Abstract
With the shifting dynamics of Indian society, live-in relationships have emerged as a modern alternative to traditional marriage, shaped by globalization, evolving cultural norms, and growing emphasis on individual freedom. This paper offers a critical analysis of both the legal and psychosocial aspects of live-in partnerships in India, highlighting the judiciary’s role in developing the legal framework in the absence of explicit legislative provisions. Through an examination of key Supreme Court rulings, the study delves into the legal recognition of cohabiting couples, the applicability of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and the rights of children born from such relationships. It also investigates the conditions under which these unions are deemed to be “in the nature of marriage,” and the resulting consequences for issues like maintenance, guardianship, and inheritance. Additionally, the paper explores social attitudes and psychological challenges tied to live-in arrangements, particularly issues of gender-based vulnerability, stigma, and real-world complications. While these relationships mirror evolving societal values and offer individuals more freedom in partner selection, they also highlight the pressing need for legal reforms to ensure fair and inclusive protection for all parties involve.
Introduction
In today’s rapidly evolving world, technological and industrial progress has accelerated over the past few decades, significantly transforming every aspect of our lives. The process of globalization has further intensified these changes, influencing various dimensions of our social life such as family dynamics, marriage, and intimate relationships. Traditionally, marriage has been regarded as a legally and socially sanctioned bond between partners. In a country like ours, where social ties and structures are particularly strong, marriage holds considerable significance. Cohabiting without marriage has long been viewed as taboo and remains uncommon. However, recent trends indicate a shift, with more couples choosing to live together without formalizing their relationship through marriage. These arrangements may be short-term or may extend over a longer period, in which case they are referred to as live-in relationships. A live-in relationship can be described as “the ongoing cohabitation of two individuals, who are not legally married, sharing a household over a substantial period of time.”
India lacks specific laws, customs, or social norms that directly address live-in relationships. As a result, the Supreme Court has stepped in on various occasions to interpret and provide guidelines on the subject. This article seeks to review the key judgments delivered by the Supreme Court concerning live-in relationships and to examine the present legal framework surrounding them. Additionally, it offers a brief insight into the psychosocial aspects of such relationships.
Legality of Live-In Relationships
Live-in relationships between consenting adults are not considered illegal under Indian law. In the landmark 2006 case [1]Lata Singh v. State of U.P., the court held that although such relationships might be seen as immoral by some, they do not constitute a criminal offence. Similarly, in the case of [2]Khushboo v. Kanniammal& Another, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that while society may disapprove of live-in relationships, they are not unlawful. The Court emphasized that cohabitation falls under the right to life, and thus cannot be deemed illegal.
When a live-in relationship lasts for a substantial period and the couple represents themselves socially as husband and wife, the law may presume them to be legally married. This principle was first recognized in the 1978 case [3]Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, where the Court stated that if a man and woman live together as husband and wife for many years, a strong legal presumption arises in favor of a valid marriage. Although this presumption can be challenged, the burden of proof lies heavily on the person denying the legitimacy of the relationship. The law favors legitimacy and disfavorslabeling children as illegitimate. A similar view was reiterated in [4]S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, where the court held that long-term cohabitation as husband and wife raises a presumption of legal marriage, and children from such unions are entitled to inheritance.
However, if the relationship is purely for sexual gratification, it does not grant either partner the rights associated with legal marriage. The case [5]Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma examined various forms of live-in relationships and outlined the legal implications for each. If both individuals are unmarried and mutually agree to live together, it is not considered a criminal offence.
Before 2018, live-in arrangements involving a married woman and a man (married or unmarried) were considered criminal under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which defined the offence of adultery. However, this changed with the [6]Joseph Shine v. Union of India judgment, in which the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 for violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The law was criticized for treating men and women unequally, as it punished only the man involved and allowed only the woman’s husband to prosecute. Women had no legal standing under this provision, even if their husbands committed adultery.
Though adultery is no longer a criminal offence, it may still serve as valid grounds for divorce under civil law, which treats both genders equally in such cases. Similarly, until 2018, consensual same-sex relationships between adults were criminalized under Section 377 of the IPC. This was overturned in the historic [7]Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India decision, in which the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults in private. The Court ruled that such criminalization was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. However, Section 377 still remains applicable to non-consensual sexual acts, sexual offences against minors, and acts involving animals
Although consensual same-sex sexual relationships are legally recognized in India, same-sex marriages are not officially acknowledged under Indian law. That said, symbolic same-sex ceremonies are not explicitly prohibited.
To determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies as “in the nature of marriage,” the Supreme Court laid down certain conditions in the case of [8]D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal:
- The couple must present themselves to society as spouses.
- Both individuals must be of legal marriageable age.
- They must be legally eligible to marry, i.e., neither partner should already be married.
- They must have cohabited voluntarily and publicly as a couple for a significant period.
In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Court clarified that not every live-in relationship amounts to one “in the nature of marriage.” In this case, the woman had knowingly entered a relationship with a married man, which lacked the essential characteristics of marriage and thus could not be treated as such. The Court made the following observations:
- Long-standing live-in relationships can create dependencies and vulnerabilities, especially for women and children, and thus deserve legal safeguards.
- While the law should not promote premarital relationships, their growing occurrence and the personal nature of such relationships make it essential for Parliament to consider enacting protective laws or amending existing ones to provide security to women and children from such unions.
It’s important to note that Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC prohibit bigamy—marrying while a previous spouse is still alive—unless permitted by the individual’s personal law. Hence, live-in relationships involving married individuals cannot be recognized as being “in the nature of marriage.” Nonetheless, children born from such relationships, although not considered legitimate, still enjoy certain legal rights.
[1](2006) 5 SCC 475
[2](2010) 5 SCC 600
[3](1978) 3 SCC 527
[4](1994) 1 SCC 460
[5](2013) 15 SCC 755
[6](2018) 2 SCC 189
[7](2018) 10 SCC 1
[8](2010) 10 SCC 469