JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA :MR.

VK DIXIT

LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS:BLOT ON
YOUR MORALITY
for: COMPARATIVE
JURISPRIDENCE
MOHAMMAD AARIF

My morality Vs States Morality

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The Project deals with the issue of live in relationship with regard to the debate of morality
which is very common these days. However, law on this issue is not very clear either in India or
abroad. While case by case basis court is adumbrating the law with regard to live in
relationships, there are many questions that need to be answered. The rights guaranteed to
female live in partners along with the rights of child born out of such relationships ought to be
secured. However, it has to be kept in mind that when law is giving legal sanction to live in
relationships, it does not impede upon the institution of marriage as many a times men who get
into live in relationship is already married. If live in relationships are recognized prima facie
then it may implicitly promote bigamy. Law should have a discernible stance with respect to live
in relationships and the aftermath of such relations.

INTRODUCTION
Marriage in the Indian society has been considered as a sacred bond since the Vedic period. This
concept of matrimony has continuously evolved with time. With the ever-changing society and
human psychology, the concept of marriage and relationship has also evolved. The upcoming
generations are considering relationships ever more liberally. One such concept of live-in
relationships is being adopted by numerous couples around the world. The relationships where
two people cohabit outside marriage without any legal obligations towards each other are known
as live-in relationships. This is a relationship in the nature of marriage but unlike a marriage.
This concept has slowly paved its way in the Indian scenario as well. However, such
relationships are considered a taboo in the Indian society. Although the legal status of live in
relationships in India is unclear, the Supreme Court has ruled that any couple living together for
a long term will be presumed as legally married unless proved otherwise. Thus, the aggrieved
live-in partner can take shelter under the Domestic Violence Act 2005, which provides protection
and maintenance and thereby grant the right of alimony.
Difference between live-in relationship and marriage

Marriage, also called as matrimony or wedlock, is a socially/ritually recognized union or

contract between spouses that establishes certain rights and legal obligations towards each other.
Apart from maintenance under personal laws, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 also provides for maintenance inter alia a wife is unable to maintain herself. Women can
seek for additional maintenance apart from the maintenance received by her under any other law
as per Section 20(1)(d) of theProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act),
2005.
Live-in relationship in simple terms can be explained as a relationship in the nature of marriage
where both partners enjoy individual freedom and live in a shared household without being
married to each other. It involves continuous cohabitation between the parties without any
responsibilities or obligations towards one another. There is no law tying them together and
consequently either of the partners can walk out of the relationship, as and when, they will to do
so.
There is no legal definition of live in relationship and therefore the legal status of such type of
relationships is also unsubstantiated. The Indian law does not provide any rights or obligations
on the parties in live relationship. The status of the children born during such relationship is also
unclear and therefore, the court has provided clarification to the concept of live in relationships
through various judgments. The court has liberally professed that any man and women
cohabiting for a long term will be presumed as legally married under the law unless proved
contrary.

The right to maintenance in live in relationship is decided by the court in accordance with
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the individual facts of the case.
Though the common man is still hesitant in accepting this kind of relationship, the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, provides for the protection and maintenance thereby
granting the right of alimony to an aggrieved live-in partner.
Live in relationship form a characteristic feature and style of living of couples, especially those
in metropolitan areas. However, the definition and ambit of live in relationship is very unclear,
there is no specific legislation in India on this subject, and the laws are in the form of court
verdicts which varies from case to case.
The right of woman in such relationship is also not very certain, though court has shown
willingness in recognizing their rights. Law like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 recognizes right of woman in such relationship, nonetheless various other laws such as
law of marriage, succession etc. needs to be changed to give full protection to woman in live in
relationship. As far as the right of child born under such relationship is concerned, under Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 such child will be legal, nevertheless there is no such law apart from HMA,
and 1955 that endorses presumption of legality of child born out of live in relationship.
Though at global level as well, laws are not very clear on live in relationship, showing a common
theme of aloofness and hesitation amongst countries to recognize such relationships.
Nevertheless, as far as Indian scenario is concerned, there is a dire need to recognize such
relationship in form of a new legislation that will clearly dictate the ambit of live in relationship
and the rights and obligation of partners in such relationship.

FACETS OF LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS

The whole notion of live in relationship is not as simple as it appears but is multi-dimensional
bringing along with it many issues and complications.

