Article on Live-in Relationships

Marriage in the Indian society has been considered as a sacred bond since the

Vedic period. This concept of matrimony has continuously evolved with time.

With the ever-changing society and human psychology, the concept of marriage

and relationship has also evolved. The upcoming generations are considering

relationships ever more liberally. One such concept of live-in relationships is being

adopted by numerous couples around the world. The relationships where two

people cohabit outside marriage without any legal obligations towards each other

are known as live-in relationships. This is a relationship in the nature of marriage

but unlike a marriage. This concept has slowly paved its way in the Indian scenario

as well. However, such relationships are considered a taboo in the Indian society.

Although the legal status of{jcomments off} live in relationships in India is

unclear, the Supreme Court has ruled that any couple living together for a long

term will be presumed as legally married unless proved otherwise. Thus, the

aggrieved live-in partner can take shelter under the Domestic Violence Act 2005,

which provides protection and maintenance and thereby grant the right of alimony.

Difference between live-in relationship and marriage

Internet Source
1
Marriage, also called as matrimony or wedlock, is a socially/ritually recognized

union or contract between spouses that establishes certain rights and legal

obligations towards each other. Considering the diverse culture in India, different

laws have been framed which lay down the procedures and guidelines for proper

execution of marriages in various religions. Marriage laws have been framed to

provide remedies for disputes arising out of wedlock in different religions.

Individual Acts were framed for individual religion due to the different customs

and traditions followed by each of them. In case of inter-cast marriages, the Special

Marriage Act shall be applicable.

Apart from maintenance under personal laws, Section 125 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 also provides for maintenance inter alia a wife is

unable to maintain herself. Women can seek for additional maintenance apart from

the maintenance received by her under any other law as per Section 20(1)(d) of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), 2005.

Live-in relationship in simple terms can be explained as a relationship in the

nature of marriage where both partners enjoy individual freedom and live in a

shared household without being married to each other. It involves continuous

cohabitation between the parties without any responsibilities or obligations towards

Internet Source
2
one another. There is no law tying them together and consequently either of the

partners can walk out of the relationship, as and when, they will to do so.

There is no legal definition of live in relationship and therefore the legal status of

such type of relationships is also unsubstantiated. The Indian law does not provide

any rights or obligations on the parties in live relationship. The status of the

children born during such relationship is also unclear and therefore, the court has

provided clarification to the concept of live in relationships through various

judgments. The court has liberally professed that any man and women cohabiting

for a long term will be presumed as legally married under the law unless proved

contrary.

The right to maintenance in live in relationship is decided by the court in

accordance with the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the individual facts of the

case.

Though the common man is still hesitant in accepting this kind of relationship, the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, provides for the

protection and maintenance thereby granting the right of alimony to an aggrieved

live-in partner.

Landmark judgments over the years

Internet Source
3
Following are the landmark Supreme Court judgment on the concept of live in

relationship:

Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1978 [1]

This was the first case in which the Supreme Court of India recognized live in

relationship and interpreted it as a valid marriage. In this case, the Court gave legal

validity to a 50 year live in relationship of a couple. It was held by Justice Krishna

Iyer that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have

lived together for a long term as husband and wife. Although the presumption is

rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its

legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.

Tulsa & Ors vs. Durghatiya & Ors, 2008 [2]

The Supreme Court provided legal status to the children born from live in

relationship. It was held that one of the crucial pre-conditions for a child born from

live-in relationship to not be treated as illegitimate are that the parents must have

lived under one roof and co-habited for a considerably long time for society to

recognize them as husband and wife and it must not be a "walk in and walk out"

relationship. Therefore, the court also granted the right to property to a child born

out of a live in relationship.

Internet Source
4
D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal, 2010[3]

The judgment determined certain pre-requisites for a live in relationship to be

considered valid. It provides that The couple must hold themselves out to society

as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into

a legal marriage, including being unmarried. It was stated that the couple must

have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to

spouses for a significant period of time. The court held that not all relationships

will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage and get the benefit of the

Domestic Violence Act. It further clarified that, if a man keeps women as a servant

and maintains her financially and uses mainly for sexual purposes, such

relationship would not be considered as marriage in the court of law. Therefore to

get such benefit the conditions mentioned by the Court must be satisfied, and has

to be proved by evidence.

Here, the court relied on the concept of palimony which was used in the USA for

grant of maintenance in live in relationships. The concept of palimony was derived

in the case of Marvin vs. Marvin, a landmark judgment of the California Superior

Court.

