INTRODUCTION

“It is well settled that law is presumes in favour of marriage and against

concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for long time.

However, the presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence. Heavy

burden lies on party who seeks to deprive the relationship of origin.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court

India is widely known as a country with strong moral values and traditional integrity.

Perhaps, that‟s why bold exhibitions of romance go for a toss in such a typical

society, least being something like live-in-relationships in India. The union of a man

and a woman is considered as one of the most sacred acts in this country. No wonder,

living together before marriage is a bitter dampener for the staunch ethic upholders.

However, the new millennium has ushered in great changes even within the country

that has forever been enshrouded in a blanket of rich culture and heritage.1

In India, as per Hindu culture, tradition, customs and practices, marriage are

considered to be made in heaven and celebrated on earth. Therefore marriages in

India are considered to be the highest form of social relationship. Marriage is a sacred

relationship where twopeople are bound together for a life long journey. There are

certain rites which must take place to complete a Hindu Marriage.

1
Retrievedfrom<http://www.academia.edu/2980670/SOCIO_LEGAL_DIMENSION_OF_LIVE_IN_R
ELATIONSHIP_A_CHALLENGE_TO_SOCIETY> on 27 May 2013, 22:28 IST.

(1)
Marriage is social approval to enjoy conjugal bliss. The arrangement was good when

girls and boys were too young to understand self-assertion. It‟s no more the case. By

the time two people marry they have their own established identities and convictions

and are less pliable leading to high rate of separations and divorces. The tragedy in

our country is that without this approval many people are deprived of a normal and

natural conjugal activity. In that case permission from society doesn‟t make sense.

Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate our notions of marriage and work with natural forces

rather than against them. It is ridiculous to deprive adults around age thirty to remain

virgin if they don‟t get married. It‟s against nature. Perhaps time is ripe to rethink the

meaning of marriage; time to give two adults choice to look for compatibility before

they exchange vows to remain forever with each other. Institution of marriage then

will be at sync with this new career oriented generation. Major reason that marriage is

still relevant and will remain so in future is because children need security of home

and must be raised by both parents for best results. Home is something to come back

to, after a gruelling day. Home is where children thrive. For the sake of future

generation it has to be preserved with all its sanctity but with flexible approach.

Equally important reason to save it is because at the sunset of life it provides for

companionship once children leave you to make their own homes.2

The Malimath Committee, (Committee on Reforms ofCriminal Justice System) was

set up in November 2000. It was constituted by the then home minister and deputy

prime minister L K Advani under the chairmanship of V S Malimath, former chief

justice of the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts. In 2003 when the Malimath

2 Retrieved from <http://creative.sulekha.com/marriage-vs-live-in-relationships_60527_blog dated 21

May 2013-05-27> last visited on 26 Nov. 2011, at 19:02 IST

(2)
Committee submitted its report, it made several recommendations under the head

“offences against women”. The first of these recommendations was to amend Section

125 of the Cr.P.C. This section is concernedwith maintenance rights of the “neglected

wife, children and parents”. It seeks “to prevent starvation and vagrancy by

compelling the person to perform the obligation which he owes in respect of his wife,

child, father or mother who are unable to support themselves.”

The committee sought to extend the definition of “wife” in Section 125 “to include a

woman who was living with the man as his wife for a reasonably long period, during

the subsistenceof the first marriage”. The extended definition of “wife” is thus clearly

set against the backdrop of secondary relationships of already married men and is not

directed at taking cognisance of what may be regarded as emergent forms of

nonmarital cohabitation. A woman in a second marriage (of a man) is not entitled to

claim maintenance as in law a second marriage during the subsistence of the first

marriage is not legal and valid. Such a woman though she is de-facto the wife of the

man, in law she is not his wife. Quite often the man marries the second wife

suppressing the earlier marriage. In such a situation the second wife can‟t claim the

benefit of Section 125 for no fault of hers.The husband is absolved of his

responsibility of maintaining his second wife. This is manifestly unfair and

unreasonable. The man should not be allowed to take advantage of his own illegal

acts. Law should not be insensitive to the suffering of such women.There are also

instances in which the courts have interpreted this recommendation in such a light.

