THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY SHUBHAM KUMAR SINHA, A 1ST YEAR STUDENT AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA(NLUO), CUTTACK
ABSTRACT – This article explores the dynamic evolution of live-in relationships in India, delving into both societal perspectives and the corresponding legal landscape. Traditionally perceived as unconventional, live-in relationships have gained acceptance, particularly among the younger generation, challenging conservative views. The legal journey is examined through landmark judgments, such as S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, which have shaped the legal doctrine surrounding these relationships. The judiciary’s role in balancing traditional norms with the changing dynamics of relationships is highlighted, emphasizing the recognition of rights and responsibilities for individuals in live-in unions. The article also discusses broader legal developments, including decisions granting legal status to live-in spouses. Despite occasional challenges, the overall trend reflects a judiciary responsive to evolving societal norms, contributing to a more inclusive and progressive legal framework for live-in relationships in India.
-
introduction
Marriage as an institution have evolved dynamically in both cultural and legal aspect in India. In this evolving society, one topic have grabbed public attention and plethora of legal debates around it, the concept of live-in relationships. Traditionally looked as something not acceptable though in recent times it has been widely accepted by young India and has found to be very prevalent among the youths. Hence pushing for a need for legal consideration.
Live-in relationships is a basically a cohabitation of two consenting couples without formalizing their relationship through marriage. Though it is often looked down by the “cha-chas” of the society, there has been a remarkable legal evolution around this topic. This article is aimed to explore the evolution of legal aspect of live-in relationships through various landmark judgments for the same.
-
Evolution of Societal Perspectives:
Traditionally, our society has been very conservative which is also rooted in the sanctity of marriage. For the same reason this alien concept of living together without getting married was often viewed with a skeptic eyes. However with globalization and the economic growth have changed the attitude of newer generation, liberalization not only happened with the aspect of economy but the society also got liberalized. The younger generation is adapting to this new alternatives of marriages, challenging the old traditional notion.
-
Legal Landscape and its Evolution:
The legal landscape of the live-in relationships has been marked with a gradual transformation over the years. Initially the absence of a proper provision regarding the rights and duties of couples under this relationships led to confusion and harassment. However with progress of time our learned judiciary have passed some landmark rulings which have some what shaped a doctrine regarding the same. Though the process is not completed yet but these judgments marks a step forward.
These judgments have kept a great balance between the prevailing cultural norms as well as the considerations of our newer generations.
-
Purpose of the Article:
This article seeks to examine the legal journey of live-in relationships while keeping the judicial precedents at the center. In the following sections we will delve into important judgments such as S.Khushboo v. Kannialmmmal , Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, and Lata Singh v. State of UP, and others. These cases played a very pivotal role by shedding legal light on the concept of liv-ins and established and protects the couples right choosing such framework of living.
lAndmark judements:
S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
The appellant gave a statement in an interview with India Today channel that “pre-marital sex should be recognized and embraced by the society.” This created a sensation in state of Tamil Nadu and henceforth a Tamil daily ‘Dhina Thanthi’ interviewed her in which she defended her views. She slammed a legal notice to the editor of the newspaper dated 2.10.2005 after the release of news story denying that she had said those things.
The appellant ordered the publisher to remove those published on 24.09.2005 and gave a show cause notice to them to reply within 3 days or else she will take a proper legal action against them. Criminal charges were also lodged against her and her appeal to quash these were dismissed by the high court, through a Special Leave Petition the case approached the Supreme Court.
The supreme court held that there is an absence of any prima facie case of defamation. It also quashed the criminal complaints against the appellant as it was done in a mala fide manner.
This is an important case because it held that a live-in relationship come under the ambit of article 21 that is right to life. It held that these relationship and pre-marital intercourse is an act of two adults and cannot be considered as illegal or unlawful.
