ISSN 2455-4782

LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS, SOCIAL CHANGE AND INDIAN JUDICIARY

Authored by: Ishika Jain*

* 2020 law graduate

______________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

Live-in relationships have long been in controversy in the Indian Society. Part of it is that it is has
a taboo attached to it in the Indian society as it is seen as a free ticket to sex and no sense of
commitment. But the inevitable influence of western culture and the new young liberal generation
advocating for freedom of choice and opinion have started engaging in this. This paper aims to
see current status of Live-in relationships as against marriages in India. Cohabitation has long
been equated to marriage by the Indian Courts. While in the year 2010 major judgments were
delivered in favor of live-in relationship women and children in live-in relationships being
awarded protection and various other rights. This paper aims to observe and clarify the current
legal status of live-in relationships in India. This paper will observe the development in the
attitude of Courts in matter of Live-in relationships over the years. The researcher will put
forward the requirement of framing proper legal provision in order to recognize the rights
available to persons engaging in Live-in relationships. The researcher will place some
recommendations and suggestions for the Executive body of India.

Keywords: Aatmnirbhar Bharat; Economy; Live-in Relationship; Indian Economy.

INTRODUCTION

49 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

“Law takes its own time to articulate such social changes through a process of amendment. That
is why in a changing society law cannot afford to remain static. If one looks at the history of
development of Hindu Law, it will be clear that it was never static and has changed from time to
time to meet the challenges of the changing social pattern in different time.”

– Justice G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly1.

Traditionally, India is a country where marriage is considered a sacrament. Marriage is deeply

embedded as a religious sacrament in people’s mindsets. They see marriage as a religious
sacrament, as having been conditioned like that since time immemorial. Marriage allows partners
to cohabit legally and socially. It is validated by various laws in the country. Marriage comes with
a lot of marital obligations towards the spouse, their family, children and marital home. This is an
inevitable consequence of marriage. The crowd of India resents live-in relationships. They view it
as shrugging of responsibility. They see it as a western influence which is destroying India’s
culture, norms and social values.

While on the other hand, the younger crowd chooses to advocate for freedom of choice and opt
for lie-in relationships with their partners. This concept can be witnessed on an uprising move in
metro cities in India. Live-in relationship is devoid of responsibility and marital obligations. It is a
walk-in and walk-out relationship without any legal burden. Couples opt for this generally when
they are not ready to get into a legal sanction of marriage or just want to avoid it. They youth of
India generally decides to live-in with their partner when they are not ready to deal with marital
obligations and still want to focus on their career and spend time with their partner without the
legal sanction of marriage.

With the dynamic social changes in India’s culture and practices, and inevitable influence of
western culture, live-in relationship are bound to embed itself in our society. And the court
liberally recognizes this change and has called living in legal for unmarried couples. Court has
also went ahead and provided various rights and protection to women and children born out of
such relationships.

WHAT IS LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

1
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 S.C.C 1 (India).

50 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

Live in relationships is a voluntary arrangement whereby two adults mutually agree to live
together to conduct a long term relationship that resembles to a marriage. 2 “Live in relationships
are a walk in walk out relationship as was observed by Judges in the case Alok Sharma v. State3.
There are no strings attached to these relationships as the relationship is free from any legal bond
between the parties”4 it is in simple words, cohabitation. The underlying principle behind couples
opting for live-in relationships is to test their compatibility with each other by cohabiting together.
This kind of relationship is hassle-free and does not involve any legal complications or
responsibilities. Another notion behind couples opting to just live together without the
commitment of a legal sanction of marriage can be that they don’t want their relationship to get
legalized and defined. They hold contentment in their current state and stage of relationship.
There is no legal definition of live-in relationship sand thus, its exact meaning remains
unsubstantiated.

Live-in relationships are seen as a substitute of marriage.

The concept of live-in relationship has gained much acceptance and appreciation in the
internationals scenario. However, in India it is still socially unacceptable and immoral in the
majority of the eyes of the public. They view this relationship as a free ticket to pre-marital and
anytime sex, devoid of any sense of responsibility and commitment. The couples who opt for this
face social opprobrium.

