CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PATNA

SUBJECT:
FAMILY LAW PROJECT
ON
MAINTENANCE FOR LIVE IN PARTNER

SUBMITTED TO:- SUBMITTED

BY:-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……………………………………3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………..4

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..5

2. LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA…………………………………..8

3. MAINTENANCE FOR LIVE IN PARTNER …………………………12

4. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..17

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

2
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. POOJA without her kind support and
help the completion of the project was a herculean task for me. She donated her valuable time
from her busy schedule to help me to complete this project and suggested me from where and
how to collect 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.

Lastly I am very much thankful to my parents and family, who always stand aside me and helped
me a lot in accessing all sorts of resources.

I thank all of them !

AIMS & OBJECTIVES:-

3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:-

For the completion of this project Doctrinal method has been used. The research is based on
comprehensive study of various books, journals, judgements and articles available and also on
web resources..

HYPOTHESIS

Researcher hypothesis is i) live in relationship is a western concept and is not in existence in

India.

ii) To claim compensation women partner has to prove subsistence of a presumption of marriage.

Method of Writing:
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation
The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation.

4
INTRODUCTION

A live-in relationship is an arrangement where a heterosexual couple lives together, without

entering into formal relationship called marriage. It is also commonly known as “Cohabitation” 1.
It need not necessarily involve sexual relations. It is a largely informal arrangement in most
places, although some countries do offer registration of such couples. People generally choose to
enter into such relations either to test compatibility before marriage, or if they are unable to
legally marry or simply because it does not involve the hassles of formal marriage with lengthy
divorces should partners decide to call it quits. It may also be that they see no benefit or value
offered by the institution of marriage or that their financial situation temporarily precludes it.
Whatever be the reason, it is quite clear that even in a traditional India, where the institution of
marriage is “sacred”, an increasing number of couples choose a live-in relationship, sometimes
even as a permanent arrangement over marriage. In such circumstances, various legal and social
issues have arisen and continue to do so.

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.2 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. 3 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-

1
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/cohabitation on (27/09/2017)
2
Satyajeet Atul Desai, Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, Principles of Hindu Law, Volume 1(20th ed.), New Delhi,
LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007 at pg.9
3
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

5
in-relationship ,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.
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.
 Cohabitation or live in relationships have turned into a common pattern amongst people across
the Western world. There are a multitude of reasons why a couple may want to live together. It
may be because they want to evaluate their compatibility in a more practical way, or to establish
financial security before officially tying the knot. Apart from that, it may be also due to legal
constraints that would not allow them to marry – for example, if they belong to the same sex.

 Certain individuals may also prefer to be in a live in relationship because in their opinion,
relationships are their personal and private matters that ought not be controlled by religious,
political and/or patriarchal institutions. Meanwhile, some may prefer cohabitation because such
an arrangement does not legally compel them to be in the relationship for an extended period
(live in relationships are often easier to establish as well as dissolve). In some jurisdiction, live in
relationships are viewed legally as common law marriage it may be applicable after the duration
of a pre-specified period, or after the birth of a child, or for certain other legally defined reasons.

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. 4 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”5 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”6 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
4
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 sept 27, 2017)
5
Section 2(a), of the PWDVA,2005
6
Section 2(f) of the PWDVA,2005

6
consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are
family members living together as a joint family.

CHAPTER-2 LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA

7
 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.7
The live in relationship is a living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a
long-term relationship that resembles a marriage. Live-in relationships in India are often seen as
a taboo and a sin.8 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 live-in relationships specifically. 9 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.

This form of living together is not recognized by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any other
statutory law. Therefore, there is no specific law on the subject of live in relationships in India.
There is no legislation to define the rights and obligations of the parties to a live in relationships,
the status of children born to such couples.There is no legal definition of live in relationship and
therefore the legal status of such type of relationships is also unsubstantiated. The Indian law
does not provide any rights or obligations on the parties in live relationship. The status of the
children born during such relationship is also unclear and therefore, the court has provided
clarification to the concept of live in relationships through various judgments. 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. Currently, the law is unclear about the
status of such relationship though a few rights have been granted to prevent gross misuse of the
relationship by the partners.10 Legalizing live in relationship means that a totally new set of laws
need to be framed for governing the relations including protection in case of desertion, cheating
in such relationships, maintenance, inheritance etc.

