as the natural guardian over any illegitimate children
she has. Under Muslim law, the father is the natural guardian and the mother does not become
the natural guardian even after his death. Muslim law does not provide for the guardianship of
illegitimate children, but it has come to be established through case law that it will be vested in
the mother. While deciding a matter on custody, the court takes into account the welfare, age, sex
and the wishes of the child as well as the wishes of his parents; the welfare of the child shall be
the paramount consideration.14 This applies even in custody cases involving children from live-in
relationships.
Inheritance rights of children
Under Hindu law, an illegitimate child inherits the property of his mother only and not putative
father, whereas under Sharia law, such a child cannot even inherit from his mother. If children
from a live-in relationship were to still be considered illegitimate, inheritance from the father's
estate would be barred. In fact, where the live-in relationship has not subsisted for a reasonable
period of time, the courts would not consider a child from such relationship to be legitimate,
thereby barring his inheritance. However, where the live-in satisfies this condition, a child being
legitimate can inherit from both the parents. In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, the Supreme
Court granted the inheritance to the four children born from the woman with whom the man
shared a live-in relationship, calling them his legal heirs. The Court has thus ensured that no
child born from a live-in relationship of a reasonable period may be denied their inheritance.

11 Natural guardians of a Hindu minor, Section 6, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
12 The natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minors person as well as in
respect of the minors property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family
property), are- (a) in the case of a boy or unmarried girl- the father, and after him, the mother, provided that the
custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother, Section 6 (a),
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

13 in the case of illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl- the mother, and after her, the
father, Section 6(b), The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
14 Section 13, The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
15

16

LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS OUTSIDE INDIA

FRANCE:
Civil Solidarity Pacts known as pacte civil de solidarite passed by the French Parliament in
November 1999 that allows couples to enter into a union by signing before a court clerk. It is a
contractual form which binds two adults of different sexes or of the same sex, in order to
organize their joint life and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded to married couples in the
areas of income tax, housing and social welfare. The contract can be revoked unilaterally or
bilaterally after giving the partner three months notice in writing. As of 2013, PACS remains
available to both- same and opposite sex couples after marriage and adoption rights were made
legal for same-sex couples.
PHILIPPINES:
Live in relationship is recognized, and it governs the property relations by the rules on equal coownership, under Chapter- 4 Conjugal Partnership of Gains, Article 147 (family Code),
Philippines provides that where a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other,
live exclusively with each other just like a husband and wife, but without the benefit of marriage
(or when the marriage is void). In such a situation, property acquired by both the spouses through
their work, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares which shall be
governed by equal co-ownership rule.

UNITED KINGDOM:
Live-in-couples do not enjoy legal benefits and status which are granted to married couples.
People in such a relationship are literally free from all legal bindings. Partners do not have
inheritance right over each others property unless named in their partners will. State pension is
available to the wives and civil partners (for same-sex couples who have legalized their status) of
those who have retired after April 2010 is not similarly applicable to partners who live-in.
Bereavement Allowance that is available to widowed spouses is also not available to live-in
partners who have lost their mate. However, the law seeks to protect the rights of a child born
under such relationship. Both parents have the onus of bringing up their children irrespective
whether they are married or cohabiting.
SCOTLAND:
The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced new rights and an obligation concerning
cohabiting couples (The live in relation). 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 parameters; (a) the length
of the period during which they lived together, (b) the nature of the relationship during that
period and (c) the nature and extent of any financial arrangements, subsisting or which subsisted
during that period. In case of breakdown of such relationship, under Section 28 of the Act, a
17