Live-in relationship is not defined or recognized under any law or provision enacted by the
Parliament. Thus, its exact meaning remains unsubstantiated and its patronage is still ambiguous.
Law and society are just two facets of one world. One cannot work without the other. Law and
societal changes need to go hand in hand else the world can come crashing down. So, as the
concept of live-in relationship is slowly and gradually getting incorporated in our society and
minds, Courts have also recognized this phenomenon of relationship and accepted it with open
arms by protecting the rights of individuals in a live-in relationship. Court has called this
relationship as legal irrespective of the fact that it may be immoral in the eyes of the society.

2
Dr. Kalpana V. Jawada, Live in relationships: recent development and challenges, THE LEX WARRIOR (Last
visited Nov. 05, 2017 14:58), http://lex-warrier.in/2010/11/live-in-relationship/.
3
Crl. M.C. No. 299/2009.
4
Alok Sharma v. State,Crl. M.C. No. 299/2009.
51 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

Court went ahead and recognized this as a personal choice and fundamental right and said that
from nowhere can it be concluded that these people are criminal offenders.

Courts have been of the opinion time and again that a couple who have been cohabiting since a
number of years and display themselves as a husband and wife to the society are to be considered
as a married couple as they have been behaving like one. 5 Because they fulfill all the other
characteristics of one except having a legal certificate that certifies them as husband and wife.
They may not be husband and wife on paper, but are one when considered practically. Courts
have recognized this relationship and accorded them a status same as married.6This depicts how
the Judiciary is also evolving with the changing times.

REASONS FOR CHOOSING A LIVE-IN-RELATIONSHIP

Couples choose to cohabit than marry for various following reasons:

 Couples may wish to check their compatibility when they share the same roof before
committing to marriage.

 They do not want to hurry into the status of ‘married’ and maintain the single status for a
longer time to achieve financial stability and then commit to it.

 As times are advancing, but the law is not. So a homosexual couple has the only option of
living together and staying content as same sex marriages are not permitted in India.

 Partners may just feel that ‘marriage ceremony’ and ‘marrying’ is an unnecessary burden
and social rule and they don’t want to give in to it.

 There is no denying that this is a walk-in walk-out kind of relationship. And there is no
doubt that the people who engage in this are aware of this. It is also because these couple
would hate to involve themselves in the legal hassle of divorce just for separation and just
don’t choose to get married altogether to avoid it.

5
Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 135.
6
Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumar,A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 231.
52 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

 Social unacceptance or parental pressure or inter-caste issues and age can be a reason.

 It can be that they may have had bad past experiences with marriage and just want to
avoid legal requirements anymore.

 They may not be ready to share the burden and responsibility of a marriage and having a
married partner.

 When a couple is working throughout the day and has no time to spend or engage with
partner, they may choose live-in to spend their free time together.

 Couple are more focused on giving priority to their career right now that busying
themselves with marriage responsibilities.

 Senior citizens have started preferring live in relationships to escape loneliness in old age.

SOCIAL CHANGES - MARRIAGE VERSUS LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

Marriage is a social construct which has been in our societies since time immemorial. It is seen as
the only mode of procreation and of extending the family lineage. Marriage holds a patronage of
all the Vedic scriptures and the law as well. Various laws like Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, The
Special Marriage Act, 1954, The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, the Parsi Marriage and
Divorce Act, 1936, Shariat, Anand Marriage Act, 1909 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925
validate marriages. However, none of these even mention a live-in relationship.

In the dictionary of sociology 7 , ‘marriage’ has been defined by Duncan Mitchell as ‘socially
sanctioned sex relationship involving two or more people of the opposite sex whose relationship
is expected to endure beyond time required for gestation and the birth of children’

Digging deep into the roots of India, it can be found that marriage was considered compulsory in
order to complete fulfilment of the purpose of all human beings without which they could not
achieve ‘Moksha’8. Marriage has more of a social origin than an individual origin.

7
Duncan Mitchell, A DICTIONARY OF SOCIOLOGY BY DUNCAN MITCHELL (Aldine Publishing Company,
1968).
53 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

The four purposes of human life as per the Hindi Religion are Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha
- Dharma means religious duty towards the society, Artha means economic activity, Kama means
the satisfaction of the sexual desires and Moksha means salvation.9 These are called Purusharthas.
From this it can be concluded that it is necessary for a man to marry a woman to achieve the four
purposes of human existence. The concept of Hindu marriage is that it a lifelong commitment
wherein the partner battle life together.

