Succession Rights of Female Partners and

Children Born Out of Live-in Relationship

Regarding how it views the idea of a live-in relationship, Indian society has advanced
sufficiently in the last few decades. It can be defined as “a domestic cohabitation between an
adult unmarried male and an adult unmarried female.” A live-in relationship is gradually
losing its stigma in society and in people's minds. As time passes, it changes. Marriage is
regarded as a sacred institution in practically every country on earth, but especially in India.
Because of this, the majority of society's members find it difficult to accept the basis of live-
in relationships on social and moral grounds. Live-in relationships are now more accepted in
Indian society thanks to the liberal approach of the younger generation. Its adoption has been
aided further by the most recent ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Kamini Devi v. State
of Uttar Pradesh. When it comes to safeguarding the interests of those involved in a live-in
relationship, particularly the female spouse and any offspring, society and consequently
personal laws fall short. Even while the Indian Judiciary has made some significant strides to
address the gap left by this rejection of these connections, there are still significant gaps in
the law.
This paper aims to analyse the legal provisions for the succession rights of female partners
and children in live-in relationships in India. The paper begins with a brief discussion on the
concept of live-in relationships, followed by an analysis of the legal status of live-in
relationships in India. The paper then examines the rights of female partners and their
children in live-in relationships, as provided under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and other
relevant laws. The paper also discusses the challenges faced by female partners and their
children in proving their status as a legally recognized couple and obtaining their rightful
share in the property of the deceased partner. The study concludes with - legal provisions for
the succession rights of female partners and their children in live-in relationships have
improved over the years, there is still a need for further legal reforms and social awareness to
ensure that these rights are protected and upheld.
Live-in relationships are not illegal, according to established legal doctrine. A rebuttable
presumption of marriage favours such relationships. The situation of inheritance rights,
however, is uncertain and imprecise because there is no legal structure controlling live-in
relationships. Children resulting from such relationships will still be able to inherit money
from their parents, though. Children born out of unions other than officially recognised
marriages should be recognised as legitimate, the Supreme Court said. Yet, a crucial need for
a kid to be recognised as legitimate is that the parents must have lived together for a sizable
amount of time. They should not have a "walk-in and walk-out" relationship; instead, society
must recognise them as husband and wife. The legal fiction crafted by section 16 of the HMA
allows children born from such unions to inherit their parent's wealth. It should be noted,
however, that in order to use section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1956, there must
already be a de facto marriage or a de jure marriage in effect, both of which are rendered void
or voidable by HMA sections 11 or 12. A de facto marriage is when a couple lives together
for a significant amount of time as husband and wife with habit and repute, according to the
court's definition in Ramkali v. Mahila Shyamwati. But in order to give legitimacy to the
offspring of such marriages, proof of such a relationship would be necessary. Consequently, a
live-in relationship might be referred to as a de facto marriage. Although a child born in a
live-in relationship may be given legitimacy under section 16 HMA, this fictitious legitimacy
can only be obtained in order for the child to have succession rights to its parents' property.
Only the parents' self-acquired property may be transmitted; their ancestors' property may
not. The prohibition on children receiving property from anybody other than their parents is
stated in section 16(3) of the HMA. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court noted in Revansidapa v.
Malikarjun that the word "property" does not denote a distinction between inherited or self-
acquired property. Hence, both self-acquired and inherited property will be available to
children.
Live-in partnerships often come with additional rights. According to § 125 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, a woman can request maintenance and is not required to provide evidence of
a marriage in order to do so. In a different instance, the supreme court determined that in a
live-in relationship, the male partner should be responsible for paying the woman's
maintenance if he departs her. Due to existing legal flaws in the system, a person should not
be permitted to evade such obligations. The court additionally noted that a woman who is in a
live-in relationship is eligible to apply for any PWDVA relief. Anyone may be named in a
will under the existing legal system. Yet, a person's self-acquired property is the only type of
property for which a will can be created. In the case of Vidyadhari v. Sukharna Bai, the
Supreme Court issued a succession certificate to a live-in partner since the deceased partner
nominated the other partner. To address other difficulties in the current legal system, separate
legislation must be developed to regulate inheritance rights.
The legal situation regarding an intimate partner's inheritance rights is not entirely clear.
There are many misunderstandings and ambiguities in the current law because there is no
legal structure. The Indian courts have addressed the issue of live-in relationships being
lawful, but they have not addressed the issue of other rights and obligations that result from
such an affiliation. Most courts have tried to mould such a committed union into marriage,
but without any legal protections.
Live-in relationship requires a new set of laws to regulate them, including protection against
abandonment, bigamy, and inheritance. The domestic relations law's current flaws can be
lessened with the inclusion of such a framework. The acknowledgment of rights and
obligations resulting from a live-in relationship or relationships of a similar character in this
circumstance becomes crucial. Same-sex relationships, which are also stigmatised in Indian
society, will be more accepted as a result of the legalisation of such a relationship. There has
to be special legislation created so that the participants in such a relationship can register as
"domestic partners" rather than husband and wife, with all of the associated rights and duties.