cohabitant has the right to apply in court for financial provision on the termination of the
cohabitation otherwise by reason of death i.e. separation. If a partner dies intestate, the
survivor can move the court for financial support from his estate within 6 months.
CANADA:
Canada recognizes live in relationship as Common Law Marriage. A recent ruling in B.C. that
grants common-law partners the same fundamental rights as married couples after two years of
cohabitation has cast a light on how common-law couples are treated. The presence of children
can significantly affect the way a common-law relationship is viewed in the eyes of the law in
other provinces.
CHINA:
In China, couple can sign a contract for live in relationship. The rights of a child are secured as a
child born outside the wedlock has the same benefits as enjoyed by the child born under a
marriage.
AUSTRALIA:
The family law of Australia recognizes de facto relationship between couples, 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.
IRELAND:
In Ireland Cohabiting couples do not possess the same legal rights and obligations as married
couples or civil partnerships in Irish law. This has important implications for a number of areas
in your life - including inheritance rights, property ownership, custody and guardianship of
children, adoption and fostering. There is a redress scheme for cohabiting couples who have been
in a long-term cohabiting relationship
USA:
In USA, concept of Palimony (maintenance to woman who having live-in-relationship) is in a
state of flux. In Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (Decided by: Markandey Katju and T.S.
Thakur, JJ)76 the Supreme Court examined trend of trying to apply or observe if the concept of
palimony which arises out of the famous case of Marvin v. Marvin and Taylor vs. Fields in
California Supreme Court can be applied in India as well .
24. In USA the expression `palimony' was coined which means grant of maintenance to a
woman who has lived for a substantial period of time with a man without marrying him, and is
then deserted by him (see `palimony' on Google). The first decision on palimony was the well
known decision of the California Superior Court in Marvin vs. Marvin. This case related to the
famous film actor Lee Marvin, with whom a lady Michelle lived for many years without
marrying him, and was then deserted by him and she claimed palimony. Subsequently in many
18

decisions of the Courts in USA, the concept of palimony has been considered and developed. The
US Supreme Court has not given any decision on whether there is a legal right to palimony, but
there are several decisions of the Courts in various States in USA. These Courts in USA have
taken divergent views, some granting palimony, some denying it altogether, and some granting it
on certain conditions. Hence in USA the law is still in a state of evolution on the right to
palimony.
25. Although there is no statutory basis for grant of palimony in USA, the Courts there have
granted it have granted it on a contractual basis. Some Courts in USA have held that there must
be a written or oral agreement between the man and woman that if they separate, the man will
give palimony to the woman; while other Courts have held that if a man and woman have lived
together for a substantially long period without getting married, there would be deemed to be an
implied or constructive contract that palimony will be given on their separation..
26. In Taylor vs. Fields (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186 the facts were that the plaintiff Taylor had a
relationship with a married man Leo. After Leo died Taylor sued his widow alleging breach of an
implied agreement to take care of Taylor financially and she claimed maintenance from the
estate of Leo. The Court of Appeals in California held that the relationship alleged by Taylor
was nothing more than that of a married man and his mistress. It was held that the alleged
contract rested on meretricious consideration and hence was invalid and unenforceable. The
Court of Appeals relied on the fact that Taylor did not live together with Leo but only
occasionally spent weekends with him. There was no sign of a stable and significant
cohabitation between the two.

19

RESPONSE OF INDIAN JUDICIARY TO LIVE- IN-RELATIONSHIP

Where a man and a woman live together for a long spell of time as husband and wife then there
would be presumption of marriageu/S.114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 15. In A. Dinohamy v.
W.L.Blahamy16 the Privy Council took a stand that, where a man and a woman are proved to
have lived together as 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. And the same stand was also resorted to in the case of Mohabhat Ali v. Md.
Ibrahim Khan17, when the Privy Council stuck to their position that when a man and a woman
not in a state of concubinage. In a case Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation18 where
a man and a woman lived together for around 50 years, the S.C. presumed that they were a
married couple. But in this case the S.C. laced their judgment by observing that, The
presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the
relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place. Law leans in favor of
legitimacy and frowns upon a basterd. In Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari 19, observed that
even though it may tempt it to presume the relationship in the nature of marriage, certain peculiar
circumstances do occur which may force the S.C.to rebut such a presumption.
Before 2000, no courts in the country ever uttered the word live-in-Relationship, but not
thereafter. In 2001 Payal Sharma vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Agra, C.M. Hab. Corp. 20
the Bench consisting of justice M.Katju and justice R.B.Mishra of Allahabad High Court
observed that 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. The Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadhari v.
Sukhrana Bai21 issued a Succession Certificate in favor of the live-in partner, who was
nominated by the deceased.
15 Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S.114 -Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court
may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the
common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the
facts of the particular case.
16 AIR 1927 P.C. 185
17 AIR 1929 PC 135
18 AIR 1978 SC 1557
19 AIR 1952 SC 231
20 W.P. No. 16876/2001, MANU/UP/0288/2001 (All. H.C. May 17, 2001), 2001(3) AWS 1778
21 C.A. No. 575/2008 MANU/SC/0629/2008, (S.C. Jan. 22, 2008)
20