In the western countries, the idea of marriage represents a personal matter concerned with love-
making, home-making and living together. But in India, marriage is seen as a religious sacrament
and as fulfilling obligations towards the society and family. 10This is why the concept of live-in
receives resentment from the Indian society.

However, with the inevitable intrusion of western culture, the younger generation are coming up
with broader visions and opinions. They deeply advocate for freedom of opinion and choice and
do what they feel is right for them.

Live-in relationships have a social and societal stigma attached to it. It is one of the major and
most fitting reasons for why it is still not accepted in India. In India, if two people marry it does
not only involve them getting married, but it is a union of two absolutely unrelated families. It
ends up in extension of family. But when two people just decide to cohabit, it does not involve the
families of the couple getting related. This is one of the reasons for unacceptability of live-in
relationships and are not letting go of marriages.

Going through the entire divorce procedure is a task after getting married. If a couple has a kid,
and they can’t work it out between themselves, there is a very strong chance that everybody from
their family and they themselves will be motivated to try to work the relationship out for the sake
of their child. The child will have much protection, security and will feel safer. In a marriage,
since there is a healthy amount of involvement by families, there is always someone to look after

8
According to the Bhagwad Gita, a soul that has finally liberated from the cycle of birth and death gains entry into the
abode of God.
9
Mohit Chhibber & Aditya Singh, Live-in relationships: An ethical and a moral dilemma?,1(8) International Journal
of Applied Research 74, 76 (2015).
10
Mohit Chhibber & Aditya Singh, Live-in relationships: An ethical and a moral dilemma?,1(8) International Journal
of Applied Research 74, 76 (2015).
54 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

the child. This does not happen in a live-in relationship as its main characteristic is that it is a
walk in walk out relationship. There is no responsibility involved in a live-in relationship.

There are a lot of responsibilities of each spouse towards each other and towards their families in
a marriage. Spouses are obligated to take over and be there for each other’s families. However, in
live-in relationships, there is no involvement of families lest responsibility towards them. One
partner might not want to mingle with the other’s family as they are not legally married, and
therefore there is no rapport with either party’s family.

In India, a marriage is a birth right and this is embedded in the mind of society. The purpose of
marrying is procreation. Procreation lest pre-marital sex in a live-in relationship is looked down
upon by the society. Under the Hindu Marriage Act, children born out of such relationships are
considered to be legitimate and have been granted the right to succession.11

In the case Ravi Kumar v. State12, the High Court of Delhi observed while recognizing live-in
relationships as valid relationship that “the economic and social dynamics of the society are
changing very fast. This can be witnessed by the increasing number of live-in relationships which
are justified by the young generation on the ground that the institution of marriage is too
burdensome as proven by the increasing divorce cases. Moreover, with the changing times these
live-in relationships have acquired a legal mandate and are slowly becoming socially accepted.
Therefore, the need of the hour is that the boys and more importantly girls have to be very careful
and cautious before taking such an important decision concerning their lives before entering into
the most sanctimonious relationship of marriage or even to have live in relationship. One of the
major reasons contributing increase in the rape cases is a failure of live in relationship or any
immature decision on the part of such young adults which more often end up in a broken
relationship but sometimes after indulging into physical relationship”13.

These relationships stand on a fair chance of success and failure for the couple on a personal
level. There have been allegations of rape, physical violence, or false allegations of rape being
slapped by females on their partner coming forward. Just because, this relationship is devoid of a
legal backing does not mean that a person can be exposed to exploitation and torture. Courts have
11
Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, Acts of Parliament, 1955.
12
A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 135.
13
Ravi Kumar v. State,A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 135.
55 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

recognized this as well and provided protection to women along with the right to claim relief
under Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The basis for this is, Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognizes the right of protection of a person in
“relationship in the nature of marriage” from domestic violence and can get monetary and other
reliefs under the Act. Section 2 (f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines "domestic
relationship" as “a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived
together in a shared household, where they are relatedly consanguinity, marriage, or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint
family.”14

Judges have also accorded the children born out of such relationships a legitimate status and to be
treated on an equal footing as a child born out a marriage.15 This child can inherit parents’ self-
acquired and not inherited property.16

No matter how much a court may give judgment and set precedents, a law enacted by Parliament
holds another level of validity and credibility. Judges have insisted Parliament to enact few
provisions in support of such relationships. Till the time that does not happen, it came out with a
few guidelines which are indicative17.

