ABSTRACT

The “live- in-relationship‟ is a living arrangement in which a un-married couple lives together
in a long-term relationship that resembles a marriage. “Live-in-relationship” is neither recognized
by The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 nor by The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, nor by The
Indian Succession Act 1925. The expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” which is
included within the definition of “domestic relationship” has not clearly been defined in the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). However, a child born out
of “relationship in the nature of marriage” is not entitled to claim its share in ancestral
coparcener property but is entitled only to claim its share in self acquired property of its parents.

In many big metro cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore etc live-in relationships have become
common although in many parts of the country it is still considered as a taboo which was right since
from British period. It is not considered as a proscribed act in the cities but still in villages the idea
is more conservative. If these kind of relationships are seen in any rural areas it would mean
inviting trouble by the couple, as it is considered wrongful act in the rural places where a man and
woman to live under same roof without getting married. 1 In India, live-in relationship is not
considered illegal but it is immoral. 2 The main issue concerned in this area is there are no
legislations regarding this subject. No legislation lies so as to define the rights and obligations as to
the parties to a live-in relationship. In absence of any law on the subject with regard to inheritance
and succession of property left behind by the partners without, courts have come forward to clarify
the concept of live-in. In the recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of
people opting for live-in relationship as a substitute for marriage. This very trend has been well
accepted in western countries since long but the concept is gearing up in India as well. In a severely
hectic and stressful life of today, people do not have the patience to deal with emotional issues that
a marriage entails. The partners are well aware about what they are in for and if the relationship
does not work out, they can leave anytime. There are no legal and financial impediments in such a
relationship unlike a marriage where splitting up is not so easy. As of now there exists no law on
this subject. However, some case laws of the Apex court as well as that of different High Courts of
India with regard to live-in relationship and its legal and social sanctity has been discussed in this
dissertation.
Key Words: Live-in relationship, Taboo, Immoral, Inheritance, Marriage, Child born out of a
“Relationship in the nature of marriage”, Indian Judiciary, “live- in- relationship”, Maintenance etc.

1
Live in relationships in India (http://www.vakilno1.com/legalviews/live-relationship-india-closer-look.html)
2
Payal Katara vs. Superintendant, Nari Niketan and others, AIR 2002 at pt.226

1
 INTRODUCTION

In India marriage has always been considered a sacrament. The husband and wife are
considered as one in the eyes of law. The legal consequences of marriage that follow add to the
sanctity of this relationship. Marriage legally entitles both the persons to cohabit; the children born
out of a legal wedlock are the legitimate children of the couple; the wife is entitled to maintenance
during the subsistence of marriage and even after the dissolution of marriage and many more. The
benefits of marriage come with a lot of responsibilities. The marital obligations towards the spouse,
towards the family, towards the children and towards the marital house are an inseparable part of
the Indian marriage. To avoid the obligations of a traditional marriage and on the other hand to
enjoy the benefit of cohabiting together, the concept of live in relation has come into picture. Live
in relationships provide for a life free from responsibility and commitment which is an essential
element of marriage. The concept of live in relationships is not new to the Indian society, the only
difference is that earlier people were hesitant in declaring their status may be due to the fear of the
society but now the people are openly in this kind of relationship.

A new trend is fast emerging in the society all over the world where two adults of opposite
sex giving a complete go by to the institution of marriage decide to live together which almost
resembles a marriage. Agreement between the partners is the essence of such relationship. It also
provides lesser responsibility and obligations amongst the partners unlike a marriage. Young
generation across the world are increasingly opting for such relationship called a live-in relationship
which is primarily meant for satisfying the biological need of each other and also to get a long term
companionship.

A Live-in Relationship is an arrangement where a heterosexual couple lives together, without

entering into a formal relationship called marriage. It is an informal arrangement between intended
parties, although some countries allow registration of such arrangements between the couples.
People generally choose to enter into such consensual arrangements either to test compatibility
before marriage, or if they are unable to legally marry or simply because it does not involve the
hassles of a formal marriage. It may also be that couples in live-in relationship see no benefit or
value offered by the institution of marriage or that their financial situation prevent them from being
married on account of marriage expenses. Whatever be the reason, it is quite clear that even in a
traditional society, where the institution of marriage is considered to be “Sacred”, an increasing
number of couples choose a live-in relationship, sometimes even a permanent arrangement over the
marriage. In such situations, various social, economic and legal issues has arisen and continued to