In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P.22, the Supreme Court provided the
protection cover against dowry under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 23 by
including a person who enters into marital relationship under the color of feigned status of
husband. In Patel and others Case24 the Supreme Court observed that the two adults are not
criminal offenders who are bound in live-in-Relationship without a formal marriage. No
legislation has ever been enacted by Indian Parliament which denounces any live-in-Relationship
as illegal. The above judgment was made applicable to Tulsa v. Durghatiya25 by the Supreme
Court and re-recognized the rule that there would be a presumption of marriage u/S.114 when
there has been long cohabitation. After 2010 various issues are discussed and clarified by the
Supreme Court and High Courts by delivering various guidelines in numerous judgments on
validity of live-in-Relationship.
On 28 April, 2010 Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of K.G. Balakrishnan,
Deepak Verma, B.S. Chauhan in Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr.26 posed a question "If two
people, man and woman, want to live together, who can oppose them? What is the offence they
commit here? This happens because of the cultural exchange between people. The S.C. held
that live-in-Relationship is permissible. The court also held that living together is a part of the
right to life u/Art.21 of the Indian Constitution and it is not a "criminal offence.
In this context the court commented that there exists no law in the country which prohibits premarital sex. This comment was passed by the Apex Court in answer to the comments made by
the prosecution that the actress Khushboo endorsed pre-marital sex which affects the moral
fabric of the society.
In later part of the 2010 Delhi High Court decided a case Alok Kumar vs. State27 which also
was in connection with live-in-Relationship. The facts of the case suggest that the complainant
22 Crl. Appl. No. 867/2009 MANU/SC/0689/2009 (S.C. Sept. 24, 2009)
23 Indian Penal Code, 1872 u/S.498A.- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty.Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine. Explanation.For the purpose of this section, cruelty means (a) any willful conduct
which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to
her to meet such demand.
24 (2006) 8 SCC 726
25 Civil Appeal No. 648/2002 MANU/SC/0424/2008 (S.C. Jan. 15, 2008).
26 Crl. App. No. 913/2010, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4010 of 2008, MANU/SC/0310/2010, (S.C. 28
April, 2010)
27 Cr.M.C.No. 299/2009, Decided on 9 August 2010
21

started live-in-Relationship with the petitioner, who had not even divorced his previous wife and
was having a child of his own. The complainant was also having a child of her own. The Delhi
High Court, therefore, described the nature of such relationship as a walk-in and walk-out
relationship with no legal strings attached. 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 consent of the
other party. Those who do not want to enter into such relationship enter into such relationship
of marriage which creates a legal bond which cannot be broken by other party at will. Thus
people who choose to have 'live-in relationship' cannot later complain of infidelity or immorality.
On 17th May 2010 a Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Honble Justice B.S.
Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar (JJ) in Bharatha Matha & Anr vs. R. Vijaya
Renganathan & Ors28 held that
20. Thus, it is evident that Section 16 of the (Hindu Marriage) Act intends to bring about
social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of children, otherwise
treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.43
27. Thus, it is evident that in such a fact-situation, a child born of void or voidable marriage
is not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral coparcener property but is entitled only to
claim share in self acquired properties, if any.
On 31 March, 2011 a special Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of G.S. Singhvi,
Ashok Kumar Ganguly in Revanasiddappa & Anr. Vs. Mallikarjun & Ors 29 remarked that
irrespective of the relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such relationship has to be
viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. It is as plain and clear as sunshine that a
child born out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights and privileges
available to children born out of valid marriages. This is the crux of Section 16(3) of the
amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.30 The legal right to maintenance for women involved in
live-in-Relationship has been adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court in the following two cases;
28 AIR 2010 SC 2685
29 Civil Appeal No. of 2011, Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12639/09 ,
2011(2)UJ 1342(S.C.)
30 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 16- Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.(1) Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who
would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such a child is
born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or
not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of the marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage
is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.(2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in
respect of a voidable marriage under Section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is
made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree
it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child
notwithstanding the decree of nullity. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be
construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a
decree of nullity under Section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in
any case, where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or
acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.
22