7
Prof. Vijender Kumar, Live-In Relationship : Impact on Marriage and Family Institutions, (2012) 4 SCC J-19 at p.
J-19
8
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
9
Live-in Relationship in India : Legal Status, Indian Laws & Jurisprudence: A Layman's Guide, at
http://www.gangothri.org/?q=node/33, (Last accessed on sept 26, 2017)
10
Dr. SangitaLaha, Live-In Relationship–An Analysis Through Cases.

8
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” 11 from domestic violence12, with access
to monetary and other reliefs under the Act. The law does have a concept called “presumption of
marriage”13 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. 14 Continuous
and prolonged cohabitation raises a presumption in favour of marriage.

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”.15 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.

The Fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants to all its citizens
“right to life and personal liberty” which means that one is free to live the way one wants. Live
in relationship may be immoral in the eyes of the conservative Indian society but it is not
“illegal” in the eyes of law. Indian judiciary is neither expressly encouraging nor prohibiting
such kind of live-in-relationships in India. The judiciary is only rendering justice in accordance
with law in a particular case. The main concern of the judiciary is to prevent the miscarriage of
justice. The judiciary in deciding the cases keeps in mind the social mores and constitutional
values.

The first case in which the Supreme Court of India first recognized the live in relationship as a
valid marriage was that of Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation 16 in which the Court
gave legal validity to the a 50 year live in relationship of a couple. In 2001 Payal Sharma vs.
Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Agra, C.M. Hab. Corp. 17 the Bench consisting of justice M.Katju
11
Section 2 (f), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
12
Section 3, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
13
Section 50 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
14
Gurubasawwa v. Irawwa, (1997) 1 HLR 695 (Karn)
15
Thomas Spijkerboer, Sarah Van Walsum, Women and Immigration Law: New Variations on Classical Feminist
Themes, Routledge, 2007
16
AIR 1978 SC 1557.
17
2001(3) AWC 1778.

9
and justice R.B.Mishra of Allhabad 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.‖ In Patel
and others Case18 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. Durghatiya19 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.

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 & Anr20 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 Constitution38 and it is not a "criminal offence".

While the year 2010 saw a number of judgments related to live-in relationships, which includes,
clear declaration by the Supreme Court that a live-in relationship is not illegal and grant of
maintenance to a woman in live-in relationship. Live-in relationship is one of the areas which is
under criticism and highly debated regarding its legality and implication on the societal
relationships. Long term cohabitation between two major man and woman has long been equated
to a valid marriage. The Courts have taken the view that where a man and a woman live together
as husband and wife for a long term, the law will presume that they were legally married unless
proved contrary as laid down long back by the Privy Council in the case of A DinohamyvsWL
Blahamanvi.In InndraSarma vs. V.K.V.Sarma,201121 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:-

18
2006 (8) SCC 726
19
2008(4) SCC 520.

20
JT 2010 (4) SC 478.
21
AIR 2009 (NOC) 808 (Bom).

10
(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 Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma 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 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

CHAPTER 3. MAINTANCE FOR LIVE IN PARTNER

The status of the female partner remains vulnerable in a live in relationship given the fact she is
exploited emotionally and physically during the relationship. Different court judgments have
discussed on different disputes pertaining to live-in relationships.The Rights of Women in such
relationships do not have much condolence except some traces of assistance offered by the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which covers in its ambit “relationship

11
similar to marriage” or live-in relationships. The definition of “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. Hence
the words in the nature of marriage are self explanatory and buy within its meaning the social
concept of live-in.

