Landmark rulings on legal status of live-in relationships

12/24/22, 9:11 PM Landmark Supreme Court judgments concerning the legal standing of live-in relationships - iPleaders
Landmark Supreme Court judgments

concerning the legal standing of live-in
relationships
By Sneha Mahawar - September 1, 2021
This article is written by Varchaswa Dubey from JECRC University, Jaipur. The article in
hand consists of judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court of India regarding
live-in relationships in India.
Table of Contents 
1. Introduction
1.1. Origins of live-in relationships
2. What are the issues pertaining to live-in relationships
2.1. Societal challenges
2.2. Documentation challenges
2.3. Cultural values
2.4. Succession and Inheritance challenges
3. What are the reasons behind live-in relationships
4. Supreme Court judgments regarding live-in relationships
4.1. What is the validity of live-in relationships
4.2. What is the presumption regarding live-in relationships
4.3. Issue of lack of legislation
4.4. Whether maintenance can be obtained in a live-in relationship
4.5. Protection of women from domestic violence
4.6. What are the rights of children born out of live-in relationships
5. Conclusion
6. References
Introduction
A live-in relationship refers to a living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives
together in a long-term relationship that is similar to marriage but they are not tied by
the sacred thread of marriage. The couples-only cohabit together, but they live like
husband and wife.
https://blog.ipleaders.in/landmark-supreme-court-judgments-concerning-legal-standing-live-relationships/ 1/14
Society and its laws are not strangers to one another, and they are both an important
aspect of mankind, and therefore, with the ever-evolving society, the laws shall be
evolving as well, or else the development of the society will be ceased by the outdated
laws.
Various High Courts and Supreme Court of India have timely considered numerous
aspects of live-in relationships and have tried to understand and explain the
phenomenon of live-in relationship which is indeed an alien concept to the Indian society,
where only marriage is considered as a sacred tie between a couple and the marriage is
presumed to be a license to have sexual intercourse.
The Indian legal mechanism certainly lacks separate legislation regarding a live-in
relationship, however, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in its
Section 2(f) is moderately concerned with the concept of live-in relationship, and states
that live-in relationship falls within the ambit of a domestic relationship. Section 2 (q) of
the 2005 Act protects women who are in live-in relationships.
Origins of live-in relationships

The concept of a live-in relationship is not new for society however, it has evolved a long
way comparatively. The mention of live-in relationship can be traced back to the Vedas
where we can find 8 types of marriages, one of them being the ‘Gandharva’ form of
marriage where the marriage was in a form of union of a man and a woman with mutual
consent, however according to Manu, it is a marriage between a man and an unmarried
girl (usually a virgin) which arises out of lust. Although such a type of marriage does not
directly fall within the meaning of a live-in relationship in some way, it is associated with
the contemporary times’ concept of a live-in relationship.
In the case of Mohabbat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (1929) the court was of
the view that in cases where a man and woman have established to be living together as
a couple, the law will pressure, until the contrary is proved, that such couple was
cohabiting together as a valid marriage.
What are the issues pertaining to live-in

relationships
The couples involved in live-in relationships face numerous challenges, some of these
challenges are:
Societal challenges
In India, live-in relationships are not only discouraged but also are not accepted by the
members of society due to the sophisticated culture. The parents of a couple may also
not allow for such a relationship, and may not allow the couple to reside in the same
house. The couples also face issues when they seek residence on rent. Apart from the
issue of the place of residence, the couple also faces issues at the workplace and other
public places.
Documentation challenges
The issue of documents, especially in cases of a joint account holder, insurances, bank
details, etc, the couple faces challenges due to the absence of a live-in relationship
column.
Cultural values
Indian society is highly influenced by the culture and traditions to which it belongs, and
since all the cultures and traditions were established a very long time ago, they do not
encourage the concept of the live-in relationship which is continued in contemporary
times. Cultural values play an important role in the acts, and thoughts of society, and
since society is influenced by cultural values, live-in relationships are highly
discouraged.
Succession and Inheritance challenges

The concept of a live-in relationship is comparatively new and therefore, there are no
amendments regarding the right to succession and inheritance in cases of live-in
relationship, since all the succession and inheritance laws were earlier primarily
concerned with a married couple.
What are the reasons behind live-in relationships