1. Virendra Chanmuniya vs. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr 31 (Decided by
G.S. Singhvi and Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ) Facts of the case: the appellant woman
contended that she was re-married, as per the prevalent custom and usage, to the younger brother
(Respondent) of her deceased husband. They lived together as husband and wife for a pretty long
time. Thereafter, surprisingly and unfortunately the husband (respondent) started harassing the
appellant wife and also refused to provide her maintenance u/S.125 of Cr.P.C.
In this case, the High Court held that the appellant wife was not entitled to maintenance on the
ground that only legally married woman can claim maintenance u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. But the
Supreme Court turned down the judgment delivered by the High Court and awarded maintenance
to the wife (appellant) saying that provisions of Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C must be considered in the
light of Sec. 26 of the PWDVA, 2005. In brief, the S.C. held that women in live-in-Relationship
are equally entitled to all the reliefs which are available to legally wedded wife.
2. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal 32(Decided by: Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ)
The Supreme Court examined the definition of aggrieved person (AP) and domestic
relationship taken together and opined that the expression Relationship in the nature of
marriage which is included within the definition of domestic relationship has not clearly been
defined in the Act. Hence the Supreme Court said an authoritative decision is required to be
taken to elucidate what is and what is not a relationship in the nature of marriage. The S.C.
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 S.C. held that 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 judgment further clarified 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. The judgement
notes by way of illustration that merely spending weekends together, a one night stand in a
case where the man has a keep whom he maintains financially but uses her merely for sexual
purposes and/or as a servant, would not qualify for protection under the Act within the definition
of `domestic relationship'.
On 26th November 2013 a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court constituting of K.S.
Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ in Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma33 held that
when the woman is aware of the fact that the man with whom she is having living-in-relationship
and who already has a legally-wedded wife and two children, is not entitled to various reliefs
31 MANU/SC/0807/2010
32 MANU/SC/0872/2010, AIR2011SC479
33 MANU/SC/0872/2010, AIR2011 SC479, Para 34
23

available to a legally wedded wife and also to those who enter into a relationship in the nature
of marriage as per provisions of PWDVA, 2005.
But in this case, the Supreme Court felt that denial of any protection would amount to a great
injustice to victims of illegal relationship who are poor, illiterate and also to their children who
are born out of such relationship and has no source of income of her own. Therefore, the S.C.
remarked that there is a burning need to expand the connotation of Sec. 2 (f) which defines
domestic relationship in PWDVA, 2005 with a view to include there in victims of illegal
relationship who are poor, illiterate along with their children who are born out of such
relationship and who do not have any source of income. If the above suggestion made by the
Apex Court, purely out of humanitarian consideration, is converted into legislation, it would
prove to be an effective remedy to a societal wrong caused by such illegal relationships. During
the course of its judgment, the Supreme Court has given the following guidelines based on which
the Parliament may pass a new legislation: 1) Duration of relationship - Section 2(f) of the DV
Act 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
factual situation. (2) Shared household - The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of
the DV Act and, hence, needs no further elaboration. (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 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 marital affection, caring etc. (6)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 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 and to involve and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily
determines the nature of that relationship.
The Malimath Committee (on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, 2003) 61 made several
recommendations in Part IV, Chap.16 under the Head Offences against Women (Pg.197)
has observed;
that the definition of the word wife in Section 125 should be amended so as to include a
woman who was living with the man as his wife for a reasonably long period, during the
subsistence of the first marriage.

24

PROTECTION OF WOMEN IN LAW

At present in India, no law deals with the legality of live-in relationships. Still in the absence of
any specific legislation on the subject, it is praiseworthy that under The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, all benefits are bestowed on a woman living in such kind of
arrangement by reason of being covered within the term domestic relationship under section
2(f). If we propose to enact a law to regulate live-in relationship, though it would grant rights to
parties to it but at the same time it would put obligations on them as well.
As we know that law is not a means to maintain law and order in the society, but it is also the
means of providing social justice. We are also aware that the law does not operate in vacuum. It
operates in society, which is itself influenced by various factors such as social structure. Law is
not for law sake. Law is an instrument of social control.
There is no specific enactment for live in relationship. Neither any personal law recognizes livein-relationship nor does the Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act 2005 on the other hand for the purpose of providing protection and
maintenance to women says that an aggrieved person from relationship in nature of marriage.
However, law on this issue is not very clear either in India or abroad.
Cohabiting couples have little guidance as to their legal rights in such areas as property
ownership, responsibility for debts, custody, access to health care and other benefits, and
survivorship. Section 125 of Cr. P. C. provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents,
who cannot maintain themselves. As of now maintenance can only be claimed by a woman who
is a wife, has either been divorced or has obtained a divorce, or is legally separated and is not
remarried. In June, 2008, 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 Cr. P. C. This view was supported by the judgment in
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra and Others 34. The positive opinion in favor of live
in relationship was also seconded by Maharashtra Government in October, 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, she ought
to enjoy the legal status as given to wife. However, recently it was observed that it is divorced
wife who is treated as a wife in context of Section 125 of Cr. P. C and if a person has not even
been married i.e. the case of live in partners, they cannot be divorced, and hence cannot claim
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. Thus, it recommended that the word 'wife' in Section
125 Cr. P. C. should be amended to include a woman who was living with the man like his wife
for a reasonably long period.
The Apex Court even went on to protect the live in female partner from harassment for dowry. In
Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P.35 the defendant used to harass his live in
partner for dowry. In the Supreme Court, Justice Arjit Pasyat and Justice A.K. Ganguly while
denying the contention of defendant that section 498A does not apply to him since he was not
34 In CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2218 OF 2007 decided on 16.9.2008 by Bombay High Court
35 In SLP (Crl.) No. 4496 of 2006 decided on 29.4.2009 by Supreme Court of India.
25