S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr, 2010[4]

Internet Source
5
The Supreme Court in this case dropped all the charges against the petitioner who

was a south Indian actress. The petitioner was charger under Section 499 of the

IPC and it was also claimed that the petitioner endorsed pre-marital sex and live in

relationships. The court held that living together is not illegal in the eyes of law

even if it is considered immoral in the eyes of the conservative Indian society. The

court stated that living together is a right to life and therefore not illegal.

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

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court has illustrated five categories where the

concept of live in relationships can be considered and proved in the court of law.

Following are the categories:

1. Domestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female, both

unmarried. It is the most uncomplicated sort of relationship

2. Domestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried

woman, entered knowingly.

3. Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married

woman, entered knowingly. Such relationship can lead to a conviction

under Indian Penal Code for the crime of adultery

4. Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married

male, entered unknowingly

Internet Source
6
 5. Domestic relationship between same sex partners ( gay or lesbian)

The Court stated that a live-in relationship will fall within the expression

relationship in the nature of marriage under Section 2(f) of the Protection of

women Against Domestic Violence Act,2005 and provided certain guidelines to

get an insight of such relationships. Also, there should be a close analysis of the

entire relationship, in other words, all facets of the interpersonal relationship need

to be taken into account, including the individual factors.

The Court in this case affirmed that the relationship in the present case is not a

relationship in the nature of marriage because it has no inherent or essential

characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than in the nature of

marriage and the appellants status is lower than the status of a wife and that

relationship would not fall within the definition of domestic relationship

under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. In this case, the appellant admittedly entered

into a relationship with the respondent despite of knowing that the respondent was

a married man with two children born out of the wedlock who opposed the live in

relationship since the inception. The Court further added, If we hold that the

relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature

of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and

children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or

Internet Source
7
commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of

relationship, would not amount to domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV

Act, as there is also no evidence of a live-in relationship between the appellant and

the respondent as per the given guidelines. The Court held that the relationship

between the appellant and the respondent was not a relationship in the nature of a

marriage, and the status of the appellant was that of a concubine. Furthermore, the

Domestic Violence Act does not take care of such relationship which may perhaps

call for an amendment of the definition of section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is

restrictive and exhaustive.

Conclusion

Thus, the legal status of live-in relationships in India has been evolved and

determined by the Supreme Court in its various judgments. However, there is no

separate legislation which lays down the provisions of live in relationships and

provides legality to this concept. Though the concept of live-in relationship is

considered immoral by the society, but is definitely not illegal in the eyes of the

law. The Supreme Court states that living together is a right to life and therefore it

cannot be held illegal. The court has also tried to improve the conditions of the

women and children borne out of live in relationships by defining their status under

the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 if the relationship is proved to be relationship in

Internet Source
8
the nature of marriage. In a recent case of May 5th, 2015, the Supreme Court

bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A M Sapre, dismissed a petition by the

petitioner Z who worked in the Bollywood and contended that the respondent

could not claim the status of a wife to be legally entitled to get maintenance under

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that cohabitation of a couple would

give rise to the presumption of a valid marriage and if a live in relationship breaks

down, the man is bound to pay maintenance to the women.

In the landmark Indra Sharma Case, the Court stated that such relationship may

endure for a long time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and

increasing number of such relationships, calls for adequate and effective

protection, especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-

relationship. Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex, though, at

times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their

opinion, for and against. Thus the Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring

in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and

the children, born out of such kinds of relationships are protected, though such

relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.

Internet Source
9
[1] Badri Prasad V. Dy. Director Of Consolidation & Ors [1978] Insc 119; Air

1978 Sc 1557; 1979 (1) Scr 1; 1978 (3) Scc 527 (1 August 1978)

[2] Tulsa v. Durghatiya [(2008) 4 SCC 520]

[3] D Velusamy Vs D Patchaiammal, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2028-2029 OF

2010

[4] S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 600

[5] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, Crl. App. No. 2009 of 2013; Decided on 26-11-

2013 (SC): 2013 (14) SCALE 448 [K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra

Ghose, JJ.]

Internet Source: by Shirin Zahra Hussain (Intern) and Pooja Deelip Patil

(Trainee Advocate) at Abhay Nevagi and Associates, Pune. Abhay Nevagi

Associates

Internet Source
10