For instance in Chanmuniyav.Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha,3 Justices G S

Singhvi and A K Ganguly cite the first part of the recommendation of the Malimath

3 (2011) 1 SCC 141

(3)
Committee to support their case for a broad interpretation of the term wife. For them

the above recommendation of the Malimath Committee suggests that the “evidence

regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period should be

sufficient to draw the presumption that the marriage was performed according to the

customary rites of the parties”.

Someone has rightly opined that the world as God created was a kingdom of right

relationships. There was right relationship between God and people. There was right

relationship between people. There was right relationship between people and the rest

of creation. Now relationships that lack any sanctity are even being termed as right by

the policy makers, what more we can expect in God‟s beautiful and pure kingdom.

No relationship can ever be equated with a relationship as eternal as marriage. Hence

the option of live-in-relationships may seem attractive but the real side may not be

that fancy. They may be practically possible but their success in life which some day

requires a life-long companion is definitely dull.4

A marriage is governed by a separate set of laws in all countries which safeguards the

interests of both parties who enter into the union. Live-in relationships on the other

hand have received due recognition in a few countries such as France and Philippines.

Despite the fact that there are scores of couples who are opting for live-in

relationships, the society still attaches a taboo to such relationships. The majority

looks at live-in relationship as a dilution of morals and more importantly tradition.

Marriage on the other is still venerated by most despite the alarming rise in the

number of divorces and problems in relationship. Therefore, the primary difference

4 Retrieved from <http://www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html

(4)
between live-in relationships and marriage is that marriage has received the societal

stamp of approval and live-in relationships are yet to do so.5

Live-in relationship is one such connection in which a boy and girl have some relation

before their marriage and if they are satisfied with their partner they get married or be

like that for years. This kind of act though seems different; it is one, which is being

implemented today. Live-in relationship handles matter of premarital sex, but those

couples who are maintaining relations don‟t mind such things. Overall, this relation

builds up harmony between the couples, but spoils their social influence.6

Live-in relationship is an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on

a long term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate

relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married.7

Advantages of live-inrelationships are that you need not stick together if both partners

are really incompatible. The trauma is much less than divorce because divorce itself is

hurtful with false and counter allegations making it a cruel battle of wits where no one

wins exceptthe lawyers. With increasing age of marriage of girls, the divorce rate is

proportionately rising too. No more subdued; no more accommodating; having mind

of their own and economically independent, men just can't take women for granted

anymore. This imbalance in their thinking, if sorted out before they commit to get

married is a much better option.

5 Retrieved from < http://www.onlymyhealth.com/difference-between-live-in-relationship-marriage

6 Retrieved from www.rishabhkullar.com
7 Retrieved from http://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1266

(5)
It‟s better to have a live-in relationship rather than having a divorced life. This is

common and quite rational line favouring live-in relations in the world. It should not

be denied that our culture does need a legislature to regulate relationships which are

likely to grow in number with changes in the ideology of people. The right time has

come that efforts should be made to enact a law having clear provisions with regard to

the time span required to give status to the relationship, registration and rights of

parties and children born out of it.Laws should be made by the parliament, which

should keep a check on the practice of evading bondages.

The attitude towards live-in relationships in different societies is diverse but its

definition is the same almost everywhere. It is a kind of relationship in which a couple

lives together without marrying each other and without any legal or social

commitment. This arrangement is similar to marriage when it comes to the

relationship between two individuals living together but there are no rights and

obligations on either of the partners.With increasing trend of living together without

marriage governments and social organizations have been working together to

formulate laws to safeguard the interest of both the partners. Today there are quite a

few laws guiding these relationships but these laws do not provide rights similar to

marriage. Courts do not enforce meretricious contracts because these laws are just like

prostitution contracts. Meretricious contract is an agreement between two people to

provide financial support in the exchange of sexual favours. This is why it is very

difficult to claim rights in this relationship because it is difficult to prove that the

relationship existed without any such meretricious contract.8

8 Retrieved
from<http://www.academia.edu/2980670/SOCIO_LEGAL_DIMENSION_OF_LIVE_IN_RELATION
SHIP_A_CHALLENGE_TO_SOCIETY>

(6)
It may also be pointed out here that Section 125 in its existing form seeks to secure

the rights of a wife (as well as children and parents) when she is unable to maintain

herself. Furthermore the woman seeking maintenance under this provision should not

be living in an adulterous relationship and in case the husband is willing that the wife

(or a woman like a wife) lives with him, she has to show sufficient reason for not

being able to do so. In fact the Act in its existing form suggests that if a husband has

contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to

be a just ground for his wife‟s refusal to live with him.Thus the spirit of this section is

the protection of the rights of the primary wife of a man in a conventional

heterosexual marriage. It is not apparent how a simple expansion of the definition of

wife in this section will not, in at least some instances, impinge upon the rights of the

primary wife and hence this does need more discussion and debate.