Furthermore in the recent years the recommendations by various committees and NGO‟s have
awaken the spirits of justice in the interest of women specially aggrieved by such relationships.
Apart from this the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has also given landmark judgments make its stand
clear on the issue. For instance in the landmark case of D. Veluswami v D. Patchaimmal 22 it was
held a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfills certain
parameters, the Supreme court had observed that merely spending weekends together or a one
night would not make it a domestic relationship.

In order to get maintenance, the essential four conditions are23

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.

d) They must be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to
spouses for a significant period of time.

The Supreme Court observed that not all Live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in
the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005. If a man has a „keep‟ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual
purpose and/or as a servant it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage.

The National Centre for Women made recommendations to the Ministry of Women and Child
Development to include female live-in partners within the ambit of section 125 of Cr.PC in order

22
. AIR 2011 SC 479
23
.http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-10-21/india/28237348_1_live-in-relationship-dv-act-live-in-
partners (sept 27,2017)

12
to establish their rights and make them entitled to right to maintenance. The Hon‟ble Court also
in the case of Abhijit Auti v. State of Maharashtra 24 and others supported the above principle and
furthermore the Maharashtra Government showed a positive sign by accepting the Malimath
Committee Report and also the Law Commission Report and held that if a live-in relationship
continues for a very long time she is entitled to enjoy the rights of a wife but it was recently ruled
out that a wife under section 125 of Cr.PC is a divorced wife and the right to maintenance should
only be enjoyed by a divorced wife and not by a female partner who merely cohabited with her
male partner. Since in case of a live-in relationship there exists no marriage and hence no
concept of divorce. Therefore a female partner under live-in relationship should not be construed
as a wife under section 125 of the Cr.PC. The decision of the Hon‟ble Court is in the righteous
spirit as empowering any women who cohabited with a man would result in misuse of the legal
provisions under section 125 and would therefore be unfair on the part of the male partner as
well. Definition of the word "wife" in section 125 of the Code be amended to include a woman
who was living with the man like his wife for a reasonably long period.

TheDomestic Violence Act provides protection to the woman if the relationship is “in the nature
of marriage”. First time by Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the
legislator has accepted live in relationship by giving those female who are not formally married,
but are living with a male person in a relationship, which is in the nature of marriage, also akin to
wife, though not equivalent to wife. This proviso, therefore, caters for wife or a female in a live
in relationship. Live-in relationships are now considered at par with marriage under a new Indian
law pertaining to domestic violence. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are now
extended to those who are in live-in relationships as well. The amendments intend to protect the
victims of domestic abuse in live-in relationships. Section 2 (g) of the aforementioned Act
provides that a relationship between two individuals who live together or have lived together in
the past is considered as a domestic relationship. A woman who is in a live-in relationship can
seek legal relief against her partner in case of abuse and harassment. Further, the new law also
protects Indian women who are trapped in fraudulent or invalid marriages.

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

24
AIR 2003 Bom 304

13
maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. This view was supported by the
judgment in AbhijitBhikasethAuti v. State Of Maharashtra andOthers.25The positive opinion in
favour 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 Code of Criminal Procedure
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 Code of Criminal
Procedure.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for giving maintenance to the wife and some other relatives. The
word `wife' has been defined in Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) of the Cr.P.C. as follows;
“Wife includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband
and has not remarried.”Four important grounds are laid for live-in relationship to be recognized
as a relationship in the nature of Marriage. When a live-in partner satisfies these four conditions
in addition to living together under one roof, only then a deserted woman can seek Maintenance.
These four conditions are:
1. A live-in couple must hold themselves out to Society as being akin to spouses.