Legal Status of Live-in Relationships

The legal status of such live in couples lacks a definition. The rights and obligation which such
couples have towards each other and the status of children born out of such a tie exudes a blurred
shadow. No law on the subject has been formulated; the law is adumbrated in the court rooms via
myriad cases. When it comes to live in relationships, in earlier cases the court tended to presume
marriage based on the number of years of cohabitation.
In the cases prior to independence like A Dinohamy v. WL Blahamy[1],1 the Privy Council laid
down a broad rule postulating that.Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived
together as a 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. The same principle was reiterated in the case of Mohabhat Ali v. Mohammad
Ibrahim Khan[2].
After independence the first case that can be reviewed is
Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation [3], wherein the Supreme Court for the first time
recognized live in relationships as valid marriage, putting a stop to questions raised by
authorities on the 50 years of life in relationship of a couple. . It was held by Justice Krishna Iyer
that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a
long term as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on
him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy
and frowns upon bastardy.
Moving on from the initial time when the court recognized live in relationship which were of
considerably long period, court in recent cases have postulated that live in relationship are not
illegal per se. The Allahabad High Court, in 2001,

11 (1928) 1 MLJ 388 (PC)2AIR 1929 PC 135

3

AIR 1978 SC 1557

in Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and others[4], stated that a live-in
relationship is not illegal. Sharma had approached the Allahabad High Court when she was
forced to live in Nari Niketan at Agra, following her arrest, along with Ramendra Singh, with
whom she had a live-in relationship. The Agra police arrested her and Singh on the basis of an
FIR lodged by her father, accusing Singh, an already married man, of kidnapping Sharma. Payal
Sharma produced documentary evidence evincing the fact that she was 21 years old. On the basis
of this evidence, the court directed the authorities to set her free. Justice M Katju and Justice
R.B. Mishra stated, 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.
In Patel and others case,[5] the Supreme Court observed that live- in relation between two
adults without a formal marriage cannot be construed as an offence. It also stated that there is no
such statute which postulates that live in relationships are illegal. The same proposition was
upheld in the case of
Tulsa v. Durghatiya 2008,[6] where the long term live in relationship was recognized as
equivalent to marriage. The Supreme Court provided legal status to the children born from live in
relationship. It was held that one of the crucial pre-conditions for a child born from live-in
relationship to not be treated as illegitimate are that the parents must have lived under one roof
and co-habited for a considerably long time for society to recognize them as husband and wife
and it must not be a "walk in and walk out" relationship. Therefore, the court also granted the
right to property to a child born out of a live in relationship.

The further sanction to live in relationship was granted by judgement of Supreme Court on
23rd of March, 2010 in the Khushboo case[7]2. The case of the prosecution was that the
comment of the actress Khushboo allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex will adversely affect the

24 2001 (3) AWC 17785 (2006) 8 SCC 726

6

(2008) 4 SCC 520

JT 2010 (4) SC 478

moral fabric of society. The Court, while quashing the charges framed on Khushboo, commented
that there is no law that prohibits pre-marital relationships. A three judge bench comprising of
Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B.S. Chauhan observed,
When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence?
Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence. The court further said Please tell us
what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life, thereby referring
to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Though this was an obiter dictum, it provided a
positive impetus to live in relationships.
However, this position is not all binding. The Delhi High Court, in a recent case, observed that a
live in relationship is a walk in and walk out relationship. Justice S.N. Dhingra noted, There are
no legal strings attached to this relationship nor does this relationship create any legal-bond
between the partners. The court further added, People who choose to have live-in relationship
cannot complain 3of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been
between a married man and unmarried woman or vice-versa[8]4\

D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal on 21 October, 2010

In our opinion a `relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law
marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married :(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being
unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being
akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
38 Alok Kumar v. State Crl.M.C.No. 299/20099Criminal Appeal Nos. 2028-2029 of 2010

Indian society is changing, and this change has been reflected and recognized by Parliament by
enacting The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Hence, though more or less uniformity has been exuded in a positive direction by the court when
it comes to live in relationships, the law does not cut a clear picture as can be observed from the
recent Delhi High Court judgement.

Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V.Sarma, 2013[5]

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court has illustrated five categories where the concept of
live in relationships can be considered and proved in the court of law. Following are the
categories:
1. Domestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female, both unmarried. It is
the most uncomplicated sort of relationship
2. Domestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried woman, entered
knowingly.
3. Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married woman, entered
knowingly. Such relationship can lead to a conviction under Indian Penal Code for the
crime of adultery
4. Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married male, entered
unknowingly
5. Domestic relationship between same sex partners ( gay or lesbian)
The Court stated that a live-in relationship will fall within the expression relationship in the
nature of marriage under Section 2(f) of the Protection of women Against Domestic Violence
Act,2005 and provided certain guidelines to get an insight of such relationships. Also, there
should be a close analysis of the entire relationship, in other words, all facets of the interpersonal
relationship need to be taken into account, including the individual factors.
The Court in this case affirmed that the relationship in the present case is not a relationship in
the nature of marriage because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a
relationship other than in the nature of marriage and the appellants status is lower than the
status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of domestic
relationship under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. In this case, the appellant admittedly entered into
a relationship with the respondent despite of knowing that the respondent was a married man
with two children born out of the wedlock who opposed the live in relationship since the

inception. The Court further added, If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and
the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the
legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act,
omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of
relationship, would not amount to domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act, as there is
also no evidence of a live-in relationship between the appellant and the respondent as per the
given guidelines. The Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent
was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, and the status of the appellant was that of a
concubine. Furthermore, the Domestic Violence Act does not take care of such relationship
which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of section 2(f) of the DV Act, which
is restrictive and exhaustive.

Status of child born under a live in relationship

When it comes to the right of child born under live in relationship, we again find the law to be
groping in the dark. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the status of legitimacy to every child,
irrespective of birth out of a void, voidable or valid marriage. However, they dont have property
and maintenance rights. However, there is no such presumption of legality of child in any other
religion or law, in such cases, legality of the child born out of such relationship is doubtful.
Another important matter that needs to be taken note of is that, if the live in partners and the
parents desire to get out of the relationship, the future of the child comes into question. There
must be a provision to secure the right of the child, in case; none of the parent wants to keep the
child with him. Court may appoint a guardian to look after the interest of child. The child ought
to be entitled to have share, both in mothers and fathers property.

Protection of Rights of Female Partner in Live in Relationships

The rights of female partner in live in relationship tend to be secure, credited to the recent
statutes and recommendation by the committees. Courts also display alacrity to protect the right
of female partner in such relationship as exhibited by judgements given in number of cases. The
statutes like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects woman both in the
categories of wife i.e. relationship by marriage and live-in partner i.e. relationship in nature of
marriage[9], by reason of being embraced within the term domestic relationship under Section

2(f) of the Act. However as was discussed in D. Veluswami v. D. Patchaimmal[10]5, to get the
benefits arising from relationship like marriage, it is necessary that, couple must hold
themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, they must be of legal age to marry, they must
be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried, they must have
voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a
significant period of time.
In June, 2008, The National Commission for Women recommended to Ministry of Women and
Child Development made suggestion to include live in female partners for the right of
maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. This view was supported by the judgement in Abhijit
Bhikaseth Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and Others[11]. The positive opinion in favour of live
in relationship was also seconded by Maharashtra Government in October, 2008 when it
accepted the proposal made by Malimath Committee and Law Commission of India which
suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time, she ought
to enjoy the legal status as given to wife. However, recently it was observed that it is divorced
wife who is treated as a wife in context of Section 125 of CrPC and if a person has not even been
married i.e. the case of live in partners, they cannot be divorced, and hence cannot claim
maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.[12]

The Apex Court even went on to protect the live in female partner from harassment for dowry.
In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P[13], the defendant used to harass his live
in partner for dowry. In the Supreme Court, Justice Arjit Pasyat and A.K. Ganguly while denying
the contention of defendant that section 498A does not apply to him since he was not married to
his live in partner held that, the nomenclature dowry does not have any magical charm written
over it. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship.
510Supra, note 911 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2218 OF 2007
12

Supra, note 9

13

SLP (Crl.) No. 4496 of 2006

Drawing parallels with the law which recognizes the legitimacy of children born of void and
voidable marriages, it explained its stand asking: Can a person who enters into a marital
agreement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no
valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise?

An important observation to be noted here is that to recognize the right of female partners in live
in relationship and consequently the protection granted via some statutes will have to be
accompanied by changes in laws of succession, adoption, marriage as well if we move in the
direction of legalisation of such relationship. Another point to be taken note of is that recourse to
such relationship was taken to circumvent the obligations, bondage and legality attached with
marriage. Bringing in such limitations and obligations even without the formal shroud of
marriage will run contrary to the whole idea of freedom and liberty associated with live in
relation.

LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Live in relationships in various countries are either recognized as it exists or its finding
recognition via implied provisions of different statutes that protect property rights, housing
rights. Many countries provide for live in relationship contracts in which partners can determine
their legal rights. However, when it comes to the right of child born under such relationship, law
of various countries exudes a uniform tenor of protecting their rights.

FRANCE, there is the provision of Civil Solidarity Pacts known as pacte civil de
solidarite or PaCS, passed by the French National Assembly in October 1999 that allows
couples to enter into a union by signing before a court clerk. The contract binds two adults of
different sexes or of the same sex, in order to organise their common life and allows them to
enjoy the rights accorded to married couples in the areas of income tax, housing and social
welfare. The contract can be revoked unilaterally or bilaterally after giving the partner, three
months notice in writing.

PHILIPPINES, live in relationship couples right to each others property is governed by coownership rule. Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a
woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be
owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or
industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.14

UNITED KINGDOM, live in couples does not enjoy legal sanction and status as granted to
married couple. There is no obligation on the partners to maintain each other. Partners do not
have inheritance right over each others property unless named in their partners will. As per a
2010 note from the Home Affairs Section to the House of Commons, unmarried couples have no
guaranteed rights to ownership of each others property on breakdown of relationship. However,
the law seek to protect the right of child born under such relationship. Both parents have the onus
of bringing up their children irrespective of the fact that whether they are married or
cohabiting [15].

SCOTLAND,The live in relation were conferred legal sanctity in the year 2006 by Family
Law (Scotland) Act. Section 25 (2) of the Act postulates that a court of law can consider a person
as a co-habitant of another by checking on three factors; the length of the period during which
they lived together, the nature of the relationship during that period and the nature and extent of
any financial arrangements, in case of breakdown of such relationship, Section 28 of the Act
gives a cohabitant the right to apply in court for financial support. This is in case of separation
and not death of either partner. If a partner dies intestate, the survivor can move the court for
financial support from his estate within 6 months[16].
Laws in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as well do not provide the live in
relationship couple with the rights as enjoyed by married couple. Nonetheless, couple can enter
into Cohabitation Agreement containing stipulation with regards to their rights and liabilities.

CANADA recognizes live in relationship as Common Law Marriage. The couple is accorded
legal sanction if the couple has been living in conjugal relationship for a year or the couple is
parents of a child born by birth or adoption[17].

In CHINA, couple can sign a contract for live in relationship. The rights of the child are
secured as the child born outside the wedlock has the same benefits as enjoyed by the child born
under a marriage[18].6
The laws of IRELAND AND AUSTRALIA also recognizes live in relationship. The
family law of Australia recognizes de facto relationship between couples, while in Ireland the
impetus is towards greater recognition to live in relationship as there has been demand for right
to maintenance by separated live in couples.
The position that emerges with respect to live in relationships is not very discernible and lacks a
definition in majority of the countries. While some countries have passed legislation according
legal status to live in couples, some countries are granting greater legality to such couples by the
implied provision of their statutes as discussed. In India as well, via various decisions of the
court, law is exhibiting a tendency of giving legal tinge to live in relationships.
Nevertheless, the fact remains; the legal progress of laws with respect to live in relationship and
the sweeping increase in number of such live in relationships are not running parallel to each
other. The law needs to whiz up to prescribe and proscribe speculation with respect to live in
relations.

615Love live-ins Man-Woman Relationships Life & Style The Times of

India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Love-liveins/articleshow/6386392.cms#ixzz0xKIknHki (last visited on 23rd August)
16

http://airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1266(last visited on 22nd august)