2
do so. Live- in relationship is a living arrangement in which unmarried couples live together in a
long term relationship which exactly resembles a marriage. It is not that couples reside together
only for the sake of living together to get a partner with whom they can share their every emotion
and feeling but also to satisfy their biological desires. In other words, it can be said that live-in
relationship is an arrangement where two people who are not married live together in an intimate
relationship, particularly on a long-term or sometimes on a permanent basis.3

The origin of live-in relationship can be traced out with the western countries where it is a
proven fact that more than two-thirds of the married couples lived together before getting married.
According to some couples, testing of compatibility is the most important agenda before
committing a legal union.

Live-in relationship has now been used as an alternative of marriage but it is not seriously so.
It has been termed as a cohabitation of two people not necessarily of the opposite sex but they may
also be of the same sex. Now-a-days, people particularly younger generation is becoming more
materialistic than before and there has been manifold degradation of moral values and emotional
bonding amongst partners. No single partner is prepared to take up the responsibility of the other
partner and be committed to him or her for a lifetime.

The law traditionally has been biased in favor of marriage. Public policy supports marriage as
necessary to the stability of the family, the basic societal unit. To preserve and encourage marriage,
the law reserves many rights and privileges to married persons. Cohabitation carries none of those
rights and privileges. It has been said that cohabitation has all of the headaches of marriage without
any of the benefits. Cohabiting couples have little guidance as to their legal rights in such areas as
property ownership, responsibility for debts, custody and access to healthcare and other benefits
like survivorship.4

Elderly men and women who have lost a partner or got divorced are finding companionship in
live-in relationships. The worst possible trauma is being left alone in the world without a soul to
share the heart's innermost cares, that too in the age when one may need a companion the most. It is
becoming a norm in today's society where men or women who lost a partner or have got divorced
are choosing live-in relationships more than younger couples.
Experts in family law advise that live-in partners should address all their issues and essentials

3
En.eikipedia.org/wiki/cohabitation
4
Legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

3
in a written agreement which resembles a premarital agreement. In the agreement, points should be
outlined about how the couple will divide their expenses and own property. It should be clearly
mentioned in the agreement by the couples residing as live-in partners, they will maintain joint bank
accounts or it will be separate. Regarding their property, it should be well mentioned in the
agreement that how the assets will be distributed which will be jointly owned by the live-in partners.

This Dissertation analysis live-in relationship and its impact on marriage and family
institutions and also the law relating to matrimonial and proprietary rights of live-in partners besides
the duties and obligations of live-in partners.

 DIFFERENTIATIONS

It is important at the outset, to differentiate live-in relationships from other similar cohabitations.

a) A “mistress” (paramour or lover) refers to a man's long term female sexual partner and
companion, with whom he has intimate relations while married to another woman. The relationship
is semi-permanent and generally secret. The man may pay for some of the woman's living expenses,
or provide her with an allowance. However, they do not live together, as in the case of a live-in
relationship. But the area of differentiation as regards rights is a gray area, as Courts sometimes
grant a mistress similar rights to as if she were a live-in partner.

b) A “concubine” refers to a woman who cohabits with a man, in addition to his official wife. The
practice of keeping concubines was followed by many Asian, Arab and European rulers. Their
status is lower than that of the official wife and they hence enjoy limited rights. It was an
involuntary and servile practice and is regarded as a form of ‘sexual slavery.’ In Hindu Law, these
women were known as ‘Avarudha Stris.’ 3
These are clearly different from women in live-in
relationships, who generally enter into the relationship voluntarily. Live-in relationships also need
not solely be for the purpose of sexual relations as with concubines.

c) “Cohabitants” is synonymous to live-in partners.5

5
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/cohabitation

4
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

 OBJECT OF STUDY-
There are many objective of this project is to evaluate the status of live in relationship and what is
role of the live in relationship in the social transformation?
1) The foremost important issue of live in relationship which is very common these days.

However law on this issue is not clear in India. There are many questions that need to be answered.
Marriage, whether considered as a contract or sacrament, confers a status of husband and wife on
the parties to the marriage, of legitimacy on the children of the marriage, and gives rise to certain
spousal mutual rights and obligations of spouses.
2) To critically analyze the rights guaranteed to female live in partners along with the rights of child
born out of such relationships. If live in relationships are recognized prima facie then it may
implicitly promote bigamy. The rights of women in live in relationship is not certain, the article
focused on the rights of women in such relationship.