married to his live in partner held that, the nomenclature dowry does not have any magical
charm written over it. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a marital
relationship. Drawing parallels with the law which recognizes the legitimacy of children born of
void and voidable marriages, 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, the question of dowry does not arise?
In Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha36 it is held that a broad and expansive
interpretation should be given to the term `wife' to include even those cases where a man and
woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and
strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 of the
Cr. P. C, so as to fulfill the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance
under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. Such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles
enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of
the individual. Law should have a discernible stance with respect to live in relationships and the
aftermath of such relations. There are number of cases pending before trial courts filed under The
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, wherein a female from live in
relationship is an aggrieved person. The said Act does not define live in relationship or
relationship in nature of marriage. Therefore Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21st October, 2010
cleared all doubts about the same.
Landmark Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in D Velusamy Vs D Patchaiammal 37
Some relevant paragraphs are reproduced herewith:
Para 16. However, the question has also to be examined from the point of view of The Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Section 2(a) of the Act states:
2(a) 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;
Section 2(f) states:
2(f) 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;
Section 2(s) states:
2(s) 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
36 (2011) 1 SCC 141
37 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2028-2029 Of 2010 decided on 21.10.2010 by SupremeCourt
of India

26

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.
para 20. Having noted the relevant provisions in The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, we may point out that the expression 'domestic relationship' includes not
only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship 'in the nature of marriage'.
The question, therefore, arises as to what is the meaning of the expression 'a relationship in the
nature of marriage'.
Unfortunately this expression has not been defined in the Act. Since there is no direct decision of
this Court on the interpretation of this expression, we think it necessary to interpret it because a
large number of cases will be coming up before the Courts in our country on this point, and
hence an authoritative decision is required.
Para 33. In our opinion 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.
In our opinion a 'relationship in the nature of marriage under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the
above requirements, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a 'shared household
as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand
would not make it a 'domestic relationship.
Para 34. In our opinion 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 benefit the conditions mentioned by us
above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. 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
Para 35. No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live in
relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or
amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage and
not 'live in relationship. The Court in the grab of interpretation cannot change the language of
the statute. We can not interpret the law beyond its words.
This landmark judgment is elaborative in itself. Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly
emphasized the difference between 'live in relationship' and 'relationship in nature of marriage'.
This judgment is self explanatory about its reasons for giving requirements to explain any
relationship in the pretext of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Madras High Court has in a judgement said if any unmarried couple of the right legal age
indulge in sexual gratification," this will be considered a valid marriage and they could be
termed "husband and wife. The court said that if a bachelor has completed 21 years of age and an
unmarried woman 18 years, they have acquired the freedom of choice guaranteed by the
Constitution. "Consequently, if any couple chooses to consummate their sexual cravings, then
that act becomes a total commitment with adherence to all consequences that may follow, except
on certain exceptional considerations.
The court said marriage formalities as per various religious customs such as the tying of a
mangalsutra, the exchange of garlands and rings or the registering of a marriage were only to

27

comply with religious customs for the satisfaction of society. The court further said if necessary
either party to a relationship could approach a Family
Court for a declaration of marital status by supplying documentary proof for a sexual
relationship. Once such a declaration was obtained, a woman could establish herself as the man's
wife in government records. The court also said if after having a sexual relationship, the couple
decided to separate due to difference of opinion, the 'husband' could not marry without getting a
decree of divorce from the 'wife'. Justice C. S. Karnan passed this order on17.6.2013 .