The PWDVA 2005, has been widely hailed as the first legal Act to recognise the

existence of non-marital adult heterosexual relations. This Act defines an “aggrieved

person” who will be covered under this Act as “any woman who is, or has been, in a

domesticrelationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to

any Act of domestic violence by the respondent”. Further the Act defines a „domestic

relationship‟ as „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 arelationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family

members living together as a joint family‟Section 2[f].

From this it is evident that to the broad range of domestic relationships between a man

and her husband, father, brother, and other male and even female kin related through

consanguinity or marriage, the PWDVA has added the category of “relations in the

(7)
nature of marriage”.This does not imply that the Act deals with all forms of domestic

relations in a comprehensive manner. Hence it excludes the domestic relationship

between a male employer and a live-in domestic worker. The Act also clearly has no

space for adult same-sex relationships. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that, unlike

the recommendations of the Malimath Committee, the PWDVA, 2005 has

implications for a broader terrain of non-marital relations as it does not explicitly limit

itself to the secondary relations of men. In having used the idea of “relations in the

nature of marriage”, the Act seems to have widened the scope of legally recognised

domestic relationships between men and women.

However, the connotation of the phrase “in the nature of marriage” is far from

obvious and, as we will see below, this is already a ground for contestation of the Act.

This aspect of the Act was thus legally challenged in the Delhi High Court in 2008. In

the case of ArunaParmod Shah v.UOI9, the petitioner challenged the

constitutionality of the Act on the grounds that,first, it discriminates against men and

second, the definition of “domestic relationship” contained in Section 2(f) of the Act

is objectionable. Regarding the second, the petitioner argued that placing

“relationships in the nature of marriage” at par with “married” status leads to the

derogation of the rights of the legally-wedded wife. The Delhi High Court rejected

both these contentions regarding the constitutional status of the Act. With regard to

the second contention, which is of concern to us, the court said that “there is no

reason why equal treatment should not be accorded to a wife as well as a woman

whohas been living with a man as his “common law” wife or even as amistress”. In

this case the judges interpreted “a relation in the nature of marriage” as covering both

9 WP. Cr. 425/2008, Del. Judgment dated 7 th April, 2008

(8)
a“common law marriage” and a relation with a “mistress” without clarifying the legal

and social connotations of these terms.

The public and even judicial responses to the legislative move to amend Section 125

and the provisions of the PWDVA, 2005 are sometimes deflected by a focus upon

presumably western forms of non-marital cohabitation in which usually unmarried

men and women enter non-marital but exclusive relations with each other, often as a

form of experimentation prior to a marital commitment. However, it is not evident

that the primary impetus for legal changes is coming from recognition of the modern

style of living together. The legislative measures are a response to more traditional

and even patriarchal forms of non-marital cohabitation in which the male partner is

already married and enters a relation with another, usually unattached woman, who

may or may not be aware of the marital status of this man. Thus these legal moves

appear to be set against the backdrop of prevalent practices of married men entering

secondary relations with women.the main concern of those who have been pushing

for such legislation is to provide some relief to women who have been in such

relations under fairly conventional conditions. This was even more obvious in the

case of the recommendations of the Malimath Committee which have however not

been implemented. Such cases are arguably quite distinct from a western style

cohabitation patterns which are referred to as “live-in” relationships in popular

vocabulary. However, it is not obvious that all forms of non-marital relations can or

should be treated as legally identical. In any case, even if they should be treated as

such, the decision to do so should be preceded by a careful consideration of the

implications this will have for the different categories. As things stand, in the absence

of clear social and legal categorisation of non-marital relations, the field has been left

(9)
wide open and even the highest judicial functionaries have allowed themselves to

pontificate upon the need to separate a “relation in the nature of marriage” from that

with a “servant” or a “keep” and a “one night stand”. Notwithstanding the political

incorrectness of a good deal of these ruminations, this reveals the confusion which

has arisen around who might be the beneficiary of such laws and whether such legal

protection is equally desirable in different forms of relationships.