3) To analyse the socio-legal aspect of Live in relationship.

4) To study the Judicial approach towards live in relationship.

5) To study the status of live in relationship in other countries.

6) To make recommendations.

Through this project the researcher aims to provide the reader with a detailed socio-legal
study of live-in relationships and its impact on marriage institutions and also analyzed the law
relating to matrimonial and proprietary rights of live-in partners besides the duties and obligation of
live in partners. The researcher has also compared the status of live-in relationship with the status of
married couples and status of children born out of live in relationship as well in this project.

Within the scope of this project the researcher will discuss the topic in detail with all social
and legal issues and implication, the impact of live-ins on marriage institution has been highlighted.
Due to paucity of space and relevant research material, not all case laws have been cited, but only
the important ones.

5
THE NEED FOR LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

Today when values and traditions are facing the dead end and marriages are being dissolved
rapidly, the young mass have developed a sense of distrust in this institution which was once upon a
time considered to be an eternal union. In this materialistic world, marriages are hardly made for the
union of two souls but more of it is a unity between two families where there is accomplishment of
business and financial goals. Live In is the answer for that fake pompousness and the great facade a
traditional Indian marriage puts in front of the society. And it’s considered better to be in “being
together without commitment to marry” relationship than a dead marriage, which many youngsters
witness in their families.

There are children who are born and brought up in nuclear families and sometimes by a single
parent. They are oblivious of the institution of marriage and are of the opinion that if any way they
get into a wedlock, they may or may not be committed to that marriage rather it becomes a way for
them that if they could not continue with their partner they can easily slither away and live single
again as there are no compulsions to continue. They can have physical pleasures with their partner
and apart from it a support for each other can also be achieved.

There can be many other reasons which may raise the need for a live-in relationship. In this
glitzy busy world with varied arenas for both boys and girls, none of the genders are willing to
sacrifice their freedom for the sake of the institution called marriage. Their life options has become
so attractive that they can pursue trendy courses like wildlife photography, fashion designing, space
study, journalism, animation etc. apart from traditional professions like medical, engineering and
government jobs. All these careers pressurize the youth to achieve their goals and so these people
have no patience to listen to any person who is likely to hinder their way of success.
In this ostentatious world, where there is so much to do, marriage seems to have taken a
backseat as young people first want to make it in their careers. They don't wish to be saddled with
possessive spouses, duties of a householder or having to deal with adjustment issues. Girls are
afraid of losing their freedom even as boys ponder over the age-old conundrum: how they can be
true to one woman for the rest of their lives?

When it is talked about live-in relationship, sex cannot be considered the prime reason for it.
As in the changing society, young masses have started living an independent life after getting a
graduation degree. They don’t live with their parents and try to lead a life made of their own and of
their own efforts. For these people, pre-marital sex is a common thing and since no laws are being

6
implemented in this field they find it easy to skid away from their partner. After being in a pre-
marital relationship, when they get to know that there is nothing like a “so-called responsibility”,
they are not reluctant in continuing it. Divorce is common all around, it could well be happening to
the parents of their friends, and it seems to frighten them. If marriage is an institution, we don't want
to spend our life in one, they say.

Cohabitation is a common pattern among the people of the Western world. As according to a
survey, it was observed that more than two-thirds of the married couples in the United States have
lived together before getting married. In 1994, there were 3.7 million cohabiting couples in the
United States. But before 1970, live-ins or cohabitation was illegal in the United States. According
to the U.S. Census, "the number of unmarried couples living together increased tenfold from 1960
to 2000."6 Nowadays, it is seen as a normal step in the dating process. In fact, "cohabitation is
increasingly becoming the first co-residential union formed among young adults."

The reasons for being in a live-in relationship can be many. The primary reason may be to
save money. They can share the same household and so the partner who is in the need of a house
can save the same amount of money as house rents are at their heights in metropolitan areas. Many
people are again of the view that it is very difficult to pay for a wedding as they have lower incomes.
And certainly they would not waste their hard earned money on marriage if it were to end in a
divorce. Rather they find it easy to continue with their partner without getting into the institution.
Some other people say that they continue to be live-in partners as because spending more time
together helps them to test their relationship.