28

Suggestions and Recommendations

a) PWDVA, 2005 Section 2(f)

The Researcher fully agrees with the bold initiative taken by the Supreme Court in its judgment
delivered in respect of the two cases namely 1. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (Decided by:
Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ) 2. Indra Sharma v. V.K.V. Sharma (Decided by:
K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ) which recommended to the Indian
legislature broadening of the definition of domestic relationship contained in Sec.2 (f) of
PWDVA, 2005, with a view to include therein victims of illegal relationship who are poor,
illiterate and also their children who are born out of live-in-relationship and who do not have any
source of income of their own. In addition to the above recommendations, the Researcher
suggests that the Parliament passes a new legislation as suggested by the S.C. in its guidelines
given in the course of its above mentioned two judgments.
b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 125 )
The Researcher suggest that the definition of the term wife contained in Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
should be amended so as to include a woman having relationship in the nature of marriage for
a reasonably long period of time. c) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 112)
Section 11284 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that legitimacy of a child is proved
only if any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and
any man. Muslim law also recognizes only those children as legitimate, who are the offspring of
a man and his wife.85 Thus children born out of live-in relationship were illegitimate86 in the
eye of the then existing law. However the Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs
Mallikarjun & Ors.87 remarked that irrespective of the relationship between parents, birth of a
child out of such relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. It
is as plain and clear as sunshine that a child born out of such relationship is innocent and is
entitled to all the rights and privileges available to children born out of valid marriages. This is
the crux of Section 16 of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 195588. d) Hindu Marriage Act,
(Section 16)
On 17th May 2010 a Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Honble Justice B.S.
Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar (JJ) in Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya
Renganathan & Ors89 held that; 20. Thus, it is evident that Section 16 of the (Hindu
Marriage) Act intends to bring about social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy
on a group of children, otherwise treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.
27. Thus, it is evident that in such a fact-situation, a child born of void or voidable marriage is
not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral coparcener property but is entitled only to claim
share in self acquired properties, if any. 90 In this context the Researcher wants to recommend
that child born out of relationship in the nature of marriage should also be entitled to claim its
share in ancestral coparcenaries property of its parents in addition to their self acquired property.
It is as plain and clear as sunshine that a child born out of such relationship is innocent and is
entitled to all the rights and privileges available to children born out of valid marriages. This is
29

the crux of Section 16(3) of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which needs to be put on
the canvass of reality.

30

CONCLUSION
The concept of live-in relationships have come out of the closet and even found partial
recognition in law. Though the debate rages on in public forum with recommendations and
opinions yet coming in from various authorities and Commissions to either amend the existing
laws or desist from doing so, there have been no amendments to the existing personal law. It is
thus, worthwhile to examine whether or not, live-in relationships can find their place in personal
laws in the country. The harm caused to a legally wedded wife and her children, in a case
where a man maintains live-in relationship with another woman without the knowledge of his
legally wedded wife and the probability that such legalization will increase the practice of
bigamy are the two main contentions of the critics of legalization of live-in relationships have
aside from the done to death immorality. Any attempt to protect live-ins in personal laws must
therefore tackle these two issues carefully.89
The courts have recognized persons in long-term live-in relationship to be as good as a married
spouse. Such decisions, while being delivered were for upholding the rights of the other
woman but these decisions contradict the law on bigamy. When bigamy is illegal (except for
Muslims) it is unclear in what sense a live-in relationship can be equal to a marriage, if either the
man or the woman is already married to a living spouse.90 The ambiguity allows a man or
woman to be in another relationship without being subjected to punishment for bigamy.91
Personal laws differ for various communities on different matters and to fit in live-ins into each
of these aspects would be a difficult and complex exercise.
However, that would mean that live-ins were being given an equivalent status to marriage. So
would that imply an extension of all rights of married partners to live-ins? This is rather earth
shattering as it would destroy the institution of a marriage. Secondly, it would entail some
form of recognition for live-in couples, through registration (legal civil ceremony). While
registration has been a successful experiment in other countries but it may not be suitable for
India, where many live-ins are those by circumstance. Live-ins may thus entirely fit into
personal laws only if they were given an equivalent status as married spouses.
The Supreme Court in a number of cases has stated that where there is cohabitation for a
reasonable period of time, the couple shall be presumed to be leading a married life and shall
enjoy such rights. However, the Court has not defined how much time should be considered to
confer the marital status on such relationships. It needs the immediate attention of the lawmakers
to make it clear through suitable legislation otherwise different couples may be subjected to
different yardsticks when they seek their rights. After all, live-in relationships are based on
informal understandings.
An amendment to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be one such example
that would bring a uniform law, which would outline the rights, duties and responsibilities of
such couples. Such a law could define those couples that to whom it applied (in terms of length
of cohabitation), recognize the two kinds of live-in relationships and provide remedies
accordingly, in the same manner as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.92 It is necessary to understand society with its changing colors and provide laws which are
practicable and enforceable to tackle these complex issues.93
The live-in-relationship is no longer a novelty to Indian society. It has come to stay. Live-inrelationship couples are multiplying in number; at the same time institution of marriages stays
unaffected. Time was when institution of marriage was sine qua non of Indian society but not
31