2. They must be of legal age to marry.

3. They must be unmarried or

4. Be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage.

The only act which has implied the existence of live in relationships is the protection of women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV). For the purpose of protection and maintenance to
women, an aggrieved live in partner may be granted alimony under the act. A bare reading of
this act reveals to us the following:
Section 2(f) of the act defines a „domestic relationship‟ to mean “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,

25
AIR 2009 (NOC) 808 (Bom).

14
adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.” The phrase „in the nature of
marriage‟ covers in its ambit live in relations or cohabiting. Unfortunately, it has not been
defined in the act but left to the courts for interpretation. The Supreme Court in the case of
D.Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammalx, held that, a „relationship in the nature of marriage‟ under the
2005 Act must also fulfil some basic criteria. Merely spending weekends together or a one night
stand would not make it a „domestic relationship‟. It also held that if a man has a „keep‟ whom
he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in
our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage‟. The Supreme Court further opined that
the Parliament has drawn a distinction between the relationship of marriage and the relationship
in the nature of marriage, and has provided that in either case the person is entitled to benefits
under the Domestic Violence Act,2005(PWDV).
The Court ruled that the concept of palimony which applied to such relationships was not
recognized in India and even though the Domestic Violence Actrecognized live-in relationship to
some degree, not all such relationships were entitled for maintenance unless they satisfied the
conditions stipulated by the Court. It has been commented upon by Supreme Court in the case of
S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal&Anr)the recent judgment of the Supreme Court IndraSarma vs.
V.K.V.Sarma,in 2013 the Supreme Court has clarified several points and given a few guidelines
to be followed in the absence of a dedicated law. These guidelines will serve the purpose of
bringing such relationships under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Supreme Court
illustrated five categories where the concept of live in relationships can be considered and proved
in the court of law. Following are the categories:
1. Domestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female, both unmarried. It is the
most uncomplicated sort of relationship

2. Domestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried woman, entered
knowingly.

3. Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married woman, entered
knowingly. Such relationship can lead to a conviction under Indian Penal Code for the crime of
adultery

4. Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married male, entered
unknowingly

15
5. 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, 2005and provided certain guidelines to get an insight of such relationships. Also, there
should be a close analysis of the entire relationship, in other words, all facets of the interpersonal
relationship need to be taken into account, including the individual factors.

The need of the present hour is not to try bringing live-in relationships under the ambit of any
existing law but to enact a new different law which would look into the matter of live-in‟s
separately and would grant rights and obligations on the part of the couples thereby reducing the
cases of misuse of existing laws and also to reduce cases of atrocities faced by the female
partners under such relationships. 

CHAPTER 4 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. 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

16
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.26 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. 27 The ambiguity allows a
man or woman to be in another relationship without being subjected to punishment for bigamy.

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.

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,

26
Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 238 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 451
27
Prof. Vijender Kumar, Live-In Relationship : Impact on Marriage and Family Institutions, (2012) 4 SCC J-19 at p. J-
19

17
2005.28 It is necessary to understand society with its changing colours and provide laws which
are practicable and enforceable to tackle these complex issues.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

a. Books Referred

 Kusum, “Cases and Materials on Family Law”, 1st. ed. 2007, Universal Law Publishing Co.,
Delhi.  Kusum, “Family Law Lectures”, 1st ed. 2003, Lexis Nexis, New Delhi

28
Prof. Vijender Kumar, Live-In Relationship : Impact on Marriage and Family Institutions, (2012) 4 SCC J-19 at p. J-
19

18
  Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, “Family Law”, 7th ed. 2005, Allahabad Law Agency,
Allahabad.  Ranganath Mishra and Vijender Kumar, (rev.), Mayne, “Hindu Law and Usage”,
16th ed. 2008, Bharat Law House, New Delhi.

 TV Subba Rao and Vijender Kumar, (rev.), GCV Subba Rao, “Family Law in India”, 1st Ind.
rep. 2004 (8th ed. 2003), S Gogia and Co, Hyderabad.

b. Websites Referred

 http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog//livein-relationships-india-accorded-legal- status

 http://www.tribuneindia.com/2017/09/27/herworld.htm#1

 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zenanas

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/NCW_wants_change_in_definition_of_livein_re
lationships/rssarticleshow/3864127.cms

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2708525.cms

 http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Law/2003/malimath-recommendations.htm

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JQkcvMjAwNy8wNS8yMy
NBcjAwMTA0&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom

 http://www.ohhoo.com/cohabitation.php

19