Despite no clear legal commandment by the Parliament, there has been a change in the social
outlook of such relationship, this can be inferred from the fact that MNC’s have now started
providing health insurance benefits to domestic partner of the employees.18

There exists a certain level of acceptance of this idea in metro cities like Bangalore, Mumbai,
Delhi, Chennai, Hyderabad and a few other cities. Couples opt for live-in and cohabit. They see it
as an exercise of their freedom and right and are not bothered by societal norms and opinions.
Surprisingly, a former banker Arvind Godbode has formed an organization with a group of
senior-citizens under the name 'Jyeshtha Nagrik Live-In Relationship Mandal' in Nagpur. His

14
Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 S.C.C. 141.
15
Revana siddappa&Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors., (2011) 11 S.C.C. 1.
16
BharathaMatha&Anr v. R. VijayaRenganathan&Ors.,A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2685.
17
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, 2013(14)SCALE448.
18
DevinaSengupta, Now gift your live-in partner a mediclaim, Economic Times, (Last visited 22 July, 2020),
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-11-03/news/30354890_1_indian-firms-health-insurancesudhir-
sarnobat.
56 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

main agenda was to support and help those seeking help and a company in the old age. In
Ahmedabad, VinaMulyaAmulyaSeva (VMAS), a charitable trust organized a ‘Senior Citizen
Live-in

Relationship Samellan' where seven couples have decided to enter into a live-in
relationship.19This is a welcoming move by the senior citizens.20

STAND OF INDIAN JUDICIARY

Live-In Relationship is valid and equal to marriage: The view of Indian Judiciary has been in
favor of live in relationships since the time it has gained for itself the here-to-stay status. It can be
inferred from various pronouncements of Courts in India that Judiciary is also seconding for
protection of those heterosexual couples opting to share a marriage like living conditions. In A.
Dinohamy v. W.L.Blahamy21 in 1927, the Privy Council held that “where a man and a woman
are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be
clearly proved that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage, and not in a
state of concubinage.”22The Privy Council took the same stand again in Mohabhat Ali v. Md.
Ibrahim Khan23 and reiterated that a woman and a man who have been cohabiting for number of
years will be considered as man and wife. These pronouncements point towards the fact that a
marriage is not legal requirement for a man and woman living together for an amount of time to
be considered as husband and wife. In the case Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumar24, Supreme Court
observed that continuous cohabitation of a man and woman in the nature of sharing a bond as of
husband and wife for a number of years raises the presumption of marriage. The basis for this

19
PTI, 14 senior citizens find live-in partners at match-making meet, Times of India,(Last visited 22 July, 2020),
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/14-senior-citizens-find-live-in-partners-at-match-making-
meet/tpoint_articleshow/10806558.cms.
20
Amartya Bag, Succession Rights In Case Of Live-In Relationships: An Analysis In
The Indian Context,ssrn, (Last visited 22 July, 2020), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2011751.
21
A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 185.
22
A. Dinohamy v. W.L.Blahamy, AIR 1927 P.C. 185.
23
A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 135.
24
A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 231.
57 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

presumption is prolonged cohabitation. And if there are circumstances which weaken the
presumption, the Court cannot choose to ignore them.25

Similar view was upheld in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 26 where Courts
considered a man and woman living together for 50 years as living as a married couple. However,
the Judge in this case peculiarly observed that “The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy
burden lies on the person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no
marriage took place. Law leans in favor of legitimacy and frowns upon a bastard.”27In Patel and
Others case28, Supreme Court went ahead and clarified that two different sex individuals who
engage in a live in relationship without the legal pronouncement of marriage are not criminal
offenders. No provision of law prevailing in the country condemns a live in relationship as illegal
or the people engaging in live in relationships as offenders. The same view was upheld in the case
Tulsa v. Durghatiya29by Supreme Court. In this case, it was also held that there would be a
presumption of marriage when there has been cohabitation between individuals under Section 114
of Indian Evidence Act. With upcoming times, the question of live-in relationships has become a
major issue and requires to be dealt with and answered. Supreme Court, in a case consisting of a
Special Bench comprising of Justice Deepak Verma, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice B.S.
Chauhan in S.Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr.30noted that if two people opt to live together
then it is their choice and no one should oppose them. They do not commit any offence. Supreme
Court held live-in relationships as permissible and not a criminal offence. It also held that opting
for a live-in relationship falls under Article 2131 of the Constitution of India.