The reasons behind opting for a live-in relationship are:
The couple wants to determine the compatibility among each other before they enter
into formal wedlock.
Both the parties to a live-in relationship want to continue their relationship status as
single and not married.
In certain cases of a homosexual couple, or those who are already married, the laws
do not allow such couples to enter into a wedlock.
Parties to a live-in relationship may also want to avoid divorce and the procedure
which follows, and rather opt for a simple ‘break-up’.
The families of the couple may also not be in favor of the marriage, of either one
partner or both the partners, especially due to inter-religion factors.
Supreme Court judgments regarding live-in

relationships
What is the validity of live-in relationships

In the case of S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal (2010) the Supreme Court of India held that
there is no legal provision where adults are voluntarily associated in sexual relationships
other than marriage, and therefore it does not violate any law. The Court further referred
to the case of Lata Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another (2006) where the Court held that a
major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or may live with anyone she likes. The Court
further held that no offence has been committed by the accused and the present case is
an abuse of the process of the court and the administration mechanism.
In the case of Alok Kumar vs State (2010) the court held that in a live-in relationship,
there are no strings attached, and such a relationship does not create any legal bond
among the parties. The court, while referring to the live-in relationship as a walk-in and
walk-out, held that those who do not wish to enter in such relations may enter in the
bond of marriage, where the parties are not allowed to simply break the bond and have
legal obligations. Individuals who are in live-in relationships cannot complain of infidelity
or immorality since live-in relationships are usually between a married man and an
unmarried woman or between a married woman and an unmarried man.
What is the presumption regarding live-in relationships

In the case of Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And Ors (1978) the Apex
Court held that it is firmly presumed that a couple who have been living like husband
and wife shall be husband and wife, but such presumption is rebuttable and the burden
of proof lies on the part of the person who seeks to rebut such relationship to its legal
origins. Similar views were taken in the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs Suruttayan
(1993) where the Court ruled that where a man and a woman live together for a long
period as husband and wife, there lies a presumption of legality of marriage between the
couple, until the contrary is proved and a child born out of such relationship is also not
illegitimate and is entitled to inheritance in the property of the man.
In the case of Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya (2008), while referring to Section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the court held that the provisions under the said section refer
to a common course of natural events, human conduct, and private business. The court
shall presume the existence of facts that are likely to have happened. While interpreting
Sections 50 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 combinedly, it is evident
that the act of marriage is to be presumed from the view of the common course of
natural events.
Issue of lack of legislation

In the case of Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma (2013) the Supreme Court of India held that
live-in relationships may last for a considerable time can lead to standards of
dependency and vulnerability, and with the increase in the number of live-in
relationships, there must be sufficient protection, especially for women and those
children who are born out of such relationship. The law cannot promote pre-marital sex,
and live-in relationships are personal and people can give their opinion in favor or
against it. The legislature must consider this issue and enact separate legislation so that
protection for women and children born out of live-in relationships can be provided.
Whether maintenance can be obtained in a live-in

relationship
The suggestions of Justice Malimath Committee in the year 2003 was one of the first
instances wherein the committee suggested that the definition of Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be amended accordingly to including a woman
who was living with a man as his wife for a significant period during the subsistence of
the first marriage.
In the case of D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal (2010) the Supreme Court while

bestowing the difference between live-in relationships, and relationships like marriage
laid down the conditions under which a woman in a live-in relationship can claim
maintenance under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The conditions
required to get maintenance out of the live-in relationship are:
The couple must represent themselves to the society similar to being each other’s
spouses.
Both the parties to the relationship must be of legal age to marry.
Both the parties to the relationship must have qualified to enter into a legal marriage,
including being unmarried.
Both the parties to the relationship must be cohabited voluntarily and must hold
themselves similar to being each other’s spouse for a significant period.
In the case of Ajay Bhardwaj vs Jyotsna And Ors (2016) the Punjab and Haryana High
Court held that the jurisdictions of Section 125 of CrPC were formed to prevent any
unsettled residence and poverty of wife, or minor children, or old age parents, and the
jurisdictions of same has also been lengthened by judicial interpretation to the partners
in a live-in relationship, however, the nature of such relationship must be considered
while deciding the maintenance. The primary question which arose, in this case, was
whether a woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on account of a
live-in relationship, not being a wife, and the same question was answered in the case of
Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Ors (2010) where the Apex Court
ruled that in circumstances where partners live together as husband and wife, there lies
a presumption in favor of wedlock, and consequently the High Court in the Ajay
Bhardwaj case ruled that women in live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance akin
to legally-wedded wives.
Protection of women from domestic violence