Social trends always do favour of marriage. Our law too provides many rights and

privileges to married persons. There can be a number of reasons for why a couple

decides to go in live in relationship rather going for marriage. A couple may want to

check their compatibility before marriage, or they may wish to uphold their single

status for any reasons. Sometimes partners see live in relationship as a way to lead a

liberal life because it lacks dedication and responsibility that marriage demands.

Walking out of a live in relationship is much easier than going out of a marriage.

Today's metro life and modern lifestyle also support these relationships. The

individuals engaged in this kind of arrangements feel more freedom in their

relationships. Living with a partner to whom you are not married in a live in

relationship involves risk as the level of commitment is not at its full potential.

Live-in relationship has always been the focus of debates and discussions as it is

challenging our fundamental societal system. To encourage marriages, Government

has reserved many rights for the married people. Although live in relationship is not

considered as an offense but there is no law until the date that prohibits this kind of

relationship. Courts often refused to make any kind of obligatory agreements between

these unmarried couples as this could go against the public policy.

(10)
Live-in relationships are not new for western countries but these days the concept is

adjusting its roots in east also. Now it is upon us to think about the pros and cons of

this and then accordingly take a decision for ourselves.The recent trend is that the

western people are moving towards family relation and family bonds but on the other

hand Indians are moving towards live-in relationship. Society is formed with

traditions, culture, ethics, moral values and customs which are foundational pillars. A

society is said to be ruined when the culture is ignored. Unfortunately, the western

culture is uprooting the Indian culture. Live-in relationship is not crime, may still be

immoral, against Indian tradition, culture, ethics, and moral values etc.

Living together could offer a number of kinds of gratifications, such as intimate, more

or less unrestricted sexual relations, a possibly more secure involvement than that of

more traditional dating, and a sense of freedom from punitive divorce laws should the

relationshipdeteriorate. However, couples may live togethernot as a long-range life

style but for short-term convenience. Couples in this latter situation would include

those who feel they have not yet enough money or education to marry or are perhaps

uncertain of the other person as a marriage partner. Only where living together is

adopted as a long-term life style would one expect the predicted decline of future

marriage rates.To understand the effect of living together on marriage rates, first look

at the degree of commitment to marriage expressed by the couples. The success of

such an arrangement based on factors deemed important to any close long-term

relationship. Some of these factors might include the ability of the partners to

reciprocate positive feelings toward each other, the extent to which they value the

other as a person, and the degree of happiness experienced in their own pasts. For any

(11)
relationship, these qualities should be predictive of happier, more successful

relationships.

The legal status of marriage has become the focus of a great deal of controversy in

recent years. Social and religious conservatives have voiced alarm at the decline of

marriage in an era in which divorce rates are high and increasing numbers of people

live in non-marital families. For these advocates, social welfare rests on the survival

(or revival) of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, critics from the left argue that

marriage as the preferred and privileged family form will (and should) soon be a thing

of the past. Some feminists want to abolish legal marriage altogether. They argue that

the parent-child relationship should replace marriage as the core family form

privileged under the law. Adults in intimate partnerships who wish to undertake

commitments to one another should be free to execute contracts embodying their

mutual obligations, but their unions should have no special legal status.

At its core, marriage focuses on dimensions that supporters of traditional marriage

treasure, but that others believe are out of step with contemporary social norms and

values. First, modern marriage is embedded in its historic tradition as a religious

institution. Even today, marriage has not fully emerged as a secular legal status.

Vestiges of the religious origins of marriage continue to shape attitudes and inform

the views of many marriage defenders, and cause concern for those who are

committed to secular legal institutions.

Second, traditional marriage was a deeply hierarchical institution, in which wives

were legally and socially subordinated to their husbands. Despite the trend toward

(12)
legal equality of husbands and wives, marital roles continue to be gendered in ways

that leave many women dependent and vulnerable. Thus, it is not surprising that many

feminists have little enthusiasm for marriage. Finally, marriage retains the vestiges of

its historical status as the only family form endorsed by the law. The exclusive

privileging of marriage and sanctioning of non-marital families harmed individuals in

those families, including children, in tangible and intangible ways.

