This article has been written by Mr. Mustafa Khan, a 1st year LLB student, at Integral University.
Introduction
In India, live-in relationships are becoming more common as societal attitudes towards marriage and relationships continue to evolve. However, the legality of live-in relationships in India remains a grey area, with many people unsure about their rights and legal standing in such relationships. In this article, we will delve deeper into the legality of live-in relationships in India. Live-in relationships are essentially cohabitation arrangements where unmarried couples live together as partners. In India, live-in relationships are not specifically recognized under any law. This means that such relationships are not illegal, but they are also not given any legal status or protection. As a result, unmarried couples in live-in relationships do not have the same legal rights and protection as married couples. Despite the lack of legal recognition, live-in relationships in India are becoming increasingly common, especially among younger generations. This is largely due to changing attitudes towards marriage and relationships, as well as the rising cost of weddings and the desire for more flexibility in personal relationships. In recent years, Indian courts have recognized the legality of live-in relationships, albeit in a limited sense. In 2015, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults could not be considered an offence, and that such relationships were protected under the Constitution of India. However, it is important to note that this ruling does not grant live-in couples the same legal rights and protections as married couples. In particular, live-in couples do not have the right to alimony or maintenance, which is available to legally married couples under Indian law. Additionally, property rights in live-in relationships can be complicated, as unmarried partners do not have automatic property rights in each other’s assets. Despite these challenges, there are some legal protections available to live-in couples in India. For example, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides protection to women in live-in relationships who are subjected to violence or abuse by their partners. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognizes women in live-in relationships as “domestic partners” and provides them with legal protection against domestic violence, abuse, and exploitation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of India, in a 2013 case, upheld the right of a woman in a live-in relationship to inherit her partner’s property, provided that she had been in a relationship with him for a long period of time and had contributed to the acquisition of the property.
In conclusion, the legality of live-in relationships in India remains a grey area, with no specific law governing such relationships. While Indian courts have recognized the legality of live-in relationships in a limited sense, live-in couples do not have the same legal rights and protections as married couples. However, there are legal protections available to live-in couples, including the Domestic Violence Act and the right to inherit property. It is important for couples in live-in relationships to be aware of their legal rights and to take steps to protect themselves in case of any legal disputes.
The Legal Status of Live-In Relationships in India
Over the past few decades, live-in relationships—where unmarried couples cohabit in a romantic relationship—have increased in popularity in India. However, there is still uncertainty regarding the legality of live-in relationships in India. The legal status of live-in relationships in India will be thoroughly covered in this article. Live-in relationships are not expressly acknowledged or governed by any laws under Indian law. Live-in relationships are not specifically permitted nor prohibited by law. In India, therefore, live-in relationships are not recognised by the law and are not given any sort of protection or status. Couples who live together do not have the same legal rights and protections as those who are lawfully married.
Because there is no unified civil code in India, marriages are frequently governed by each individual’s personal laws. Although the concept of live-in relationships has not been explicitly recognised by the legislature, Indian courts have repeatedly upheld the legitimacy of such relationships while separating morality from the law and keeping constitutional principles in mind. The constitution has provided people in India with a variety of basic rights and liberties. Under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, Indians have a basic right to free speech and expression, as well as the freedom to reside and dwell wherever on Indian territory. Aside from that, under Article 21 of the Constitution, everyone has a right to life. The aforementioned rights and liberties govern one’s wish to live with and build a sexual relationship with a partner of one’s choosing. It is vital to note, however, that these liberties and rights are not inalienable.
- Khushbook Kanniammal (2010) SSCC 600, the Supreme Court declared that a living link is guaranteed by the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court also decided that cohabitation between two adults is not unlawful or criminal, and that such relationships are legitimate. The Supreme Court of India ruled in Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522, that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not constitute an offence (with the obvious exception of adultery), even if it is considered as immoral. It should be mentioned that the Supreme Court recently decriminalised adultery in its decision in the case of Joseph Shrine]. The Supreme Court stated in Indra Sarma versus V.K.V.Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755 that a live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a criminal nor socially inappropriate in this country. The decision to marry or not to marry, or to be in a heterosexual relationship, is highly personal.
PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE and LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS
The Indian courts have repeatedly ruled that a long-term live-in relationship might give rise to the assumption of marriage. The courts frequently invoke such a presumption to protect the interests of the parties—usually women—to such an arrangement and the children born as a result of such an arrangement. In Tulsa & Ors v. Durghatiya & Ors (2008) 4 SCC 520, the Supreme Court upheld the legality of a couple’s 50-year marriage. The court was told it could presuppose the existence of any truth it thought had occurred. When reading Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the usual progression of natural events and the behaviour of parties as long as they are supported by the facts of a particular case. Additionally, it was decided that in cases where partners have lived together for a significant period of time as husband and wife, there is a strong presumption in their favour. Although the presumption can be refuted, the burden of proof falls heavily on the person who wants to strip the relationship of its legal foundation. Law favours legitimacy and disapproves of irrationality The Supreme Court ruled in Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant (2010) 9 SCC 209 that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties and that a live-in relationship that lasts for a significant amount of time cannot be described as a “walk-in and walk-out relationship.” By taking this stance, the Court is obviously in favour of considering long-term living arrangements as marriage rather than creating a new concept such as a live-in relationship.
APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS LAWS ON A LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP
Domestic Violence Act
The Domestic Violence Act of 2005 was passed into law in an effort to safeguard women from controlling spouses and relatives. According to Section 2 of the Act, a partnership that has the characteristics of marriage also falls under its purview. A woman has the right to seek redress under the DV Act in cases of physical, mental, verbal, or financial abuse. Also granted are remedies for taking a woman’s property and barring her from using facilities to which she is entitled. Under this law, the abused are given a number of rights and protections.
Because of this, a woman in a live-in relationship is eligible to pursue all available remedies when it is determined that there is a relationship with the characteristics of marriage.
According to Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal 2010 (10) SCC 469, there are a few requirements that must be met for a live-in relationship to be considered legal. These requirements include that the couple must present themselves to others as being akin to spouses and that they must be of legal marriageable age or otherwise eligible to enter into one, including being single. It was said that the couple had to have lived together voluntarily and pretended to be wives for a sizable amount of time. The court ruled that not every partnership will qualify as a marriage-like connection and be covered by the Act. It was further explained that such a relationship would not be regarded as marriage in a court of law if a man kept a woman as his servant, maintained her financially, and used her only for sexual purposes. As a result, in order to get this benefit, the conditions outlined by the Court must be met and supported by proof.
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code A wife can sue her husband for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC if he refuses to support her. If a woman is able to form a marriage-like connection, she is entitled to maintenance from that partner because the court can raise the presumption that such a relationship is a marriage and the woman is presumed to be a wife.The Supreme Court ruled in Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha 2011 1 SCC 141 that a man should be held financially responsible for a woman if he deserts her after living with her for a significant amount of time even though they may not have legally wed. The male should not be permitted to take advantage of legal loopholes by enjoying the benefits of a de facto marriage without fulfilling the duties and obligations. Any alternative reading would lead to the woman’s vagrancy and destitution, which Section 125 is intended to prevent.
However, there might be issues if we assume that any long-term live-in relationship is of the same nature as marriage because there might be other legal obstacles to such a union under other laws or personal law. A presumption of marriage cannot be established in cases where a Hindu male who has already been married begins living with someone for an extended period of time since doing so would legalise a subsequent marriage, which is prohibited by the Hindu Marriage Act. Can a live-in partner use the remedies provided by any other law, such as the DV Act and the 125 CrPC?
Therefore, in Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kurgar Singh Kushwaha 2011 1 SCC 141, the Supreme Court’s division bench referred a few questions to the larger bench for consideration. As follows:
- Would a man and woman’s long-term cohabitation as husband and wife give rise to the inference that their union is legitimate and give the woman the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
- Considering the terms of the DV Act, 2005, is stringent proof of marriage required for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 CPC?
3 Would a customary marriage that did not strictly adhere to the requirements of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 or any other personal law give the lady the right to maintenance under Section 125 CPG?
Following that, the Supreme Court clarified the legal position to some extent in the Landmark Judgement of Indra Sarma v V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755, holding that when the woman is aware of the fact that the man with whom she is in a live-in relationship and who already has a legally wedded wife and two children, she is not entitled to various reliefs available to a legally wedded wife and also to those who enter into a relationship in the nature of marriage. However, in this case, the Supreme Court believed that denying any protection would be a grave injustice to victims of illegal relationships. As a result, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of expanding Section 2(6) of the PWDVA 2005, which defines “domestic relationships,” to include victims of illegal relationships who are poor and illiterate, as well as their children who are born out of such relationships and have no source of income. Furthermore, the Supreme Court requested that Parliament enact new legislation based on certain guidelines provided by it in order to protect victims from any societal wrong caused by such relationships.
The court issued the following guidelines to determine the partnerships that will fall within the phrase in the form of marriage:
- Duration of the relationship Section 2 (1) of the DV Act uses the phrase “at any point in time,” which signifies a fair period of time to establish and continue a connection, which may vary depending on the facts of the case.
- Joint household The expression has been defined under Section 20s) of the DV Act and so does not require further explanation.
3 Resource Pooling and Financial Arrangements Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long-term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, and so on, in order to have a long-lasting relationship, may be a guiding factor.
