National Law Institute

University
Bhopal

JURISPRUDENCE
Trimester-X

Topic
LAW, LIVING RELATIONSHIPS AND SOCIETY

Submitted to:

Submitted by:

Mrs Nidhi Gupta

Anamika Ahir

Asst. Prof. NLIU.

2014 BALL.B 09

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Statement of Problem...........................................................3

2. Introduction..........................................................................4

3. The Basic Norm...................................................................4

4. Rights of Women in a Live-in Relationship in India......7

5. Rights of Child born through a Live-In Relationship.8

6. Conclusion. ..10
7. . References...............11

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
The aim of this project is to understand law relating to living relationships in
India and its impact on society.

Method Of research:

Doctrinal research methodology.

INTRODUCTION
This project deals with the issue of Law & Live-In Relationships in India. Live-In
Relationships has been one of the most contentious legal topics in the immediate past. The
aspects of Live-in relationships were ambiguous in India until The Honble Supreme Court
gave its landmark judgments on the topic in the year 2010, thereby making its stand firm on
the issue and maintaining the sovereignty of law in India. Thus, the issue is gradually coming
up in the Indian Society and requires legislation to negate chances of misuse of the
relationship. Currently, we do not have a separate legislation dealing with Living
Relationships in India but we have the rights of the female living partner recognized and
protected under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Legal aspects of Live-In Relationships
Its a walk-in and walk-out relationship. 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
The position of Live-in Relationships is not very clear in the Indian context but the recent
landmark judgments given by the Honble 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.
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.
The Privy Council in A Dinohamy v. W L Blahamy laid down the principle that Where a
man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume,
unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid
marriage and not in a state of concubinage. Furthermore the Supreme Court granted legality
and validity to a marriage in which the couple cohabited together for a period of 50 years.
The Supreme Court held that in such a case marriage is presumed due to a long cohabitation.

Furthermore the Honble Allahabad High Court stated that a live-in relationship is not
illegal. Katju J. and Mishra J. stated that, In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without
getting married, can live together if they wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by
society, but is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality.
The Honble Supreme Court accepted the principle that a long term of cohabitation in a livein relationship makes it equivalent to a valid marital relationship. The Supreme Court also
held that live-in relationships cannot be considered as an offence as there is no law stating the
same.
In the well talked about case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal , the Supreme Court gave its
landmark judgment and held that there was no law which prohibits Live-in relationship or
pre-marital sex. The Supreme court further stated that Live-in relationship is permissible only
in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex.
In another case the Supreme Court stated that if man and woman are living under the same
roof and cohabiting for a number of 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 will not
be illegitimate.
Hence the High Courts and the Honble Supreme Court in a number of decisions delivered
until recently have showed the positive signs of recognizing the legitimacy of the live-in
relationships and have also shown the inclination for a legislation to be enacted with the
objective of protecting the rights of couples in a live-in relationship.
In my opinion the judicial acceptance of living together is constructive but going to the extent
of assigning rights and liabilities on living couples towards each other is simply heading
towards defeating the whole concept of living relation and keeping it at the same pedestal as a
marriage.
My line of reasoning against giving similar rights to living partners as that of married spouses
is clear If I dont want obligations of marriage, kindly dont impose them on me. The courts
and legislature should respect the privacy and personal choices of people and adopt this line
of reasoning and send out the message Marry if you want rights

Rights of Women in a Live-in Relationship in India

The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognises and protects the rights of women in living
relationships in India.
The primary beneficiaries of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are:
Women and children. Section 2(a) of the Act will help any woman who is or has been in a
domestic relationship with the 'respondent' in the case.It empowers women to file a case
against a person with whom she is having a 'domestic relationship' in a 'shared household',
and who has subjected her to 'domestic violence'.
Children are also covered the act; they too can file a case against a parent or parents who are
tormenting or torturing them, physically, mentally, or economically. Any person can file a
complaint on behalf of a child.
Who is defined as 'respondent' by this law?
Section 2 (q) says that any adult male member who has been in a domestic relationship with
the aggrieved person is the 'respondent'. The respondent can also be a relative of the husband
or male partner thus, a father-in-law, mother-in-law, or even siblings of the husband and
other relatives can be proceeded against.
Do you have to be married to take recourse to this law?
Significantly, the law recognises live-in relationships. Thus, if a woman is living with a man
who abuses her, she can take recourse to the provisions of this law even though she is not
married to him.
According to section 2(g), any relationship between two persons who live, or have at any
point of time lived together in the shared household, is considered a 'domestic relationship.
This includes relations of consanguinity, marriage, or through relationships in the nature of
marriage, adoption, or joint family thus, 'domestic relationships' are not restricted to the
marital context alone. Domestic relationships' also cover sisters, widows, mothers, daughters,
women in relationships of cohabitation, single women etc. Any widow or unmarried sister or

