To Live-in or Not to Live-In: The Legality

India is a land of diverse people, cultures, religions, ideologies, and customs which eventually give rise to complex problems. Our lives, especially that of young girls, are built around the foundational institution of marriage from our birth till our death. It is a goal waiting to be ‘settled,’ with marriage serving as the score. This holy act of marriage is enshrined through various legislations like the Hindu Marriage Act, of 1955. However, are we not naïve enough to believe that this bond of ‘holy matrimony’ is devoid of prejudices and biases?

Not. History has taught us that in India, expected change is unmet, especially concerning sensitive and emotionally rousing topics, like marriage or relationships. The focus of this article is to analyze one of the facets that has been taboo for a long time, live-in relationships. Since it is beyond the realm of marriage and challenges its institution, it is pertinent to delve into the legality, or its lack thereof, to comprehend its implications, the rights, and initially, whether one can even be in a legal live-in relationship.

Indian laws and acts do not cater to assimilating heterosexual partners cohabiting without being married (live-in) up until the draft Uniform Civil Code of Uttrakhand was tabled in February 2024. Simply put, it mandates a registration of live-in relationships and its nonadherence would lead to a punishable offense. Do we assume that these relationships are doomed and that there are no opportunities for partners to decide their life patterns, if not for marriage? The courts clarify by refuting this assumption and will be elucidated further.

Live in relationships – an offense?

Now, although live-in relationships, which are gaining popularity now, are not yet legally recognized for protection in our country, thereby not attributing the rights available to married couples, it does not declare these relationships as illegal or criminally offensive. The lack of specific legislation does stir issues, especially in matters of abuse, separation, financial instability, and social security, apart from societal pressures and stigma. However, through the wider ambit of the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), IPC, and CRPC, live-in relationships have been assigned certain validity. The controversial draft UCC Uttarakhand Bill attempts to bring the legalization spotlight to it by stating that live-in relationships in the “nature of marriage,” are mandated to be registered. This would be followed by a check of the validity of their relationship based on age and the presence of consent or lack thereof. Section 378 of the same enters the territory of issuing punishments for those who fail to register such a relationship after a month of being in one and can be punished with imprisonment or imposition of a fee. Does it pose an obvious awkwardness and inconvenience to those in live-ins by snatching their flexibility and privacy? Does it make it harder for society and couples to come out of their shells and accept this supposed new-age concept? 

Without a doubt. But not all is glum and dim. Section 388 of the draft suggests that within those registered relationships, a woman would have the right to ‘maintenance’ if deserted by their partner. A lens can depict it as a progressive approach but again, another seems to expose it to the parochial light suggesting that women need that protection even when they have not particularly asked for it. Moreover, what exactly should a couple give pertinence to; the personal instability and issue behind unregistered doors or the possible acceptance in a largely regressive and hinged society falling in registered arms? 

Several social situations are often authenticated by precedents and court rulings rather than getting their legality through statutes. Initially, in 2003, the Malimath Committee, aimed at bringing about reform in the criminal justice system by the Ministry of Home Affairs, proposed recommendations to modify the term ‘wife’ to consider women in live-ins akin to a wife which unfortunately did not see the light of day. Similarly, the PWDVA attempted to cover these relationships in the interpretation of ‘in the nature of marriage,’ which was also rejected (Auroshree, 2020). However, there is light at the end of the tunnel and in 2010, the light shone.

The understanding and interpretation of these relationships have steadily progressed, along with greater protection and comprehension of what they entail. D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal (D. Veluswamy v D. Patchaiammal, 2011), laid down a criterion under the PWDVA to assess the relationship who are unmarried as falling within ‘relationship in the nature of marriage.’ In a celebratory judgment, live-in relationships were safe from getting tagged as immoral and illegal relationships through another case by acknowledging the act of consenting adults (S. Khushboo v Kanniammal & Anr., 2010). It was followed by the landmark case of Indra Sharma (Indra Sharma v V.K.V Sharma, 2013) wherein a woman in a live-in relationship was granted protection under the DV Act by attaining maintenance for being deserted by her partner. This positive direction was propelled and widened by opining that the HMA would identify women in live-ins as legally wedded wives, being entitled to the same protection and rights in the Payal Sharma case (Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, 2001). Children born out of live-ins were in even more unchartered territory by being parented by unmarried couples, but through the above-mentioned case, even such children, under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act would be liable for maintenance. Finally, acceptance, if not in the expected way, but in some form was deemed to live-in couple through Lalita Toppo v State of Jharkhand (Lalita Toppo v State of Jharkhand, 2019), wherein a time -criteria showing their longevity would ascertain them as being and accepted as a married couple.

Is it enough?

While there has been significant acceptance and change with regards to the manner live-in relationships and the couple are viewed, especially with the legal protection and rights they have been rightfully bestowed with, there are several obstacles that hinder and reduce the advancement of this path. Firstly, the lack of proper statutory recognition which would entail rights without taking a gamble with the judicial system. Second, positive acknowledgment from society. India is home to numerous religions and cultures which play a pivotal role in determining the norms primarily stemming from the stringent and prejudiced religious undertones which can harm the couple, physically, legally, and mentally (Sarkar). Third, since it is not a legal union under law, in times of separation there are persisting issues of determining property rights. It is interlinked with the financial stability of both the partners which is generally aversive for the woman.

Admittedly, some issues have to be addressed, but how the courts are approaching such agendas, is shedding hopeful light on the future of this popular trend.

A new appeal for the youth is arising as people are not ready to take on obligations and live-in relationships appeal to them as a better way to live, similar to marriage, but without its complexities and anxieties. On the contrary, it necessitates far more responsibility and understanding of socio-legal viewpoints. The notion is progressively being recognised by society as a valid alternative to marriage rather than a replacement for it. It is gaining protection, rather, empathy and the PWDVA 2005 safeguards some of the rights of women in such relationships. Nonetheless, several murky areas require critical discussion for an inclusive future.

If this article did not suffice, Luka Chuppi (movie) can elucidate the ideas, difficulties, and success of a live-in relationship.

Refrences

1. Auroshree. (2020, 07 22). Live In Relationship and Indian Judiciairy. Retrieved from

SCC blog online: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/01/23/live-in-

relationship-and-indian-judiciary/

2. D. Veluswamy v D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.

3. Indra Sharma v V.K.V Sharma, (2013) 15 SSC 775.

4. Lalita Toppo v State of Jharkhand, (2019) 13 SCC 796.

5. Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, AIR 2001 All 254.

6. S. Khushboo v Kanniammal & Anr., (2010)5 SCC 600.

7. Sarkar, A. (n.d.). Law, Religion, and Conjugal Ties: A Study of 'Live-In-Relationships' in 

Contemporary Indian Society. IJHRLR, 2455-5942.

About the author: A final year law student, entrepreneur, dancer and basketball player who is now a writer. She is goofy and energetic and always up for a chat on just about everything.