_edited.png)
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP: LEGITIMATE OR NOT
Authored by Anushka
ABSTRACT
Live-in relationship means living together as a married couple in legal and accepted way. In India it’s like a taboo. But these types of relationships are increasing nowadays in a common way. Due to the lack of particular legislative rules and its practices, the Supreme Court has issued many instructions for its regulation in India. This article will try to figure out the current legal stage of live-in relationship in India by using some judgments given by the
judges from different states. The court held that a live-in relationship comes in the right to
life enshrined under article 21 of the constitution of India. The court further held that live-
in relationship cannot be considered invalid or illegal. It enable the couples to know each
other better but this has also many disadvantages. From health point of view, it is considered
better to be engaged in good-quality relationship rather living alone and having no relation at all.
KEYWORDS
Legal aspects, legal issues, marriages, relationships.
INTRODUCTION
As we all know that whole world is developing in a very rapid way not only in technological
but also in industrial and other areas too. Globalization leads many changes as it affect almost
all aspects of our social life, like family, marriages, relationships, and so on. Marriage is
legally and socially accepted, this relation is very important for our country. Living together
without marriage is like a taboo and not accepted in our country.
The reason behind people used to choose live-in relationship is to check compatibility
between them before getting legally married. It also make them free from the chaos of the
family drama and lengthy court procedures.
Now let’s discuss the meaning of live-in relationship. Although it doesn’t have any specific
definition but we can say that the domestic cohabitation between two unmarried individual
can be said as live-in relationship. People prefer live-in relationship over marriages for many
reasons. There are many judgments given regarding this topic. Live-in relationship does not
has any specific legal legislation, rules, regulations and rights in India till now but there are
many chances for it to be acceptable.
In recent ruling, many High Courts have granted police protection to a live-in couple by
upholding their fundamental right to life and personal liberty as mentioned under article 21
of the constitution of India.
Legally, live-in relationship find roots in article 21 1 of the constitution of India. The right
and the freedom of choice to either marry or have a live-in relationship with a person of
one’s own will.
Often couples tend to resort to live-in relationship to test their compatibility before binding
themselves together in marriage. It provide a better opportunity for them to understand each
other and make well-informed decisions in serious commitments like marriage.
There is no particular law regarding the matter of live-in relationship in India. There is no
enactment which can say about the rights and duties for the parties in a live-in relationship.
There is no legal definition also. However, court has clarified the concept of live-in
relationship through various judgments. Though law is still unclear about the status of such
relationship yet few rights have been granted by interpreting and amending the existing
legislations so that misuse of such relationships can be prevented.
Now, we will look some judgments given by various courts in this matter.
CASE LAWS
In Payal Sharma V. Nari Niketan, 2 the Supreme Court said that a man and women
could live together upon their willingness even without getting married. Demarcating
the difference between law and morality, the Court expressed that even if live-in
relationships are regarded as immoral by society, it is neither illegal nor an offence.
1 The constitution of India – Article 21[no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law, nor shall any person be denied equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India].
2 Payal sharma v. nari niketan, AIR 2001 All 254
Two individuals cohabiting and staying in a live-in relationship are not criminal
offenders. It clarified that although socially unacceptable in parts of India, live-in
relationships are neither a crime nor a sin.
In Badri Prasad V. Director of Consolidation 3 , the Supreme Court legitimized a 50-
year long relationship of a couple. The bench stated that since the couple had lived
together for a long time, there was strong presumption in favor of wedlock. And the
law favored the legitimacy of their relationship. Additionally, if any third party seeks
to disprove such a presumption, a heavy burden lies on them.
In Indra Sarma V. V.K.V Sharma 4 , the Supreme Court was of the view that all live-in
relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. In this particular case, it
was found that the appellant , having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent
was a married, could not have entered into a live-in 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. The Court further made following
observations in this case.
I. Such relationship may endure for a long time and can result in a pattern of
dependency and vulnerability and increasing number of such relationships
calls for adequate and effective protection, especially to the women and
children born out of that live-in relationship.
II. Legislature, of course, cannot promote premarital sex, though, at times, such
relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion,
for end against.