Live-ins sometimes called a de facto 7 marriage is becoming more commonly known as a

substitute for conventional marriage. In some states which recognize it, live-in relationship can be
viewed legally as “common law marriages”8, either after the duration of a specified period, or if
the couple consider and behave accordingly as husband and wife. This helps provide the surviving
partner a legal basis for inheriting the deceased's belongings in the event of the death of their live-in
partner. In such relationships, forty percent of households include children, giving us an idea of how
live-ins could be considered a new normative type of family dynamic.

6
Kramer, Elise (Sept/Oct 2004). “Cohabitation: Just a Phase?”. Psychology Today 37:28
7
Cohabitation - Trends and patterns, Reasons for Cohabitation, Meaning of Cohabitation, Consequences of
Cohabitation, Conclusion. Net Industries.
8
Solot Dorian, “Common Law Marriage Fact Sheet”, unmarried.com

7
LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS AND ITS IMPACT ON THE SOCIETY AND

LEGALITY OF MARRIAGE

“With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, including ours, what was illegitimate
in the past may be legitimate today.”

– Honourable Justice A.K. Ganguly in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun9

A relationship of a man with a women in legal parlance is legitimate if is based on proper

marriage and illegitimate if not as per Marriage Laws. 10 The live in relationship is a living
arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles
a marriage. In every day parlance, it is cohabitation. 11 The basic idea of conducting a live in
relationship is that the interested couple wants to test their compatibility for each other before going
for some commitment.12 It may also be that couples in live-in relationships see no benefit or value
offered by the institution of marriage or that their financial situation prevents them from being
married on account of marriage expenses. Whatever the reason, it is quite clear that in a traditional
society,13 where the institution of marriage is considered to be 'sacred',14 an increasing number of
couples choose a live-in relationship, sometimes even as a permanent arrangement, over marriage.
In such situations, various social, economic and legal issues have arisen and continue to do so. 15
This article analyzes the impact of live in relationships on marriage and family institutions. It also
aims at comparing the status of live in relationships with the status of married couples with the help
of judicial decisions in India. It argues that it is difficult to fit the concept of live in relationships
within personal laws governing the institution of marriage and legitimacy of children.
We trapped tendency of live in relationship from the west but still our strong social norms
do not allow us to follow this move smoothly. A fragment of our society, especially some orthodox
groups and social activists continuously oppose living together without marriage.
Social trends always do favor of marriage. Our law too provides many rights and privileges
to married persons. There can be a number of reasons for why a couple decides to go in live in

9
2011(2) UJ 1342 (SC)
10
Mulla, Sunderlal T Desai, Principles of Hindu Law, State Mutual Book & Periodical services, Limited, ed. 16,1990
11
“live together and have a sexual relationship without being marriage”, Catherine Soanes, Oxford English Dictionary,
Oxford University Press, 7th ed. 2007
12
Prof. Vijender Kumar, Live-in Relationship: Impact on Marriage and Family Indtitutions, (2012) 4 SCC J-19 at p. J-
19
13
Surjit S. Gill, Sikhs in sabah and Labuan: A Historical Perspective, Labuan Sikh Society,2003
14
Prof. Vijender Kumar, Live-in Relationship: Impact on Marriage and Family Indtitutions, (2012) 4 SCC J-19 at p. J-
19
15
Prof. Vijender Kumar, Live-in Relationship: Impact on Marriage and Family Indtitutions, (2012) 4 SCC J-19 at p. J-
19