daughter who is harassed within the home can also resort to the new law. The law also
protects women in fraudulent or bigamous marriages, or in marriages deemed invalid in law.
What are the main rights of a woman as recognized by this law?
The law is so liberal and forward-looking that it recognizes a woman's right to reside in the
shared household with her husband or a partner even when a dispute is on thus, it legislates
against husbands who throw their wives out of the house when there is a dispute. Such an
action by a husband will now be deemed illegal, not merely unethical.
Even if she is a victim of domestic violence, she retains right to live in 'shared homes' that is,
a home or homes she shares with the abusive partner.[ Section 17 ].The law provides that if
an abused woman requires, she has to be provided alternate accommodation and in such
situations, the accommodation and her maintenance has to be paid for by her husband or
partner.
How does the law define 'shared household'?
According to Section 2(s), a household where the aggrieved person lives/lived in a domestic
relationship, either singly or along with the respondent, is a shared household.
Right to Secure Housing
One of the most important features of the Act is the womans right to secure housing. The Act
provides for the womans right to reside in the matrimonial or shared household, whether or
not she has any title or rights in the household. This right is secured by a residence order,
which is passed by a court. These residence orders cannot be passed against anyone who is a
woman.
Furthermore in the recent years the recommendations by various committees and NGOs have
awaken the spirits of justice in the interest of women specially aggrieved by such
relationships. Apart from this the Honble Supreme Court has also given landmark judgments
make its stand clear on the issue. For instance in the landmark case of D. Veluswami v. D.
Patchaimmal it was held a woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to maintenance
unless she fulfills certain parameters, the Supreme court had observed that merely spending
weekends together or a one night would not make it a domestic relationship.
8

In order to get maintenance, the essential four conditions are:

1.

The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

2.

They must be of legal age to marry.

3.

They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage.

4.

They must be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin

to spouses for a significant period of time.

The Supreme court observed that not all Live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in
the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005. If a man has a keep whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual
purpose and/or as a servant it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage.
The National Centre for Women made recommendations to the Ministry of Women and Child
Development to include female live-in partners within the ambit of section 125 of Cr.PC in
order to establish their rights and make them entitled to right to maintenance. The Honble
Court also in the case of Abhijit Auti v. State of Maharashtra and others supported the above
principle and furthermore the Maharashtra Government showed a positive sign by accepting
the Malimath Committee Report and also the Law Commission Report and held that if a
live-in relationship continues for a very long time she is entitled to enjoy the rights of a wife
but it was recently ruled out that a wife under section 125 of Cr.PC is a divorced wife and the
right to maintenance should only be enjoyed by a divorced wife and not by a female partner
who merely cohabited with her male partner. Since in case of a live-in relationship there
exists no marriage and hence no concept of divorce. Therefore a female partner under live-in
relationship should not be construed as a wife under section 125 of the Cr.PC. The decision of
the Honble Court is in the righteous spirit as empowering any women who cohabited with a
man would result in misuse of the legal provisions under section 125 and would therefore be
unfair

on

the

part

of

the

male

partner

as

well.

Rights of Child born through a Live-In Relationship

The Child born through a Live-In Relationships enjoys the same rights of succession and
inheritance as are enjoyed by a child through a married couple under the Hindu Marriage
Act. Notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such
marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate,
whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976)*, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in
respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void
otherwise than on a petition under this Act.
Thus in order to keep up the spirits of law in the righteous direction and to subside the social
evils wherein illegitimate child was denied his rights the Hindu Marriage Act has granted
legitimacy to children born through marriages which are not valid. Hence such definition
brings within itself the ambit of live-in relationships and children born through such relations.
While still the other laws have not guaranteed such legality to children born through such
relationships and therefore the status is dwindling for legal status of children which results in
extensive misuse of the provisions and still escape liability. Hence the legality of a child is
doubtful in other laws and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore if the livein partners decide to separate the question of the future of the child is tossed. Therefore the
laws regarding the guardianship should be amended to include within its ambit the
guardianship of children born through such relationships.

10

Conclusion:
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. In my opinion the effort made by courts
and legislature to recognise the rights of living spouse same as that of a married one is totally
defeating the very purpose and object of this concept. Couples live together to avoid
liabilities, imposing obligations on them is like curtailing there will and right of enjoying a
obligation free relationship. If a couple wants rights against each other they would rather
marry and not enter a living relationship. It high time the judiciary and legislature start
appreciating the true object behind such relationships and stop merging them with married
relation status.
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. Furthermore, I
agree with the concept that the children born through such relationships irrespective of the
parents religion should be guaranteed legitimacy. The female partners role to prove the
burden of such relationship should be relaxed and persons who enter into a live-in
relationship with a living spouse should be convicted for bigamy. A separate legislation can
only be competent lay down the legal framework within which living relationships can be
regulated without defeating its main object.

11

REFERENCES
1. The Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. Not all live-in affairs are relationship in the nature of marriage, says Supreme Court
(thehindu.com).
3. Sc Explanation of Live in Relationships With Reference to Domestic Violence Act
(indialawyers.wordpress.com).
4. www.manupatra.com.
5. www.indianlawyers.wordpress.com.

12