Legal Validity and Rights in Live‑in Relationships in India by Judicial Activism
Introduction
- A live-in relationship refers to an arrangement where two adults consensually (consent) cohabit (live with each other) and share a domestic life without being legally married in the eyes of law and society. Although these relationships share many similarities with marriage, they do not involve religious or civil marriage ceremonies.
- Live-in relationships in India have often been a subject of moral debate or discussion rather than legal clarity. While Indian society still largely views live-in relationships through a conservative lens, the Indian judiciary has increasingly adopted a progressive approach towards them by recognizing and protecting the rights of individuals in such arrangements.
- Legally, live-in relationships fall in a grey area, not outlawed, which means that the law does not prohibit them, but there is no explicit legislation governing them. Yet, over the years, judicial pronouncements have carved out certain rights and protections, especially for women and couples, within such live-in relationships. These decisions are primarily rooted in constitutional principles and human rights and have effectively given live-in relationships a form of legal recognition in India.
- This blog does not delve into the ethical side of these relationships as it focuses entirely on their legal validity in the Indian context.
Judicial Analysis and Recognition in Some Cases
- Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978) AIR 1557: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld a 50-year-long live-in relationship as valid and gave this type of relationship legal support. The court observed that a cohabitation between a man and a woman for a considerable time should be presumed to be a valid marriage unless proven otherwise. This judgment laid the early groundwork for the future recognition of live-in relationships.
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475: In this case, the Supreme Court held that a woman who is of the age that the law permits to marry has the freedom to live with a partner of her choice, regardless of familial or societal pressure. While the case concerned inter-caste marriage, it also reinforced the idea that adult individuals have rights over their relationships, which include arrangements such as live-in relationships.
- D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469: This was a landmark judgment in which the court defined what constitutes a "relationship in the nature of marriage." The court laid down the main conditions for the relationship, including mutual consent, shared household, and social acceptance. The ruling clarified that not all cohabiting relationships qualify for protection, but only those relationships that resemble a marriage do.
- Indra Sarma v. V.K. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755: In this case, the court elaborated the concept of live-in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It ruled that women in "relationships like marriage" are entitled to protection against domestic violence. However, the court said that casual relationships or those maintained solely for sexual reasons were excluded from this protection.
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 600: Khushboo had to face multiple criminal cases for advocating live-in relationships. The Supreme Court quashed all charges against her and held that live-in relationships, although not socially accepted, are not illegal or immoral. It emphasized the constitutional right to freedom of expression and personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21.
- Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602: Even though in this case, the male partner was not of legal marriageable age, the court observed that two adults have the right to live together, regardless of their marital status. The verdict reaffirmed the individual autonomy of consenting adults and added another layer to the legality of live-in relationships.
- Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1088: This is a more recent case that has reinforced that the concept of a "family" under Indian law is evolving. The court stated that non-traditional relationships, including live-in relationships, must be given equal protection and recognition under the law, especially when it comes to employment and social benefits.
- Kamini Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine All 804: In this case, the Allahabad High Court upheld the right of two consenting adults to live together without the interference of anyone. The judgment emphasized the constitutional protection of individual liberty under Article 21 and directed the police to ensure the couple's safety.
- Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192: Though primarily this case is about honor killings, in this case, the Supreme Court observed that adults have a constitutional right to choose their life partners, including partners for live-in. It strongly criticized any societal interference and upheld the principle of personal liberty.
Legal Provisions Supporting Live-in Relationships
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 2(f) of the Act defines a "domestic relationship" to include all the relationships that share a similar nature to that of marriage. This is done so that women in such relationships can seek relief against abuse, maintenance, and residence rights.
- Section 125, CrPC/Section 144, BNSS: While primarily it extends to wives and children, the courts have extended maintenance rights under section 125 to women in long-term live-in relationships that resemble marriages through various judgments. In BNSS, the same provision falls under section 144.
- Children Born from Live-in Relationships: The Supreme Court in the case of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023 SCC Online SC 1087) held that children who are born out of a live-in relationship are legitimate but do not possess the rights to ancestral property during the parents' lifetime. This move became significant as it worked towards removing the stigma associated with out-of-wedlock births.
Conclusion
Live-in relationships may not yet enjoy the same status as marriage under Indian law, but they are also not considered illegal or immoral any longer. The Indian judiciary has taken an advanced stance by safeguarding the rights of individuals, especially women and children, in such arrangements. While legislation is still awaited to establish a more transparent framework and provisions, the Constitution, under Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), serves as the backbone for legal recognition. The courts have, time and again, reaffirmed that in a democratic society, the choice and dignity of an individual must be respected even if it defies societal norms. As times change, so must our understanding of relationships. The law is beginning to acknowledge this shift, not to promote live-in relationships, but to protect those who choose this path voluntarily. If you are looking to execute a Live-in Agreement, click here.