8
relationship rather going for marriage. A couple may want to check their compatibility before
marriage, or they may wish to uphold their single status for any reasons.
Sometimes partners see live in relationship as a way to lead a liberal life because it lacks
dedication and responsibility that marriage demands. Walking out of a live-in relationship is much
easier than going out of a marriage. Today's metro life and modern lifestyle also support these
relationships. The individuals engaged in this kind of arrangements feel more freedom in their
relationships. Living with a partner to whom you are not married in a live in relationship involves
risk as the level of commitment is not at its full potential.
Live in relationship has always been the focus of debates and discussions as it is challenging
our fundamental societal system. To encourage marriages, Government has reserved many rights
for the married people. Although live in relationship is not considered as an offense but there is no
law until the date that prohibits this kind of relationship. Courts often refused to make any kind of
obligatory agreements between these unmarried couples as this could go against the public policy.
It should not be denied that our culture does need a legislature to regulate relationships
which are likely to grow in number with changes in the ideology of people. The right time has come
that efforts should be made to enact a law having clear provisions with regard to the time span
required to give status to the relationship, registration and rights of parties and children born out of
it.
In Lata Singh v/s. State of U.P. and another, the Court itself notices that what law sees as no
crime may still be immoral. It has said that two consenting adults engaging in sex
is not an offence in law “even though it may be perceived as immoral.”
Of course, such protective sanctions may potentially lead to complications that could otherwise be
avoided. But simply raising the hammer may not be the best route to taming the bold and the brave.
This is not the first time live-in relationship is in the ambit of debates and discussions. There has
been a long-standing controversy whether a relationship between a man and a woman living together without
marriage can be recognised by law. With changing social hypothesis entering the society, in most
places, it is legal for unmarried people to live together. Now even in a country like India bounded
by innumerable cultural ethics and rites, the law finds legally nothing wrong in live-in relationships.
This, however, cannot be construed that law promotes such relationships. Law traditionally has
been biased in favour of marriage. It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to
preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. Such stands, in particular cases of live-in
relationship, it appears that, by and large, is based on the assumption that they are not between
equals and therefore women must be protected by the courts from the patriarchal power that defines
marriage, which covers these relatAionships too.

9
POSITION ON LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA

The custom of men and women living together without marriage has been in practice for
millenniums. Since ancient times, the nawabs, princes and wealthy men in India not only had
several wives, but also several live-in women in their zenanas. 16 It was not at all considered
‘immoral’ for men to have live-in relationships with women outside their marriage.17 Concubines
(avarudh stris) were kept for the man’s entertainment and relaxation. Following independence, as
society matured, bigamy was outlawed and women became more aware of their rights. This practice
thus died out.
The last few decades has however seen the advent of a new form of “live-ins”, where men
and women cohabit together without entering into marriage. The traditional Indian society however
disapproved of such ‘living in’ arrangements, for several reasons. Firstly, society revered the
institution of marriage. An Indian woman was expected to remain a virgin till she married, but a
live-in relationship contradicted this tradition. 18 Secondly, as women tended to be financially
dependent on men, the instability of such live-ins created a subservient status for the woman. There
was much social criticism and stigma attached to such relationships, forcing them to remain largely
secretive. Neither statutes nor Courts supported such relationships. In 1988, the SC in the case of
Yamunabai v. Anant Rao19 held that where a man married the second time, his second ‘wife’ had
no claim to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C 20, even though she was unaware of his earlier
marriage.21 The SC refused to recognize that they had lived together even if their marriage was void.
The man was allowed to take advantage of this, although he had defrauded the woman by
concealing his earlier marriage. The SC would not grant any rights to the woman in such a live-in
relationship ‘of circumstance’. Even as late as 2000, in Malti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 22 , the
Allahabad HC held that a woman living with a man could not be equated as his wife. In this case,
the woman was a cook in the man’s house and she stayed with him and shared an intimate
relationship. The Court however refused to extend the meaning of the word “wife” in Section125
Cr.P.C to include a live-in partner’s maintenance claims.

There are some incidents where Courts had recognized such relations though. A

16
. The part reserved for the women of the household. [See http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zenanas]
17
. Vimla Patil, “Do Live In Relationships Really Benefit Women”, THE TRIBUNE, Chandigarh, Sunday, September
23rd, 2003, http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030921/herworld.htm#1, (febuary 26th, 2012)
18
. Ibid.
19
. AIR 1988 SC 644.
20
. Cr.P.C
21
. Kusum, “Cases and Materials on Family Law”, 1st. ed. 2007, p. 161
22
.2000 Cri LJ 4170 (All).