There is no doubt that a social stigma is attached to live in relationships and is frowned upon by
the society. But the stand of morality is a subjective one and what may be immoral for one may
be moral for another and Justice M. Katju and Justice R.B. Mishra expressed a similar view while
pronouncing the judgement of Payal Sharma vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Agra, C.M.

25
Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumar, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 231.
26
A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1557.
27
Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1557.
28
(2006) 8 S.C.C. 726.
29
2008 (4) SCC 520.
30
(2010) 5 S.C.C. 600.
31
Art.21 of Indian Constitution of India, 1950 - Protection of life and personal liberty- No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
58 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

Hab. Corp.32in 2001 in Allahbad High Court observing “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.” SC also went
ahead and issued a succession certificate to a live-in partner which was nominated by the
deceased in Vidyadhari v. SukhranaBai 33 .In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun 34 property of a
Hindu male, upon his death (intestate), was given to the woman with whom he enjoyed a live-in
relationship, even though he had a legally wedded wife alive.

When two people decide to live together it can be for a lot of reasons. One of the perks of a
having a live-in relationship with your partner is indulging in pre-marital sex. The majority of the
country’s population will look down upon this. But as times are changing, the newer crowd does
not frown upon it. However, this number of people is very small. There was a case, S.
Khushboovs. Kanniammal& Anr.35against a south-Indian actress that she was engaging in pre-
marital sex and live-in relationships and because of her public image, endorsed such engagements
to the eyes of public also by giving interviews in various magazines. Supreme Court acted
vehemently and dropped all charges against the actress saying that living together is a personal
choice and a fundamental right, thus not illegal even if it is considered immoral in the eyes of
society.36Supreme Court quashed 22 cases filed against her.

Children’s Right: It is not shocking to know that children can be born out of such relationships
also. And, they also do. But these kids don’t have it easy as their birth out of a relationship which
is not legitimized in the country raises a question on their legal status, inheritance rights and
legitimacy. When these questions were faced by the Court, Judges have unanimously taken a
view in favour of legitimacy. As seen in Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan &
Ors37, held that “20. Thus, it is evident that Section 16 of the (Hindu Marriage) Act intends to

32
A.I.R. 2001 All. 254.
33
2008(2) A.I.R. Jhar R 377.
34
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 S.C.C 1.
35
(2010) 5 S.C.C. 600.
36
AbhayNevagi Associates, Right of Maintenance to women in Live-in Relationships, legally india, (Last visited 22
July, 2020), https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/right-of-maintenance-to-women-in-live-in-relationships.
37
AIR 2010 SC 2685
59 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

bring about social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of children,
otherwise treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.”38

“27. Thus, it is evident that in such a fact-situation, a child born of void or voidable marriage is
not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral coparcener property but is entitled only to claim
share in self acquired properties, if any.”39

In the case of Tulsa &Ors. v. Durghatitya & Ors.40, Supreme Court went ahead and recognized a
few conditions for a child born out of live-in relationships to not be treated as illegitimate. The
conditions are that the parents must have lived under the same roof and cohabited for a
considerably long time for the society to begin to recognize them as a married couple and this
relationship must not be like a “walk in and walk out” relationship.41

This view was again upheld by a special bench consisting of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice
Asok Kumar Ganguly on 31 March, 2011 in the case Revana Siddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun &
Ors.42wherein it was remarked that a child’s rights will remain unaffected and independent of the
relation of his/her parents and will be seen on the same stand as a child born out a legal
marriage.43 It is also the idea behind the amended Section 16(3) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.44

This view was again taken in the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyum v. Surruttayan45, Supreme
Court observed that when a woman and man are sharing the same roof and have been cohabiting
for a number of years then there will be a presumption under section 114of the Indian Evidence
Act, that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate. This
is in fact in accordance with section 50the Indian Evidence Act.