III. 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
relationships might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
Also in some other cases important judgments are held which are as follows.
In Lata Singh V. State of U.P 5 , it was held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of opposite sex, though perceived as immoral, does not amount to any offence under law.
In Khushboo V. Kanaimmal and Another, the Supreme Court held that
“Though the concept of live-in relationship is considered immoral by the
society, but is definitely not illegal in the eyes of law. Living together is a
right to life and therefore it cannot be held illegal.
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD BORN OUT OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP
If a man and women living under the same roof and cohabiting for some years, there will be a
presumption Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and
the children born to them are legitimate.
In the case of SPS Balasubramanyam vs Sruttayan, this was the landmark case wherein the apex court for the first time upheld the legitimacy of the children born out of a live-in
relationship. The Court interpreted statute of such a child to be in concurrence with article
39(f) of the Constitution of India which lays down the responsibility of the state to provide
the children with adequate red a y opportunity to develop in a normal manner and safeguard
their interests.
In Tulsa V. Durghatiya, the Supreme Court while granting right of property to a child, observed that children born from live-in relationship would have lived under one roof and cohabited for a considerably long period of time so as to be recognized as husband wife and it must not be a “walk in and walk out” relationship. Section 16 of the Hindu marriage act, 1955 and section 26 of the special marriage act, talks about the legitimacy to children born out of void or voidable marriages, which is null and void shall be legitimate or deemed to be legitimate. But according to subsection of the same section of the act, right of inheritance
of such children is limited to the property of the parent only. Therefore, such children don’t
have coparcenary rights in the property of the Hindu undivided family (HUF) if their parents
were not legally wed to each other.
CONFLICTING VIEWS
The High Court of Bombay, Allahabad and Rajasthan have repeatedly refused to grant
protection to such live-in couples, citing reasons that a live-in relationship between a married
and an unmarried person is illegal.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court went a step further and referred to these relationships
as unacceptable, claiming that they destroy the country’s ‘social fabric’.
Whereas, Delhi High Court taking an adverse stand, adopted a wider approach, upholding
the rights of a female live-in partner, irrespective of the marital status of both individuals.
CONCLUSION
Live-in relationship provide the couples a greater opportunity to know each other better
together with a freedom to end the relationship as per their wish. But they have to face many
social and legal problems. The Supreme Court has issued guidelines for regulating and for
protecting the rights of the women and children born out from them. Live-in relationship may
be fine in some aspects but due to this we can’t deny the importance of marriage in our
nation. It is not considered be an offence because as of now there is no legislation has made
on this concept. However, for the protection of women from domestic violence act 2005, law
has acknowledged the rights of partners who are in live-in relationship. Though the various
judgments have given by many Courts but still there is no clear picture of it.
There must be separate law for dealing with the rights and duties of the partners who are in
live-in relationship, children born out from them and all those people who are likely to be
affected by such kinds of things in the society. Not all the live-in relationships should be
considered legitimate but only those which satisfy certain basic requirements.
REFERENCES
[1] The Constitution of India
[2] Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, AIR 2001 All 254
[3] Badri Prasad v. director of consolidation, 1978 AIR 1557
[4] Indra Sharma v. V. K. V. Sharma (2013) 15 SCC 755
[5] Lata Singh v. state of U.P, (2006)
[6] S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600
[7] S. P.S .Balasubramanyam v. suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC 460: AIR 1994 SC 133
[8] Tulsa and Ors v. durghatiya and Ors, AIR 2008 SC 1193
[9] Sage Journals
[10] www.scconline.com
[11] www.theweek.in .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/01/23/live-in-relationship-and-indian-judiciary/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2631831820974585
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351358748_Live-
in_Relationship_in_India_Laws_and_Challenges
https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2021/07/07/live-in-relationships-at-cross-roads-with-
morality.html
https://indianlawwatch.com/living-in-relationship/
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1364215/
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/1327342/?formInput=khushboo%20v/s%20kanniamm
al
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/215649/?formInput=badri%20prasad%20v%20dy.%20
director%20of%20consolidation
https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/279063/?formInput=s.p.s.balasubramanyam%20v/s%2
0suruttayan
Comments