10
Dinohamy v. WL Blahamy23 the PC held that "Where a man and a woman are proved to have
lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, that they were living together in
consequence of a valid marriage, unless the contrary can be proven.” Again in Gokal Chand v.
Pravin Kumari24 the SC reiterated the same principle, though it cautioned that the couple would not
get legitimacy, if the evidence of them living together was rebuttable. 25 However, these judgements
only served to recognize marriages which were doubted, on the basis that a long term live-in
relationship existed. They did not recognize live-in relationships as independent of the institution of
marriage.
The increasing incidents of live-in relationships, especially those which occur ‘by
circumstance’ however ensured that the need for reforms was felt. In 2003, the Malimath Commitee
report on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System, suggested amendment of the word ‘wife’ in
Section 125, Cr.P.C to include a woman who is living in with a man for a “reasonable period.” Last
year, the Maharashtra Government approved such an amendment to the Cr.P.C, but this now awaits
approval by the Central Government. The National Commission for Women has recently made a
similar recommendation, to protect the rights of such women. Significantly, the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 became the first statute to give live-in partners the same
recognition as married couples. The position of Live-in Relationships is not very clear in the Indian
context but the recent landmark judgments given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court provides some
assistance when we skim through the topic of Live-In and analyze the radius of the topic in Indian
legal ambit.26 The couples tied with the knots of live-in relationships are not governed by specific
laws and therefore find traces of assistance in other civil laws. The law is neither clear nor is
adamant on a particular stand, the status is dwindling. In the words of Dhingra J., “There are no
legal strings attached to this relationship nor does this relationship create any legal-bond
between the partners. People who choose to have live-in relationship cannot complain of
infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married
man and unmarried woman or vice-versa”

23
. (1928) 1 MLJ 388
24
. AIR 1952 SC 231
25
.Shoma Chaterjee, “Living in: Shades of Gray”,INDIA TOGETHER, http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/aug/soc-
livein.htm, (febuary 25,2012)
26
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/The-Socio-Legal-Dimensions-of-Live-In-Relationships-3966.asp (27
febuary 2012)

11
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA AND ITS JUDICIAL TREATMENT

Law has been playing vital role in social change. Society is constituted of individuals. Law
and society try to regulate the conduct of an individual. The institution of marriage being foundation
of the society, interest of the society is well protected by keeping the foundation of institution of
marriage strong. Since the matter relating to marriage falls within the purview of personal law, each
religion in India is having its own law relating to marriage along with other family matters. As we
are observing changing living patterns in the society, law has to respond properly keeping in view
the societal and constitutional values in its mind. In recent times the Indian judiciary has taken a
lead in showing a right path for the progress of the society. We have tried in this paper, to look into
the trend of Indian judiciary in relation to live-in-relationship. As the decision of the apex court is
considered as the law of the land under the Indian Constitution, the decisions are to be followed
and respected. The society expects consistent stand from the judiciary.
There is no statute directly dealing with live-in-relationship in India. The Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, confers the legitimacy on child born out of ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ marriages and
establishes their succession and property rights. The void marriage is not a marriage in the eye of
law. The moot question is whether the relation existing in void and voidable marriage is equated
with live-in-relationship as understood in its popular sense. The Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWFDVA) also provides some kind of protection to the aggrieved
parties from any kind of atrocities faced by the females living in ‘relationship in the nature of
marriage.’ This Act has been widely hailed as the first legal Act to recognize the existence of non-
marital adult heterosexual relations. This Act defines an “aggrieved person” who will be covered
under this Act as “any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent
and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.” Further
the Act defines a ‘domestic relationship’ as ‘a relationship between two persons who live or have, at
any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity,
marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family.’ In having used the idea of “relations in the nature of marriage”, the Act
seems to have widened the scope of legally recognised domestic relationships between men and
women. In a commentary on one case arising out of the Act, the report Staying Alive 2009
(Lawyers Collective and ICRW 2009) suggests that whilst this provision has invited much criticism
and controversy, it is important to note that it does not make an invalid marriage valid or provide
legal recognition to bigamous marriages. This provision merely seeks to denounce domestic
violence in any quarter. It is not a judgment call on the morality of the choice to cohabit outside of
marriage. It can therefore be argued that it would be mistaken to see the Act as conferring some sort

12
of a legal status upon nonmarital relations. What it undoubtedly does is to acknowledge the
existence of such relationships and the right of women in such relations to protection from violence.
Justice Mallimath Committee as well as the Law Commission of India states that if a woman has
been in a live-in-relationship for a reasonable period, she should enjoy the legal rights of the wife.
The Committee also recommended the amendment of the definition of ‘wife’ under Section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) so that a woman in live-in-relationship can get the status of
a wife. But there is a lack of consistency in the recommendations of the Committee. If all the
recommendations of the committee were implemented, a woman can simultaneously seek
maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C and be charged with adultery under Section 497 of the
IPC. A man on the other hand may be susceptible to charges of adultery and bigamy at the same
time as he pays maintenance to the woman with whom he is in a bigamous/adulterous relation.