now. Emergence of live-in-relationship seems to pose a challenge to the solid rock on which
institution of marriage has been built up and nurtured. Break up of joint family system has given
rise to satellite families. Spread of education of women has led to formation of an army of Indian
woman who are earning and ably assisting their husbands resulting into emergence of double
income families. As an impact of globalization, families are broken up and life partners are
bound to stay alone in different countries of the world away from their life partners. May be that
this societal change has given rise to the growth of live-in-relationship.
Whether you like it or not phenomenon of live-in-relationship is digging deep into the social
fabric of India, as if it is posing a bold challenge to the institution of marriage. The law in every
country has to keep pace with the changing times.

32

Bibliography
A. Books
[1]. Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, Satyajeet Atul Desai, Principles of Hindu Law, Volume 1(20th ed.),
New Delhi, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007
[2]. Dalbir Bharati, Women and Law, (2008), New Delhi, S.B. Nangia-APH Publishing
Corporation,
[3]. Dr. Kailash Rai, The Constitutional Law of India, (7th ed.), Allahabad: Central law
publications, 2008
[4]. Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II(3rd ed.), Nagpur:
Wadhwa LexisNexis Butterworths
[5]. Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (20th ed.), Allahabad, Allahabad Law Agency, 2009.
[6]. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal ,The Indian penal Code, (30th ed.), Nagpur: Wadhwa and Co., reprint
2008,
[7]. R.C. Nigam, Law of Crimes in India, Vol. I, Principles of Criminal Law Bombay-Delhi: Asia
Publishing House,1965

B. Dictionaries
[8]. Catherine, Soanes, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 7th ed. 2007
[9]. International Encyclopedia of Marriage And Family | 2003, Available At,
Http://Www.Encyclopedia.Com/Topic/Cohabitation.Aspx
[10]. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences | 2008 available at,
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Cohabitation.aspx
[11]. www.legal-dictionary.com (Accessed on 25th sept.2011 at 2 am)

C. Articles
[12]. Amartya Bag, Succession Rights In Case Of Live-In Relationships: An Analysis In The
Indian Context , at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2011751
[13]. Chetan Tripathy, Live in Relationship- Review and Analysis
[14]. Deepali Sharma and Shikha Rajpurohit Legal & Social Aspects of Live In Relationship
International Referred Research Journal, January, 2012, ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI: RAJBIL
2009/30097, Vol- III, Issue 2
[15]. Shobharam Sharma, Live-In-Relationship: An Individualistic Approach, Naya
Deep,Pg.69
[16]. Live-in Relationship in India : Legal Status, Indian Laws & Jurisprudence A Layman's
Guide, available at, http://www.gangothri.org/?q=node/33, (Last accessed on April 26, 2013)
[17]. www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html, (Accessed on 22nd
November 2011)
[18]. KU Kalpana Vithalrao Jawale, Live-In Relationship: Recent Developments and
Challenges in India National Summit on Law & Legal Education NECTAR, Akola Law
College
[19]. Nivedita Ghosh, The Emerging Marital Trends in Indian Scenario New Delhi, India
International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, Research Chronicler ISSN 2347503X,
available at www.research-chronicler.com
33

[20]. Padma Rao Sahib and Xinhua Gu Living in Sin and Marriage: a Matching
Model,journal of population Economics 15, No.2(2002): 261
[21]. Prof. Vijender Kumar, Live-In Relationship: Impact on Marriage and Family
Institutions, SCC J-19 , 2012 Vol.4

34