Abstract
In today’s age, live-in relationships have gained a great deal of prominence in our society. Such relationships are characterised by the absence of any kind of formal legal structure. This, in turn, gives birth to a plethora of disputes over property and beneficial interests that mostly arise when such associations end, or expectations of the parties diverge. The doctrine of constructive trust, based on the values of equity and fairness, has become an indispensable tool to address such challenges. Constructive trust, unlike an explicit trust, is put forth by the courts in the form of an equitable remedy to prevent unjust enrichment or inequitable retention of property by any single party. Equity intervenes in such situations by gauging true beneficial ownership where one of the parties has made contributions, financially, emotionally, or otherwise, to the property in question for any purpose, and it would be unfair for the legal owner to deny the other’s rightful interest in the property. This reformative approach allows courts to lay emphasis on principles of equity, justice, and fairness based on the real life and shared space of the parties instead of rigid statutory formalities. Nonetheless, the practical application of such constructive trusts in the paradigm of live-in relationships remains inconsistent across different jurisdictions and legal systems, which leads to unforeseen outcomes, increasing the vulnerability of the cohabitants.
INTRODUCTION
An essential social unit is the family, and by examining its structures and roles, members’ rights can be established and protected. Over time, the concept of an ordinary family has changed, leading to a variety of family types based on how they are formed and operate. Since marriage has long been the standard for starting a family, it is regarded as the cornerstone of society. However, the way families are formed is progressively evolving as society does. As societies have developed, unmarried cohabitation has also increased in many cultures. The following characteristics set modern families apart from the traditional family: more instances of “family behaviour” taking place outside of official, legal family structures; changes in authority structures and attitudes toward roles within the family; and increased fluidity, detachability, and interchangeability of family relationships.[1]
As evidenced by a rise in court cases and partly legislative recognition, India has also seen a steady increase in this alternative type of intimate partner connection. While the courts have typically addressed the female partner’s claim to maintenance in these circumstances, they have ordinarily said little about the partners’ property rights. In all welfare states, the right to own property is a fundamental human right.[2] Access to and ownership of property result in a meaningful existence since it gives one the ability to make decisions.[3] These choices pertain to the property’s usage and disposal. As a right in rem, when someone is the legitimate owner of a piece of property, everyone else is subject to the owner’s decisions.[4] Property rights should not be denied because doing so puts one in an inferior position to others. Subordination like this is incompatible with the idea of equality. Additionally, those with secured property rights have some protection against unfair exploitation as well.
However, in most jurisdictions, property obtained by cohabiting couples is not protected by statute. De facto unions and unmarried cohabitations are not legally recognised and frequently do not provide any legal privileges. Nonetheless, certain legal systems acknowledge de facto unions and grant them similar rights and obligations, which might differ in extent and complexity. Legal repercussions must be applied to property disputes in order to safeguard the weaker party. Women typically pay a higher price when a relationship ends and frequently do not benefit economically from family advantages on an equal basis with the other members. This is particularly noticeable when the state offers little to no financial security in the eventthat a partnership ends.[5] Thus, protecting the rights of unmarried cohabitating couples protects women’s rights in addition to human rights.
[1] Fineman M, Progress and progression in family Law, University of Chicago Legal Forum.,1(2004).
[2]BernanardFarncis Joseph Vaz and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Others (2025) INSC 3.
[3] Baker E, Property and its relation to constitutionally protected liberty, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 134(4) (1986).
[4] Thomas Erskine Holland. Elements of Jurisprudence,3rd ed (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press 1886).
[5] General Recommendation on Article 16, CEDAW, Para 23.