Live-in relationships form a characteristic feature and style of living of couples,

especially those in metropolitan areas. However, the definition and ambit of live-in

relationship is very unclear, there is no specific legislation in India on this subject,

and the laws are in the form of court verdicts which varies from case to case. The

right of woman in such relationship is also not very certain, though court has shown

willingness in recognising their rights. The Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 recognises right of woman in such relationship. There are various

other laws such as law of marriage, succession etc. which needs to be changed to give

full protection to woman in live-in relationship. As far as the right of child born under

such relationship is concerned, under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 such child will be

legal, nevertheless there is no such law apart from Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that

endorses presumption of legality of child born out of live-in relationships.

The law is in its infancy so far as the live-in relationships between two persons are

concerned .It does not give the right to a female partner as that of a wife who gets

married according to the traditions established by the society. If any issue arises, the

case is disposed of in the light of Marriage Act enacted before and after

(13)
independence. It does not give a crystal clear picture of the rights of a woman and a

man who enters into such a relationship to seek social and emotional security.

The Indian Legal system should devise new strategies in order to counter the present

existing problems of live-in relationships. The live-in relationships should be

presumed as permanent after a specific period of time. Furthermore, the children born

through such relationships irrespective of the parents religion should be guaranteed

the rights of inheritance, succession etc. The female partner‟s role to prove the burden

of such relationship should be relaxed. Persons who enter into a live-in relationship

with a living spouse should be convicted for bigamy. A separate legislation should

only be competent enough to grant assistance to the female partners aggrieved by

such relationships. At last, the sooner our society accepts live-in relationships, the

better chances the Indian Judiciary has for passing judgments which are in the

righteous spirit of law and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. It

should not be denied that our culture does need a legislature to regulate relationships

which are likely to grow in number with changes in the ideology of people.

Object of Study

The object of this research work can be briefly summed up as following:

(a) To analyse the socio-legal acceptance of live-in relationship in India in light of

various statuary provisions and judicial decisions.

(b) To review the status of the women and applicability of various provisions of

law as to domestic violence, rape, adultery, cruelty on the women partner in live in

relationship.

(14)
(c) To analysis the mutual rights and obligation of live-in partner towards each

other. (d) To study the judicial analysis of certain decisions and to examine whether

the courts are coming forward to protect the rights and dignity of the women in live-in

relationship.

(e) To review the laws in the light of right to maintenance in case of break up

relationship and right of inheritance of property accruing to an issue born out of such

relationship.

Research Hypothesis

India is a marriage centric society. Marriage occupies a sacramental and fundamental

place in our culture and tradition. It has been used as an instrument to regulate the

social behavioural pattern and sexual orientation of the couples in the civilised

society. The institution of marriage has suffered many odds since ages. It has survived

innumerable odds to establish in all societies. The legal sanctity has been conferred

through enactments and judicial decisions. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 has expressly preserved the institution of marriage against all

odds. Recently, certain relationships have surfaced in all societies which are akin to

martial relationships but lacks commitment and legality. Such relationships are

termed as „Live-in Relationships‟.

It is hypothesized that the recognition of the right of live-in partner will help to

prevent the collapse of family structure and protection of individual civil liberties.It is

also hypothesized that current law regarding marriage are inadequate and insufficient

to meet the challenge posed by relationship resembling to marriage but not true

marriage.

(15)
Sources

In this work, doctrinal method of research has been used. Primary, Secondary &

Tertiary sources of data has been used for this work. The primary source of data used

includes statute, regulation, declaration, guidelines & committee report. The

secondary source of data includes books, dictionaries, encyclopaedias, journals,

newspaper. The tertiary sources include the websites.

Research Methodology

The research work has been carried on doctrinal research methodology. The various

case-laws, committee reports and provisions under different legislations related to

live-in relationships in India and contemporary world are included as tools for

achieving the objectives of this research cum thesis writing.Thus, the research work

has adopted descriptive and exploratory approach in developing and writing thesis.

Further, by applying analytical and critical approach, conclusion and suggestions are

opined to draw inadequacies and fallacy of legal system. A comprehensive study shall

be conducted through the statutes, websites, journals, newspapers and books.

