INTRODUCTION
A live-in relationship is an informal relationship between two consenting adults cohabiting, similar to that of a husband and wife, but not tied to the commitments and requirements of a legal marriage. Although there is no formal legislation recognising a live-in relationship in India, numerous judicial precedents have upheld and clarified their legality. In Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Anr[1], while quashing the criminal complaints against a Tamil actress for expressing her support for pre-marital sex and cohabitation, the Apex Court dealt with the legality of live-in relationships incidentally. The court observed that “Morality and Criminality are not co-extensive”. It held that if two consenting individuals decide to cohabit as a couple without getting legally married, it is well within their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and by no means can it be deemed an illegal act.
Further, in the case of Lata Singh vs State of U.P. & Anr[2], the court held that “a major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or may live with anyone she likes”. Although the case primarily dealt with family harassment over an inter-caste marriage, the phrase laid down the key legal foundation for recognising the validity of live-in relationships in India.
While the courts have extended recognition to live-in relationships in India, either directly or indirectly, society and the legislature remain silent on their acceptance and recognition. This legal blog seeks to critically examine the need for legislative protection of the rights of individuals in live-in relationships beyond mere judicial recognition.
LEGAL CHALLENGES ABOUT LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
In a culturally sophisticated country like India, live-in relationships are not viewed as common, especially by the parents and relatives of the consenting adults. Such individuals face harassment and social stigma in workplaces and public places, and have difficulty finding accommodation for cohabitation. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma[3], the Apex Court held that “live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country.” This demonstrates that the stigma is real and pervasive enough to be judicially noticed. Although the Reserve Bank of India’s Know Your Customer Master Direction does not explicitly restrict unmarried couples from opening joint accounts, many major financial institutions—including HDFC, ICICI, and Axis Bank—structure their products around the traditional family unit. Consequently, branch-level discretion frequently results in these couples being denied service or forced to provide relationship affidavits, a requirement that is never imposed on married couples[4].
With respect to addressing the problems of domestic violence and other forms of harassment in a live-in relationship, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, recognises a live-in relationship as a domestic relationship under section 2(f)[5], entitling a woman in such a relationship to certain rights, including maintenance and other civil remedies. However, the Act remains silent about similar problems faced by men. There have been instances where men are falsely accused of sexual assault or fraud for misrepresenting a live-in relationship as a marriage; there are no legal provisions to provide equal legal remedies for men in such situations.[6]. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956[7] and the Indian Succession Act of 1925[8] do not include provisions that establish live-in partners as legal heirs. Consequently, when a partner dies intestate, the survivor has no inheritance rights, except where the court invokes the presumption of marriage based on long-term cohabitation.
The Apex Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya[9] observed that children born out of live-in relationships are not illegitimate. In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun[10], the court affirmed they can inherit their parents’ self-acquired property. However, their inheritance rights are not absolute; they apply only if the court is convinced that the parents cohabited for an extended period. Therefore, the child’s legitimacy, inheritance rights, and access to other public services largely depend on judicial fact-finding rather than on any codified statutory provisions, unlike those children born to a legally married couple. Such children could be protected or left unprotected depending on how the court views their parents’ relationship[11].
Despite these problems, individuals, especially the current generation, choose live-in relationships over traditional marital arrangements because of the complications and expectations attached to the latter. Individuals have the freedom to walk away or move on if they are not comfortable with each other in live-in relationships, but this is not the case in marriages. “Individuals often maintain a stronger sense of personal autonomy and individual freedom, focusing on personal or career goals without formal marital obligations in live-in relationships. Also, cohabitation allows individuals to enjoy many of the benefits of a long-term committed relationship without the perceived commitment of marriage”[12].