- Domestic Situations Entrusting responsibility, particularly on the woman, to run the home, undertake household chores such as cleaning, cooking, maintaining, or upkeep the house, etc., is an evidence of a marriage-like relationship.
- Sexual Connection Marriage-like relationships refer to sexual relationships that are not merely for pleasure, but also for emotional and intimate reasons, such as propagation of children, in order to provide emotional support, companionship, and material care, caring, and so on.
- Children: Having kids is a big sign that you two are connected in a marriage-like way. The parties want to have a lasting connection as a result. Another important factor is sharing the burden of raising and sustaining children.
- Public Socialisation Holding out to the public and socialising with friends, relatives, and others as if they are husband and wife is a powerful circumstance to maintain the relationship is in the nature of marriage.
- The parties’ intentions and actions The nature of a relationship is essentially determined by the parties’ common goal as to what their relationship is to be and involve, as well as their respective roles and responsibilities.
The court further stated that while live-in relationships and marriage-like relationships are socially unacceptable in this country, they are neither crimes nor sins. Since it is a very personal choice whether to get married or not, or whether to have a heterosexual relationship, the court felt that legislation was necessary because it is the woman who invariably suffers when such relationships end. The bench of the supreme court also cited instances of several nations that have begun to acknowledge such partnerships. It stated that, even though such a relationship might not have the characteristics of a marriage, the Parliament should take this issue seriously and pass appropriate legislation or amend the Act in order to protect women and the children born out of such relationships.
Changing Attitudes and the Future of Live-In Relationships in India
In India, live-in relationships are becoming more and more prevalent, particularly among the younger population. In India, perceptions towards live-in relationships have begun to change as more and more couples opt to live together without being married. In this post, we’ll talk about the future of live-in relationships in India and how attitudes towards them are evolving. The institution of marriage has historically been highly valued in traditional Indian society, which is conservative. However, attitudes towards marriage and relationships have begun to change over the past few decades as a result of increased exposure to Western cultures and the rise of individualism. Particularly the younger generation has become more receptive to non-conventional types of relationships, such as live-in relationships. The rising economic independence of women is a major factor in India’s shifting attitudes on live-in partnerships. As a result of women’s increased propensity for higher education and the workforce, they now have more independence and influence over their life. Due to this, the traditional patriarchal family structure—in which marriage is regarded as the only permissible form of partnership—has begun to change. The evolving nature of partnerships is another factor influencing the increase of live-in relationships in India. People are more likely to date numerous people before settling down as a result of social media and dating apps’ rising popularity. As a result, partnerships are becoming more informal and non-committal, including live-in relationships.
In India, attitudes towards live-in relationships are evolving, but there are still many issues that need to be solved. The absence of legal recognition and protection for live-in couples is one of the main problems. Live-in couples in India do not have the same legal rights and protections as married couples, as was previously mentioned. In the event of legal issues or if one spouse decides to stop the relationship, this may make them vulnerable. There have been requests for the government to acknowledge and control live-in relationships in India in order to address this problem. Legal professionals have recommended that legislation be passed to grant cohabiting couples the same legal rights and protections as those enjoyed by married couples.
In conclusion, shifting cultural values towards independence and non-traditional kinds of partnerships are reflected in India’s evolving attitudes about live-in relationships. Although there are still issues to be resolved, such as a lack of legal protection and recognition, the acceptance of live-in relationships is a good development. Live-in relationships are anticipated to continue to gain popularity in India in the future as more and more couples decide to cohabitate without getting hitched.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as more and more couples opt to live together without being married, the legality of live-in relationships in India is a subject that has attracted growing attention in recent years. Although the legal status of live-in relationships in India is not entirely clear, the judiciary has acknowledged them as legitimate relationships and given live-in partners some degree of legal protection. Despite this, there are still many difficulties that live-in relationships in India must overcome, such as a lack of legal recognition and protection, social stigma, and family pressure. There is hope for a more welcoming and encouraging atmosphere for live-in couples, nevertheless, as a result of changing attitudes in India towards non-traditional kinds of partnerships.It is crucial that the government and legal system address the difficulties that live-in couples confront and offer them legal recognition and protection. This would not only assist live-in partners but also help India develop into a more progressive and just nation overall.
In conclusion, live-in relationships in India are still illegal, but this is changing, and it is important for society to accept people’s right to choose their partners. Live-in relationships can contribute to a more welcoming and inclusive society in India with continuing attempts to gain legal recognition and social acceptability.
Reference
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/live-in-relationships-in-india/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/are-live-in-relationships-legal-in-india/
https://www.writinglaw.com/live-in-relationship-in-india/
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/laws-on-live-in-relationships-in-india-13858.asp