“Indian judiciary is neither expressly encouraging nor prohibiting such kind of live-in-
relationships in India. The judiciary is only rendering justice in accordance with law in a particular
case. The main concern of the judiciary is to prevent the miscarriage of justice. The judiciary in
deciding the cases keeps in mind the social mores and constitutional values.”

13
 CONCLUSION

The concept of live-in relationships have come out of the closet and even found partial
recognition in law. The Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has recognized it
and the Maharashtra Government’s efforts to push an amendment. Though the debate rages on in
public forum with recommendations and opinions yet coming in from various authorities and
Commissions to either amend the existing laws or desist from doing so. It is worthwhile to examine
whether or not, live-in relationships can find their place in Personal Laws in the country. The critics
of legislation of live-in relationships have two main issues of contention, aside from clichéd
immorality viz.

(i) Harm caused to a “legally wedded wife” and her children, in a case where a man
maintains live-in relationship with other woman without the knowledge of his legally
wedded wife; and
(ii) The probability that such legislation will increase practice of bigamy.

Any attempt to protect live-ins in personal laws must therefore tackle these two issues
carefully.

The issue of Bigamy is a well-known fact that man deceives a woman to enter into a formal
marriage with him, when he has already married. However, aware of the penal consequences that
bigamy entails,27 most men prefer to defraud a woman into thinking that a valid marriage would be
performed which eventually is not. Therefore, it becomes a live-in relationship “by circumstance”.
The courts however have recognized persons in long term live-in relationships to be as good as
married spouse. Such decisions, while delivered were for upholding the rights of the “other”
woman. But these decisions contradict the law on bigamy.

The decisions by the Indian Court is discerning as in some cases the Courts have opined that
the live-in relationship should have no bondage between the couples because the sole criteria for
entering into such agreements is based on the fact that there lies no obligation to be followed by the
couples whereas in some instances the Court has shown opposite views holding that if a relationship
cum cohabitation continues for a sufficiently and reasonably long time, the couple should be
construed as a married couple infusing all the rights and liabilities as guaranteed under a marital
relationship.

27
Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that in a case of bigamy, provisions of Section 494 and 494 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall apply accordingly. These sections invite up to 7 years’ imprisonment and a fine or
both.

14
 It also appears strange if the concept of live-in is brought within the ambit of section 125 of
the Cr.PC where the husband is bound to pay maintenance and succession as the ground of getting
into live-in relationship is to escape all liabilities arising out of marital relations. If the rights of a
wife and a live-in partner become equivalent it would promote bigamy and there would arise a
conflict between the interests of the wife and the live-in partner. Apart from lacking legal sanction
the social existence of such relationships is only confined to the metros, however, when we look at
the masses that define India, there exists no co-relation between live-in relationships and its
acceptance by the Indian society. It receives no legal assistance and at the same time the society
also evicts such relationships. The Parliament should try and enact a separate branch rather than
trying to bring live-in within the ambit of the existing laws as such futile approach would further
adversely complicate the judicial mechanism.
For many, Live-in relationship is the preference because it is time to change and evolve with
the changing times, though it might seem socially incorrect. At the end, whatever relationship one
opts for, it should be an arrangement where interests of both the partners are kept in mind and there
is an understanding and commitment between the two. It is just a matter of perception and
sensitivity as to how a person takes it – either as a live-in arrangement or has a live-in like marriage.

15
SUGGESTIONS

a) PWDVA, 2005 Section 2(f)

The bold initiative taken by the Supreme Court in its judgment delivered in respect of the
two cases namely 1. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (Decided by: Markandey Katju and T.S.
Thakur, JJ)82 2. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (Decided by: K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki
Chandra Ghose, JJ) 83 which recommended to the Indian legislature broadening of the definition
of “domestic relationship” contained in Sec.2 (f) of PWDVA, 2005, with a view to include therein
victims of illegal relationship who are poor, illiterate and also their children who are born out of
live-in-relationship and who do not have any source of income of their own. In addition to the
above recommendations, it is also suggested that the Parliament passes a new legislation as
suggested by the S.C. in its guidelines given in the course of its above mentioned two judgments.