17

Supra

18

Supra, note 14

LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIAN SOCIO-LEGAL CONTEXTCRITICAL ANALYSIS

The manifold augmentation in the number of live in relationship couples in India may exude the
new metropolitan tenor and bondage free living but also has umpteen lacunae.
While it threatens the very notion of husband and wife and the cognition of marriage that enjoys
high level of sanctity when it comes to India, it also tends to prop up adultery, as there is no such
proscription that live in partners should be unmarried. Thus, a person might be married and be
living with someone else under the garb of live in relationship.
Live-in relationships also endorse bigamy. For instance Payal Katara v. Superintendent Nari
Niketan Kandri Vihar Agra and Others.197 here Rajendra Prasad, the person with whom plaintiff
was living in was already married. While the court recognized the right of cohabitation of the
plaintiff, what about the right of the wife of the person with whom plaintiff was cohabiting. The
question that seeks an answer with the elevation of live in relationship is what will be the status
of wife, if a person who is in live in relationship is already married as law also seek to protect the
right of live in partner under statutes like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005. The recommendations of Law Commission, Malimath Committee is to recognize live in
partner as wife in case of live in relationship of reasonably long time. The attitude of Apex Court
towards such relation also evinces their alacrity in recognising live in relationships. Along with
these, the suggestions to include live in female partner under the provision given in Section 125
of CrPC ends up equating the status of live in female partner and wife.
This promotes bigamy, as the person who is getting into live in relationship might be already
married. The position of the wife is disadvantageous in such situation as court on the one hand is
giving all the rights of wife to live in female partner, while on the other hand it prohibits bigamy.
Law is ambiguous and disadvantageous for the weaker sex and is not being beneficial to anyone.
While 89the right of legally wedded wife remains at stake, the right of live in female partner too
does not become secure.
719 Supra, note 5

Even if rights of maintenance etc are provided to the live in female partner, there is no guarantee
that she can actually avail those rights. Marriages grant social recognition, but there is no proof
of live in relationship; a person can easily deny the fact of live in relationship to evade liability.
In sum and substance the rights of woman remains precarious.
When we talk about the after math of a live in relationship, the rights and liabilities of partners is
deficient of delineation. What will be the rights and liabilities of such partners after separation or
the death of one of the partner. There is no law of succession and maintenance that mentions the
stipulation that protects the right of such live in couples.
The children born under such relationship, although are recognized under Hindu Marriage Act,
1955; however, it is submitted that the couples who tend to disobey the socially recognized
social tenor cannot be supposed to be people of only one religion or to be the one professing
Hinduism. In fact, many a time, because of familys opposition to inter-religion and inter-racial
marriage, couple prefers to get into live in relationship and hence forth circumventing family
objection.
Such relationships are fragile and can be dissolved any moment, there is no obligation and
bondage, legal position with respect to live in relationship does not portray a discernible image.
Live in relationship sponsor bigamy and adultery while posing a threat to the entire fabric
weaved out of values and morals on which the Indian Society stands.

THE PRESENT NEED

The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture keeping in mind the
present social context along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that characterises
Indian society.
While the court in few cases granted the status of married couple to live in couple, in some cases
court held that live in relationship does not cast any obligation on the couple, as the whole idea

of live in relationship is to evade such bondage, evincing a penchant towards an obligation less,
free society.
Nonetheless, another thought that seek attention is that if the law lobs same kind of obligation
with respect to maintenance and succession as exist in the institution of marriage, then why will
a couple prefer to get into a live in relationship, when the basis of getting into live in relationship
is to evade all bondages and entanglement. A different point to be observed is that, if the rights
under live in relationships and marriage are equated, it will bring in conflict the rights of wife if
the person who is in relationship is already married and the rights of live in partner, secondly this
will make the circumventing of liability much easier and matters more complicated by shuffling
between the rights and liability under marriage- live in relationship and will lead to entanglement
in judicial meanders if judicial discourse is taken.
Outside the legal arena, live in relationship also faces the social speculation; the tenor of live in
relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area, however, when we look at the masses
that define India, live in relationship does not find consensus of majority and is accused of
tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality.
Hence, as we observed many questions with respect to live in relationship remains unanswered.
On the one hand it faces speculation from society and secondly legal status of live in relationship
evinces contingency. The more clear approach and attitude of law and the changing time and
stance of society will determine the future of live in relationship. Laws should be made by the
parliament, which should keep a check on the practice of evading bondages.
Live in relationships should be granted legal status after specific period of its existence,
providing the partners as well as the child born out of such relationship with all the legal rights of
maintenance, succession, inheritance as available to a married couple and their legitimate
offspring, also securing their rights after the dissolution of such relationship due to break up or

death of one of the partner. The guidelines given in D. Veluswami v. D. Patchaimmal[2]10} is

worth noting in this context and should be followed. Since, proving de facto live in relationship
is difficult, the burden of proof should be relaxed, so that the rights that are conferred upon
partners, specifically female live in partner [21] can be availed. However, if the person in live in
relationship is already married, then live in relationship should be considered as the second
marriage, hence an offence of bigamy. This will ensure the rights and privileges in live in
relationship without possessing any threat to the institution of marriage. A good legal system
always tends to adapt to the gradual social changes. As such, the law cannot grope in dark, when
the number of live in couples is increasing tremendously. The rights of live in couples should be
legally recognized while ensuring that it does not impede upon the system of marriage.