-
Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma (26.11.2013 – SC) : MANU/SC/1230/
Although Ms. Indra Sarma was aware that Mr. V.K.V. Sarma was married, she quit her work and started a “live-in” relationship with him, which lasted for up to eighteen years. When Ms. Sarma was unable to care for herself, Mr. Sarma left her. It is considered “domestic violence” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to fail to support a woman in a “domestic relationship.” After ruling that Mr. V.K.V. had engaged in domestic violence by failing to provide for Ms. Sarma, two lower courts ordered Mr. Sarma to pay Rs. 18,000 a month in maintenance. The High Court of Karnataka then overturned the lower courts’ rulings after receiving an appeal, citing Ms. Sarma’s knowledge of Mr. Sarma’s marriage as the reason her relationship with him would not be protected by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” While upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court established an exception to the rule during a subsequent appeal. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 defines a “domestic relationship” as one in which a woman moves in with a man who is already married to someone else without realising it. This was made clear by the Supreme Court. As a result, she will be entitled to remedies including maintenance and compensation as the man’s inability to provide for her will constitute “domestic violence” under the Act. The significance of this case lies in the fact that it created an unprecedented exception and advocated for legislative measures to safeguard women like Ms. Sarma, whose contributions to a shared home are frequently disregarded. It is an important case because the court in this case established the prerequisites for live-in partnerships to be granted marital status. The ruling stated that “a woman is not entitled to various beliefs available to a legally wedded wife and also to those who enter into a relationship in the nature of marriage when she is aware that the man with whom she is in a live-in relationship and who already has a legally wedded wife and two children.”
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal AIR 2011 SC 479
In this case D Velusamy was the appellant and he alleged that he married a girl name Lakshmi in 1980. And later he married another woman D.Patchaiammal, respondent in this case in 1986 and cohabited with her in her father house for 2 or 3 years. Then he deserted her and when asked to pay maintenance he refused to pay the same for the same the respondent filed a case under section 125 Crpc for maintenance.
the family court ruled that respondent was the lawful wedded wife of appellant and not the Lakshmi. This was further upheld in high court, but when the matter reached the apex court the Supreme court ruled that Lakshmi was not a party to the case and hence she was not given a chance to speak and present her case which was against the principle of the natural justice. Hence the SC directed the lower courts to issue directions so that Lakshmi can present her position too.
This case is important as in this case the Supreme Court gave list of guidelines for determining which kind of relationships came under the category of ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ for the purpose of section 125 of CrPc and protection of women from domestic violence act 2005.
The court ruled that section 125(1) explanation (b) of CrPc mentions it clearly that only a ‘wife’ is entitled to maintenance from husband and accordingly with this provision an unmarried female is not entitled to maintenance. This was also held in a case named Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (AIR 2005 SC 1809) , in this particular case it was held that a woman who is not lawfully wedded cannot claim for maintenance.
However the court analyzed the Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 and examined that under this provision of law an aggrieved party is a woman in a ‘domestic relationship’ with a man subjected to domestic violence by him can be granted maintenance by Magistrate {section 20} the woman can claim relied before any court {section 26}.
The term used here is ‘domestic relationship’ which also includes relationships which are in nature of marriage and a partner under a relationship which is in nature of marriage can claim maintenance for the same. Since this term is very broad in its context the court decipher it according to various precedents and prevailing societal construct of our society. With the new trend of live in relationships the court have often recognized this kind of relationship in nature of the marriage and if woman is deserted by her male counterpart she can claim maintenance from him.
In USA unmarried woman who are cohabiting with their partner for a long duration of time are entiled to palimony(maintenance) if deserted. It was held in the case of Marvin v Marvin (1976) 18 C3d660) , it is also recognized in some other countries as well.
SC has ruled that a relationship in nature of marriage is similar to marriage, however the court has also said that not every relationships will be accounted as a marriage. To fall under this category certain things need to be satisfied-
- The couple must show themselves as spouses or similar to spouses to the society
- They must be legally eligible to marry
- The time period much be for a long duration
- Cohabitation must be voluntary
- The parties must have lived together in a shared household as mentioned in section 2(s) of domestic violence act 2005.