Footnotes and citation shall be followed in accordance with Oxford University

Standard for the Citation of Legal Authorities Fourth Edition.

Scheme Presentation of the Study

The research work has been divided into eight chapters. The brief overview of all the

chapters is as following-

Introduction

In introduction chapter the basic law relating to live-in relationships in India and

contemporary world including the United Kingdom, the United State of America,
(16)
France, China, Scotland, Philippines, etc.with special reference to rights of livein

partner with regard to maintenance, inheritance, domestic violence as well as rights of

children born out of such relationship has been discussed. The Reports of Committees

are included in the study to incorporate the recommendations regarding legal marriage

and relationship resembling to marriage.

Chapter-1 Conceptual Understanding of Live-In Relationships

In this chapter the brief overview of the dynamic characteristic of law relating to live-

in relationships has been discussed in general. The marriage as an institution is treated

as a sacrament in Indian culture and the perception towards marriage is changing

now. Live-in relationship is a contractual obligation between the partners who are

living together without any moral and legal obligation. The concept is gaining

momentum in the metro cities in a very passionate manner.In a Judgment of D.

Patchaiammal v. D .Velusamy,10 the Supreme Court held that not all live-in

relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It also deals with

definition and meaning of live-in relationship.

Chapter-2 Live-In Relationships in International Perspective

In this chapter the international concern about live-in relationship with their statuary

provisions, international conventions and charters across the globe which are chiefly

connected with live-in relationship. The evolutionary process has been discussed for

analysing the reasons for the growth of live-in relationship in India and contemporary

world. Marriage has begun to lose its importance and sanctity. The institution of

10 AIR 2011 SC 479

(17)
marriage is under threat everywhere because there is change in lifestyle, age of

marriage, urbanization and economic independence.

Chapter-3 Status of Women: Discrimination and Violence against Women in India In

this chapter the world-wide phenomenon related to discrimination and violence

against women in India which makes the status of women venerable to all form of

atrocities and crimes. The changing status and role of women in Indian society has

been discussed to access the position of women. Women‟s empowerment in legal,

social, political and economic requires to be enhanced. Gender discrimination is a

much prevalent and regressive practice which has brought cultural, social, economic

and educational differences which pushes India back every time. The most effective

remedy to make women empowered is by ensuring the equality and justice mentioned

in the Constitution of India.

Chapter-4 Issues and Challenges Involved in Live-In Relationships in India In this

chapter the various issues emerging out of a live-in relationship and the challenges

faced by the sociologists, legislators, judiciary and other institutions are discussed in

providing solutions to conflicts that have arisen during live-in relationship. The

concept of live-in relationship, the freedom and liberty it offers to partners and most

importantly, the fact that an increasing number of urban couples in India are choosing

to „live-in‟ rather than marriage. The law on its part must adapt to these

developments with regard to maintenance, inheritance, domestic violence,

divorce/break-up and status of children born out such relationship.

Chapter-5 Probability of Legal Recognition and Protection of Live-In Relationships In

this chapter the probability of recognizing and protecting the interest of parties of the

live-in partner is the need of the society to keep pace with the changing dynamics of

(18)
the modern society and to avoid chaos and confusion cropped through such

relationships. Live-in relationship is an extra legal concept, which has already secured

its stand in our society. The courts by way of various rulings have started recognising

in India. In PayalKatara v. Superintendent, NariNiketan 11, 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.

Chapter-6 Judicial Approach towards Live-In Relationships

In this chapter the response from judiciary while dealing with the issues related to

live-in relationship by exploring and analysing the ratio of important case laws of

Indian as well as foreign courts.Marriage is a deeply patriarchal institution that bound

wives to their husbands in relationships of subordination and dependency. 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.
Chapter-7 Conclusion and Suggestions

In this chapter the conclusion and suggestions are designed and deduced from the

entire study to protect the right of the women partner under live-in relationship in

India. The recommendations are given to harmonise the law to keep pace with impact

of globalisation.

11 2001 (3) AWC 1778 : AIR 2001 All 254

(19)
All said and done, the bottom line is that, “India is not quite a fertile ground for the

cultivation of Live-in Relationships; at least not as long as the strong roots of the

ageold ethics hold ground.’’

(20)