CONCLUSION
Thus, the legal status of live-in relationships in India has been evolved and determined by
theSupreme Court in its various judgments. and provides legality to this concept. Though the
concept of live-in relationship is considered immoral by the society, but is definitely not illegal in
the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court states that living together is a right to life and therefore it
cannot be held illegal. The court has also tried to improve the conditions of the women and
children borne out of live in relationships by defining their status under the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 if the relationship is proved to be relationship in the nature of marriage. In a recent
case of May 5th, 2015, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A M
Sapre, dismissed a petition by the petitioner Z who worked in the Bollywood and contended
that the respondent could not claim the status of a wife to be legally entitled to get
maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that cohabitation of a couple

1020Supra, note 1021 Rights specific to female live in partner such as right under Domestic Violence
Act, 2005

would give rise to the presumption of a valid marriage and if a live in relationship breaks down,
the man is bound to pay maintenance to the women.
In the landmark Indra Sharma Case, the Court stated that such relationship may endure for a long
time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such
relationships, calls for adequate and effective protection, especially to the woman and children
born out of that live-in-relationship. Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex,
though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their
opinion, for and against. Thus the Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper
legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children, born out of
such kinds of relationships are protected, though such relationship might not be a relationship in
the nature of a marriage
Law on this issue is not very clear either in India or abroad. While case by case basis court is
adumbrating the law with regard to live in relationships, there are many questions that need to be
answered. The rights guaranteed to female live in partners along with the rights of child born out
of such relationships ought to be secured. However, it has to be kept in mind that when law is
giving legal sanction to live in relationships, it does not impede upon the institution of marriage
as many a times men who get into live in relationship is already married. If live in relationships
are recognized prima facie then it may implicitly promote bigamy. Law should have a discernible
stance with respect to live in relationships and the aftermath of such relations.
Outside the legal arena, live in relationship also faces the social speculation; the tenor of live in
relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area, however, when we look at the masses
that define India, live in relationship does not find consensus of majority and is accused of
tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality.
Hence, as we observed many questions with respect to live in relationship remains unanswered.
On the one hand it faces speculation from society and secondly legal status of live in relationship
evinces contingency. The more clear approach and attitude of law and the changing time and
stance of society will determine the future of live in relationship. Laws should be made by the
parliament, which should keep a check on the practice of evading bondages.

As per various Judgments given by Supreme court and various others court, live in relationships
should be granted legal status after specific period of its existence, providing the partners as well
as the child born out of such relationship with all the legal rights of maintenance, succession,
inheritance as available to a married couple and their legitimate offspring, also securing their
rights after the dissolution of such relationship due to break up or death of one of the partner.
Since, proving de facto live in relationship is difficult, the burden of proof should be relaxed, so
that the rights that are conferred upon partners, specifically female live in partner can be availed.
This will ensure the rights and privileges in live in relationship without possessing any threat to
the institution of marriage. A good legal system always tends to adapt to the gradual social
changes. As such, the law cannot grope in dark, when the number of live in couples is increasing
tremendously. The rights of livein relationships should be given legal sanctity.
The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture keeping in mind the
present social context along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that characterizes
Indian society.
And lastly we can say that Change is the need of the hour and the social nd moral ethics need
to be evolved and as when our legal system allows for the same our society must broaden our
mind and must accept the change for good and must move ahead with new and refreshed
thinking and Values and accept the concept of live in Reelationship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books : Gaur Sanjay, Live-in-Relationship, Yking Books,2011.
Mahendra Singh Adil & Rajiv Raheja, Legal and Social Ramification of Live-in
Relationship in India, Jain Book Agency, 2011
Magoo Ish Kumar, Law of Maintenance & Child Custody (Grant & Refusal),Capital Law
House,2005
Mathur Vivek, Live-in Relationship Sex & Beyond, Gyan Publishing House,2011
Articles: Live-In Relationship : A Comparative Approach -Parul Solanki Sharma
Live In Relationship- Review And Analysis -By Srishti Aishwarya