In the case of Lalita Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand (2018), the Supreme Court of
India held that under the jurisdictions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 the female live-in relationship partner will be allowed to relieve more than
what is bestowed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
In the case of D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal (2010) the Apex Court, while phrasing
the Acts of parliament by drawing a difference between marriage and a relationship in
the nature of marriage held that in both the cases a person who is into such a
relationship is entitled to protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005, however, the Court also mentioned conditions under which an individual can
seek protection under the 2005 Act, and further held that not all live-in relationships will
get the benefit of the 2005 Act, and to get the benefit of the 2005 Act, the conditions
mentioned must be satisfied.
What are the rights of children born out of live-in

relationships
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya (2008) granted the
right to property to the child born in a live-in relationship and held that such child shall
not be treated as illegitimate in cases where the parents of such child have cohabited for
a considerable period.
Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 26 of Special Marriage Act, 1954
reserves the rights of the legitimacy of the child or children born in a void or voidable
marriage, and a live-in relationship falls within this ambit. A child or children born in a
live-in relationship are equally entitled to the rights of inheritance as compared to a child
or children born out of a lawful wedding, however, such rights are very limited in scope
and extend only to the property of the parents and such rights do not extents to the
coparcenary rights in a Hindu Undivided Family. Similar views were taken in the case of
Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors (2010) where the Supreme Court
of India held that a child born in a void or voidable marriage is not entitled to claim
inheritance rights in the ancestral property however such child may claim a share in any
self-acquired property.
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Revanasiddappa & Anr vs Mallikarjun & Ors
(2011) considered the right to property as a Constitutional right to the illegitimate child
and upheld the right to inheritance of the children who were born out of a live-in
relationship.
Conclusion
From the above judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court of India, it can be
concluded that the Indian judiciary has most of the time practiced interpretation of laws
while protecting the rights of women and children associated with live-in relationships
and certainly the Indian legal mechanism lacks separate legislation which must deal with
the cases of live-in relationship and must provide with codified laws, and punitive
measures.
One of the reasons why India lacks such laws is the moral and societal values dominated
by the sophisticated culture of India, however with time revolving, there is an urgent
need to enact new laws, and therefore, the legislature must enact a separate law
regarding the same.
References
https://www.worldwidejournals.com/indian-journal-of-applied-research-
(IJAR)/recent_issues_pdf/2019/December/legal-status-of-live-in-relationship-in-
india_December_2019_1575104772_8511093.pdf
https://lawcolloquy.com/journals/PriyaV1C2.pdf
https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol19-issue7/Version-
6/D019762529.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2631831820974585
https://jcil.lsyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Judicial-Interpretation-and-
change-in-status-of-live-in-relationship-in-India-Sakshi-Shubham.pdf
http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.5(As%20Per%20Workshop%20List%20titl
https://www.indiafilings.com/learn/live-in-relationships-in-india/
https://lawcolloquy.com/journals/PriyaV1C2.pdf
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on
practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life
practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and
various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal
content.
Did you find this blog post helpful? Subscribe so that you never miss another post! Just complete this
form…
Name
Email Address
10-6=?
SUBSCRIBE!
7th to 9th January, 6 - 9 p.m IST (each day)
Free Online 3-Day Bootcamp On How to get a law firm

job
Harsh Jain Co-Founder,

LawSikho
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,

LawSikho
Register now
Name
Your Name
Email
Your Email
Which country are you from?
Select your country Select your country
Select your country