b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 125)

It is also suggested that the definition of the term “wife” contained in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should
be amended so as to include a woman having “relationship in the nature of marriage” for a
reasonably long period of time.

c) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 112)

Section 11228 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that legitimacy of a child is proved only if
any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man.
Muslim law also recognizes only those children as legitimate, who are the offspring of a man and
his wife.29 Thus children born out of live-in relationship were ―illegitimate30 in the eye of the then
existing law. However the Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs Mallikarjun & Ors.31
remarked that irrespective of the relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such
relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. It is as plain and
clear as sunshine that a child born out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights
and privileges available to children born out of valid marriages. This is the crux of Section 16 of the
amended Hindu Marriage Act, 195532.

28
MANU/SC/0872/2010, AIR2011SC479
29
Criminal Appeal No. 2009 of 2013, decided on November 26, 2013 Para. 62 and 66
30
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 112- Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.— The fact
that any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any man, or within two
hundred and eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the
legitimate son of that man, unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any
time when he could have been begotten.
31
Md.Amin V.Vakil Ahmed, (1952), S.C.35
32
‗illegitimate ‗-―born to parents not married to each other‖, Catherine, Soanes, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford
University Press, 7th ed. 2007 , pg.276

16
d) Hindu Marriage Act, (Section 16)
On 17th May 2010 a Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Hon‘ble Justice B.S.
Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar (JJ) in Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan
& Ors33 held that; “20. Thus, it is evident that Section 16 of the (Hindu Marriage) Act intends to
bring about social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of children,
otherwise treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.”
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.” 34 In this context it is also recommended that child born
out of “relationship in the nature of marriage” should also be entitled to claim its share in ancestral
coparcenaries property of its parents in addition to their self acquired property. It is as plain and
clear as sunshine that a child born out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights
and privileges available to children born out of valid marriages. This is the crux of Section 16(3) of
the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which needs to be put on the canvass of reality.

e) DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP
In a de facto relationship with another person if you are not legally married to each other, you are
not related by family and you have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic
basis. It is a registered relationship between an unmarried couple who decides to live together which
gives the spouses all the rights and liabilities which they get in a legal marriage. This concept is
widely popular in all the states of AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND.
It is recommended that the concept of registration of live in relationships should also be legalized in
India so that the spouses get social and personal security. Plus the children born out of such a
relationship should also get all the rights as given to a child born out of a legal marriage.

33
AIR 2010 SC 2685
34

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary sources-
Bare Act
1. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Indian Penal Code,1860
3. Code of criminal Procedure, 1898
4. The constitution of India.
Secondary sources-
Books-
1. Diwan Paras, Family Law, Ed.8 (2008), Allahabad Law- Agency
2. Dalbir Bharati, Women and Law, (2008), S.B. Nangia-APH Publishing Corporation, New Delhi.

Articles-
1. Prof. Vijender Kumar - “Live-in Relationship: Impact on marriage and family Institutions”
2. Dr. M. Tariq and Dr. Kamlesh Tayal - “live in relationship and the right to reproductive health:
thousand queries and one answer- liberty”
3. Caesar Roy - Emerging trend of live in relationship in India a critical analysis, vol-118, CLJ p-
37-144, (2012).
4. Jyotsna Sharma - Legal status of live in relationship in India, vol-118,CLJ, (2012)
5. Chetan Tripathy - Live in Relationship- Review and Analysis
6. K.U.Kalpana and Vithalrao Jawale -Live-In Relationship: Recent Developments and Challenges
in India, National Summit on Law & Legal Education”NECTAR”, Akola Law College.
Dictionary: www.legal-dictionary.com (Accessed on 28rd Aug 2012)
Website:
1. www.lifestyle.indianetzone.com/relationship/1/live-in_relationships.htm
2. www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html,
3. www.airwebworld.com/articles/index.php?article=1266
4. www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html,
5. http://neelgautam.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/live-in-relationships-vs-marriages/
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation
14. http://projectcloud.info/research-paper-idea/live-in-relationship-review-and-analysis-srishti-
aishwarya/ .
15. http://www.legalindia.in/live-in-relationship-among-hindus-reincarnation-of-marriage
16. http://www.indiankanoon.org

18