38
BharathaMatha&Anrvs R. VijayaRenganathan&Ors.,A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2685,Para.20.
39
BharathaMatha&Anrvs R. VijayaRenganathan&Ors.,A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2685, Para.27.
40
(2008) 4 S.C.C. 520 (India).
41
Supra 36.
42
(2011) 11 S.C.C. 1.
43
ibid.
44
Section 16 (3) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.- (3) Nothing
contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is
null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, any rights in or to the property of any
person, other than the parents, in any case, where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been
incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.
45
A.I.R.1992 S.C. 756.
60 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

Further, in the case of Dimple Gupta v. Rajiv Gupta46 Court held that a child born out of a live-in
relationship can claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. till the time they are a minor and
even after majority if they are unable to maintain themselves.

Women Rights: Another important question which arises regarding such relationships is of the
protection available to women and their rights. Courts have been faced with such questions and
they have answered them very gracefully and in favor of accepting social changes and not
depriving women of their otherwise rights.

Supreme Court in the case IndraSarma v. V.K.V. Sarma47has observed “relationship between an
unmarried adult woman and an unmarried adult male who lived or, at any point of time lived
together in a shared household, will fall under the definition of Section 2(f) of the Domestic
Violence Act and in case, there is any domestic violence, the same will fall under Section 3 of the
Domestic Violence Act and the aggrieved person can always seek reliefs provided under Chapter
IV of the Domestic Violence Act”48.For a woman to strictly claim maintenance under Section 125
of Cr.P.C., Bombay High Court observed in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra49, it
Is not necessary to establish marriage. Supreme Court in Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v.
State of A.P.50extended Section 498A for protection against dowry “to cover a person who enters
into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of
husband” 51 . This judgment has extended the protection available even to women in live-in
relationship.

Supreme Court in 1985 in the case Sumitra Devi v. Bhikan Choudhary52 recognized the couple
who had been cohabiting and presenting themselves as a couple to the society to be eligible for
claiming maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

In M. Palani v. Meenakshi 53 , a man and a woman had not lived together but engaged in
consensual sexual intercourse. The respondent, woman had filed a claim under Section 20 read

46
A.I.R. 2008 S.C. 239.
47
IndraSarma v. V.K.V. Sarma,2013(14) SCALE 448.
48
ibid.
49
Crl. W.P. No. 2218 of 2007.
50
A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2684.
51
KoppisettiSubbharaoSubramaniam v. State of A.P.,A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 2684.
52
(1985) 1 S.C.C. 637.
61 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

with Section 26 for maintenance of Rs.10,000 from plaintiff with whom she claimed that she had
been in a live-in with him. The Plaintiff argued that mere sexual intercourse and proximity does
not fall as a ground to claim maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005. The court looked into the definition of “domestic relationship” as given in Section 2(f)
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which does not state living
together for sometime as a criteria to be called as a domestic relationship. The Court held that “at
least at the time of having sex by them, they shared household and lived together”. 62 thus, the
Court awarded maintenance to her. This means that the provisions of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be applicable to parties even in those cases where they don’t
share an intention to share future together or long term commitment but just share a frequent
sexual relationship.

In the case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha54, Supreme Court observed that
in a case where a man and woman have lived together for long enough without getting married,
the man will be made liable to pay maintenance to the woman if he deserts her. “The man should
not be allowed to get benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the advantages of a de facto
marriage without undertaking the duties and obligations.”55 For women in live-in relationships to
not get exploited and harassed by their partners and to make available some protection for them,
Court was insisting on interpreting the meaning of wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is for
claiming maintenance. The Court further declared that a woman in a live-in relationship in
entitled to claim any relief mentioned under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005. So, in the case of Velusamy v. D. Patchhaiammal56, Supreme Court bench consisting of
Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.M. Thakur observed certain requirements that women in
live-in relationships need to fulfill to claim maintenance. They are:

a. “They must be of a legal age to marry

b. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage

53
A.I.R. 2008 Mad. 162.
54
Supra 20.
55
ibid.
56
(2010) 10 S.C.C. 469.
62 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

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

If a man has a ‘keep’ that 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 Apex
court also observed, "No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had
a Live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act (Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act), but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used
the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'Live-in relationship'. The court in
the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute.” 57the bench observed.