+91 - IN (India)
+376 - AD (Andorra)
+971 - AE (United Arab Emirates)
+93 - AF (Afghanistan)
+1268 - AG (Antigua And Barbuda)
+1264 - AI (Anguilla)
+355 - AL (Albania)
+374 - AM (Armenia)
+599 - AN (Netherlands Antilles)
+244 - AO (Angola)
+672 - AQ (Antarctica)
+54 - AR (Argentina)
+1684 - AS (American Samoa)
+43 - AT (Austria)
+61 - AU (Australia)
+297 - AW (Aruba)
+994 - AZ (Azerbaijan)
+387 - BA (Bosnia And Herzegovina)
+1246 - BB (Barbados)
+880 - BD (Bangladesh)
+32 - BE (Belgium)
+226 - BF (Burkina Faso)
+359 - BG (Bulgaria)
+973 - BH (Bahrain)
+257 - BI (Burundi)
+229 - BJ (Benin)
+590 - BL (Saint Barthelemy)
+1441 - BM (Bermuda)
+673 - BN (Brunei Darussalam)
+591 - BO (Bolivia)
+55 - BR (Brazil)
+1242 - BS (Bahamas)
+975 - BT (Bhutan)
+267 - BW (Botswana)
+375 - BY (Belarus)
+501 - BZ (Belize)
+1 - CA (Canada)
+61 - CC (Cocos (keeling) Islands)
+243 - CD (Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The)
+236 - CF (Central African Republic)
+242 - CG (Congo)
+41 - CH (Switzerland)
+225 - CI (Cote D Ivoire)
+682 - CK (Cook Islands)
+56 - CL (Chile)
+237 - CM (Cameroon)
+86 - CN (China)
+57 - CO (Colombia)
+506 - CR (Costa Rica)
+53 - CU (Cuba)
+238 - CV (Cape Verde)
+61 - CX (Christmas Island)
+357 - CY (Cyprus)
+420 - CZ (Czech Republic)
+49 - DE (Germany)
+253 - DJ (Djibouti)
+45 - DK (Denmark)
+1767 - DM (Dominica)
+1809 - DO (Dominican Republic)
+213 - DZ (Algeria)
+593 - EC (Ecuador)
+372 - EE (Estonia)
+20 - EG (Egypt)
+291 - ER (Eritrea)
+34 - ES (Spain)
+251 - ET (Ethiopia)
+358 - FI (Finland)
+679 - FJ (Fiji)
+500 - FK (Falkland Islands (malvinas))
+691 - FM (Micronesia, Federated States Of)
+298 - FO (Faroe Islands)
+33 - FR (France)
+241 - GA (Gabon)
+44 - GB (United Kingdom)
+1473 - GD (Grenada)
+995 - GE (Georgia)
+233 - GH (Ghana)
+350 - GI (Gibraltar)
+299 - GL (Greenland)
+220 - GM (Gambia)
+224 - GN (Guinea)
+240 - GQ (Equatorial Guinea)
+30 - GR (Greece)
+502 - GT (Guatemala)
+1671 - GU (Guam)
+245 - GW (Guinea-bissau)
+592 - GY (Guyana)
+852 - HK (Hong Kong)
+504 - HN (Honduras)
+385 - HR (Croatia)
+509 - HT (Haiti)
+36 - HU (Hungary)
+62 - ID (Indonesia)
+353 - IE (Ireland)
+972 - IL (Israel)
+44 - IM (Isle Of Man)
+964 - IQ (Iraq)
+98 - IR (Iran, Islamic Republic Of)
+354 - IS (Iceland)
+39 - IT (Italy)
+1876 - JM (Jamaica)
+962 - JO (Jordan)
+81 - JP (Japan)
+254 - KE (Kenya)
+996 - KG (Kyrgyzstan)
+855 - KH (Cambodia)
+686 - KI (Kiribati)
+269 - KM (Comoros)
+1869 - KN (Saint Kitts And Nevis)
+850 - KP (Korea Democratic Peoples Republic Of)
+82 - KR (Korea Republic Of)
+965 - KW (Kuwait)
+1345 - KY (Cayman Islands)
+7 - KZ (Kazakstan)
+856 - LA (Lao Peoples Democratic Republic)
+961 - LB (Lebanon)
+1758 - LC (Saint Lucia)
+423 - LI (Liechtenstein)
+94 - LK (Sri Lanka)
+231 - LR (Liberia)
+266 - LS (Lesotho)
+370 - LT (Lithuania)
+352 - LU (Luxembourg)
+371 - LV (Latvia)
+218 - LY (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
+212 - MA (Morocco)
+377 - MC (Monaco)
+373 - MD (Moldova, Republic Of)
+382 - ME (Montenegro)
+1599 - MF (Saint Martin)
+261 - MG (Madagascar)
+692 - MH (Marshall Islands)
+389 - MK (Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic Of)
+223 - ML (Mali)
+95 - MM (Myanmar)
+976 - MN (Mongolia)
+853 - MO (Macau)
+1670 - MP (Northern Mariana Islands)
+222 - MR (Mauritania)
+1664 - MS (Montserrat)
+356 - MT (Malta)
+230 - MU (Mauritius)
+960 - MV (Maldives)
+265 - MW (Malawi)
+52 - MX (Mexico)
+60 - MY (Malaysia)
+258 - MZ (Mozambique)
+264 - NA (Namibia)
+687 - NC (New Caledonia)