Some other legal developments
- The Supreme Court decided that live-in spouses will be deemed lawfully married in Dhannu Lal v. Ganeshram. The woman in the partnership would also be qualified to inherit the property in the event that her partner passed away, according to the ruling.
- In the landmark Punjab & Haryana High Court case Gurwinder Singh & Anr. V. The State of Punjab & Ors., it was noted that live-in relationships are socially and morally unacceptable.
- In the landmark decision Koppisetti Subharao v. State of A.P., the court determined that the term “dowry” is not endowed with any enchanted qualities. It suggests a financial request related to a married relationship. The defendant’s argument has not been accepted by the court because there was no valid marriage between him and the plaintiff.
- The Supreme Court ruled in Abhijit Bhikaseth v. State of Maharashtra and other instances that a woman does not have to formally establish a marriage in order to be eligible for maintenance. A woman in a live-in relationship may also make a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPc.
- In the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, the Supreme Court held that “If a man and woman live together and have cohabitated for a period of time, Section 114 of the Evidence Act will presume that they are married and that their children are legitimate.”
- A similar ruling was made in Tulsa v. Durghatiya, which stated that a live-in relationship shouldn’t be a “walk-in and walk-out” arrangement and that children born out of it would only be accepted if the parents had cohabitated for a notably long period of time in order for society to recognise them as husband and wife.
- The ruling in Bharata Matha & Ors., V. R. Vijaya Renganathan, and others established the rights of children born within live-in relationships. In this instance, it was decided that a child born into a live-in partnership might inherit from their parents, but they couldn’t be entitled to Hindu Ancestral Coparcenary Property by inheritance.
conclusion
In conclusion, the evolution of live-in relationships in India, both from societal and legal perspectives, reflects the dynamic nature of our society. The traditional conservative views have gradually given way to a more liberal and accepting attitude, especially among the younger generation. This shift has been accompanied by a significant evolution in the legal landscape surrounding live-in relationships.
The journey through landmark judgments, such as S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, and D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, has played a crucial role in shaping the legal doctrine related to live-in relationships. These judgments have not only recognized the rights of individuals involved in such relationships but have also established guidelines for determining the nature of these unions concerning marriage-like commitments.
The legal considerations have moved beyond the traditional concept of marriage, acknowledging that individuals in live-in relationships also have rights and responsibilities. The courts have emphasized the need to strike a balance between societal norms and the changing dynamics of relationships in contemporary times.
Furthermore, the legal developments extend beyond the courtroom, with decisions like Dhannu Lal v. Ganeshram granting legal status to live-in spouses. Despite occasional divergent views, the overall trend in the judiciary has been to recognize and protect the rights of individuals in live-in relationships, ensuring they are not deprived of legal safeguards available to married couples.
It is noteworthy that the judiciary has been proactive in adapting legal principles to accommodate the evolving nature of relationships, keeping pace with the changing societal norms. While challenges remain, and the legal journey is ongoing, the recognition and acceptance of live-in relationships in both cultural and legal spheres mark a significant step towards a more inclusive and progressive society. As India continues to navigate the complexities of tradition and modernity, the legal framework surrounding live-in relationships stands as a testament to the adaptability of the legal system in responding to the evolving dynamics of human relationships.
REFERENCES
- S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
- Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma (26.11.2013 – SC) : MANU/SC/1230/
- D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal AIR 2011 SC 479
- Dhannulal Vs. Ganeshram [(2015) 12 SCC 301]
- Gurwinder Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors 2021 Latest Caselaw 4757 P&H
- Koppisetti Subharao v. State of A.P.
- Mr.Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr Criminal Writ Petition No.2218 Of 2007
- S.P.S Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan AIR 1992 SC 756
- Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya (2008)
- Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors on 17 May, 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7108 of 2003
- Marvin v Marvin{ (1976) 18 C3d660}
- This article was originally published on centurylawfirm the link for the same is herein
- This article was originally written by Varchaswa Dubey published on ipleaders the link for the same is herein