NEED FOR LEGAL PROTECTION BEYOND JUDICIAL RECOGNITION
Over the years, the constitutional courts of India have interpreted existing laws and set precedents to protect the rights of individuals in live-in relationships. In the case of Ajay Bhardwaj vs Jyotsna and Ors[13], the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[14], through judicial interpretation, extends to partners in a live-in relationship as well. Further, in the case of D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal[15], the Apex Court listed the conditions under which a woman in a live-in relationship can claim maintenance under Section 125 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[16]. In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan[17], the Court held “that if a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for a long period, the law presumes they are legally married and that the children born to them are legitimate”. Further, live-in relationships are recognised as domestic relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[18], entitling women in such a relationship to certain legal rights. These are instances of judicial activism shaping the legality of live-in relationships.
However, in Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma[19]The Apex Court held that such relationships might last longer, resulting in a pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and with an increasing number of such relationships, there is a need for adequate and effective protection, especially for the woman and children born out of such relationships. Furthermore, the judiciary can only interpret the existing laws and, to an extent, solve legal disputes pertaining to live-in relationships. It is the work of the legislature to create a comprehensive legal framework with respect to live-in relationships to clear the vagueness and absurd perceptions surrounding it.
CONCLUSION
Despite the need for a legal framework, the legislature is hesitant to adopt one because of prevailing traditional moral values and the intense political sensitivities surrounding such relationships. As society evolves, there is growing acceptance and widespread understanding of such relationships as well. It is high time that the legislature takes a step in framing dedicated legislation with careful consideration of the challenges associated with it.
However, the legislative framework need not equate live-in relationships with marriage; rather, it shall prioritise the protection of the rights and interests of those involved in such relationships. Such legislation shall set flexible standards for recognising live-in relationships, establish gender-neutral remedies against abuse and exploitation, clarify maintenance and property rights for both partners, and ensure legal safeguards for children born out of such relationships. Also, the legislation shall include anti-discrimination guidelines to protect such individuals from unfair treatment by landlords, financial institutions, and other members of society.
As a first step towards framing the legislation, a formal reference can be made to the Law Commission of India to conduct thorough research and draft model legislation.
Author(s) Name: S.LAKSHANA (CHRIST(Deemed to be University), Bangalore, Karnataka)
References:
[1] S Khushboo v Kanniammal and Another (2010) 5 SCC 600.
[2] Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2006) 5 SCC 475.
[3] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755.
[4] Nandita Ravi, ‘Can Unmarried Heterosexual and Same-Sex Couples Open a Joint Bank Account in India?’ The News Minute (29 January 2019) <https://www.thenewsminute.com/money/can-unmarried-heterosexual-and-same-sex-couples-open-joint-bank-account-india-95633 > accessed 23 July 2026
[5] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 2(f).
[6] Navpreet Kaur and Shobha Gulati, ‘Domestic Violence Against Men in India: A Critical Analysis with Special Reference to Indian Laws’ (2024) 22(1) South India Journal of Social Sciences 70 <https://doi.org/10.62656/SIJSS.v22i1.1-231 > accessed 23 July 2026
[7] Hindu Succession Act 1956.
[8] Indian Succession Act 1925.
[9] Tulsa v Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520.
[10] Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun (2023) 10 SCC 1.
[11] A Srivastava, ‘Legal Rights of the Children Born Out of Live-In Relationships’ in Child Protection in India (Routledge 2025) 109 < https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9781003607076-9/legal-rights-children-born-live-relationships-ayushi-srivastava.> accessed 23 July 2026
[12] Hindustan Times, ‘Are Live-in Relationships Good for Mental Health? 5 Pros and Cons Explained’ Hindustan Times (15 April 2024) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/relationships/are-live-in-relationships-good-for-mental-health-5-pros-and-cons-explained-101713511287632.html > accessed 23 July 2026
[13] Ajay Bhardwaj v Jyotsna and Others 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6136.
[14] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 125.
[15] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469.
[16] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 125.
[17] S P S Balasubramanyam v Suruttayan (1994) 1 SCC 460.
[18] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
[19] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (n 1).