+227 - NE (Niger)
+234 - NG (Nigeria)
+505 - NI (Nicaragua)
+31 - NL (Netherlands)
+47 - NO (Norway)
+977 - NP (Nepal)
+674 - NR (Nauru)
+683 - NU (Niue)
+64 - NZ (New Zealand)
+968 - OM (Oman)
+507 - PA (Panama)
+51 - PE (Peru)
+689 - PF (French Polynesia)
+675 - PG (Papua New Guinea)
+63 - PH (Philippines)
+92 - PK (Pakistan)
+48 - PL (Poland)
+508 - PM (Saint Pierre And Miquelon)
+870 - PN (Pitcairn)
+1 - PR (Puerto Rico)
+351 - PT (Portugal)
+680 - PW (Palau)
+595 - PY (Paraguay)
+974 - QA (Qatar)
+40 - RO (Romania)
+381 - RS (Serbia)
+7 - RU (Russian Federation)
+250 - RW (Rwanda)
+966 - SA (Saudi Arabia)
+677 - SB (Solomon Islands)
+248 - SC (Seychelles)
+249 - SD (Sudan)
+46 - SE (Sweden)
+65 - SG (Singapore)
+290 - SH (Saint Helena)
+386 - SI (Slovenia)
+421 - SK (Slovakia)
+232 - SL (Sierra Leone)
+378 - SM (San Marino)
+221 - SN (Senegal)
+252 - SO (Somalia)
+597 - SR (Suriname)
+239 - ST (Sao Tome And Principe)
+503 - SV (El Salvador)
+963 - SY (Syrian Arab Republic)
+268 - SZ (Swaziland)
+1649 - TC (Turks And Caicos Islands)
+235 - TD (Chad)
+228 - TG (Togo)
+66 - TH (Thailand)
+992 - TJ (Tajikistan)
+690 - TK (Tokelau)
+670 - TL (Timor-leste)
+993 - TM (Turkmenistan)
+216 - TN (Tunisia)
+676 - TO (Tonga)
+90 - TR (Turkey)
+1868 - TT (Trinidad And Tobago)
+688 - TV (Tuvalu)
+886 - TW (Taiwan, Province Of China)
+255 - TZ (Tanzania, United Republic Of)
+380 - UA (Ukraine)
+256 - UG (Uganda)
+1 - US (United States)
+598 - UY (Uruguay)
+998 - UZ (Uzbekistan)
+39 - VA (Holy See (vatican City State))
+1784 - VC (Saint Vincent And The Grenadines)
+58 - VE (Venezuela)
+1284 - VG (Virgin Islands, British)
+1340 - VI (Virgin Islands, U.s.)
+84 - VN (Viet Nam)
+678 - VU (Vanuatu)
+681 - WF (Wallis And Futuna)
+685 - WS (Samoa)
+381 - XK (Kosovo)
+967 - YE (Yemen)
+262 - YT (Mayotte)
+27 - ZA (South Africa)
+260 - ZM (Zambia)
+263 - ZW (Zimbabwe)
No results
Phone
Your Phone
I want to know more about the lawsikho courses
Yes
No
Register now
Bootcamp starting in
13
Days
20
HRS
48
MIN
19
SEC
Harsh Jain Co-Founder,

LawSikho
Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,

LawSikho

Landmark rulings on legal status of live-in relationships

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Landmark rulings on legal status of live-in relationships

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/24/22, 9:11 PM Landmark Supreme Court judgments concerning the legal standing of live-in relationships - iPleaders

Landmark Supreme Court judgments

Origins of live-in relationships

What are the issues pertaining to live-in

Succession and Inheritance challenges

What are the reasons behind live-in relationships

Supreme Court judgments regarding live-in

What is the validity of live-in relationships

What is the presumption regarding live-in relationships

Issue of lack of legislation

Whether maintenance can be obtained in a live-in

In the case of D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal (2010) the Supreme Court while

Both the parties to the relationship must be of legal age to marry.

Protection of women from domestic violence

relationship is entitled to protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

What are the rights of children born out of live-in

7th to 9th January, 6 - 9 p.m IST (each day)

Free Online 3-Day Bootcamp On How to get a law firm

Harsh Jain Co-Founder,

Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,

Select your country

Harsh Jain Co-Founder,

Abhyuday Agarwal COO & Co-Founder,

You might also like