For this case, the apex Court relied on a judgement of California Superior Court, U.S.A. where
the concept of ‘palimony’ arose which basically means grant of maintenance to partner in a live-
in relationship. This was in the case Marvin v. Marvin58

Supreme Court in the case Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma 59 enlisted a list of criteria for
determining whether a live-in relationship falls within the purview of ‘relationships in the nature
of marriage’ under Domestic Violence Act. This list is not absolute nor is it exhaustive. This is
done in wake of no commandment by Parliament on making a law recognizing such relationship.
They are:

“1. Duration of period of relationship - Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression “at any
point of time”, which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship
which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

2. Shared household - The expression has been defined Under Section 2(s) of the Domestic
Violence Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

3. Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements- Supporting each other, or any one of
them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names
or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and
joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.
57
ibid.
58
18 Cal.3d 660 (1976).
59
2013(14) SCALE 448.
63 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

4. Domestic Arrangements - Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run

the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up keeping
the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

5. Sexual Relationship -Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for
pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to
give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.

6. Children -Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of

marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the
responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

7. Socialization in Public - Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations
and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the
relationship is in the nature of marriage.

8. Intention and conduct of the parties - Common intention of parties as to what their
relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities,
primarily determines the nature of that relationship.”60

These guidelines are exhaustive but just indicative, thereby enlarging the scope of the Act. The
question of relationship falling under this will depend on facts.

REFORMS UNDERTAKEN

With changing social dynamics in India which is a land of ethos, rites, customs and norms, the
change will have to be eventually given into after all the tiredness from resentment. The Judiciary
has accepted and recognized live-in relationships as a relationship akin to marriage. It has
accorded them a status same as husband and wife and a child born out this relationship a status
similar to a child born out a legal marriage. The Executive is not far from reforming too. The
Malimath Committee Report suggested that the meaning of “wife” within Section 125 of the
CRPC need to be amended such as to include in its definition a woman who was living with a

60
ibid.
64 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

man for the time of first marriage for a considerably long period. Following this in the month of
October in 2008, the Maharashtra government went ahead so as to accept this proposal of
Malimath Committee Report.

SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – the definition of ‘wife’ should be amended
to include a woman who is sharing a relationship in the nature of marriage.

2. Section 16, Hindu Marriage Act – as was seen in the case Bharatha Matha & Anr. v. R.
Vijaya Renganathan & Ors.61, the researcher suggests that the child born out of live in
relationship should be allowed a share in inherited property also and not only self-acquired
property of parents.

3. Section 2(f) PWDVA,2005 –As in the case Velusamy v. D. Patchhaiammal62it has been
accepted that live-in relationship falls under the ambit of domestic relationship term used
in Section 2(f), this should be made explicitly codified so that this protection would be
more widely available to everyone.

4. New guidelines – just the way Court had explicitly laid down guidelines in Indra Sarma
v. V.K.V. Sarma63, the researcher suggests that the Parliament enacts a new legislation on
amends the existing legislations to inculcate live-in relationships and lays down the rights
and protection available to the parties involved.

61
A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 2685.
62
(2010) 10 S.C.C. 469.
63
IndraSarma v. V.K.V. Sarma,2013(14) SCALE 448.
65 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7
 ISSN 2455-4782

CONCLUSION

Live-in relationship is a voluntary choice of two major individuals to cohabit without getting
married. They live almost like a married couple except for the legal marital sanction. Live-in
relationship have long been accepted by the Court as a valid legal relationship. It is not a very
new phenomenon. It has been continuing since 1900’s. Now that Courts have given various rights
and protection to women under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to claim maintenance; and the children a legal status as legitimate
and having right of inheritance over parent’s self-acquired property, the current need of the hour
is to enact a legislation validating live-in relationship as legal and providing certain rights and
spelling out some obligations for the parties who enter in this relationship.

66 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 6 ISSUE 7