INTRODUCTION
Live-in relationship is a concept that is still viewed as immoral and unsightly in modern Indian society. The distaste for live-in relationships is often found to be due to religious and cultural values. Premarital relations between a man and a woman are frowned upon and cohabitation between an unmarried couple was viewed as a crime in India until recent judicial judgements have established that live-in relationships are not a crime. None of the personal law legislations such as the Hindu Marriage Act[1], the Special Marriage Act[2], the Indian Succession Act[3], etc. have recognised live-in relationships.
In Hinduism, marriage is seen as a sacrament and certain customs (Saptapadi) have to be followed in order to constitute a valid marriage[4]. In Christianity and Islam, marriage is a contract, and therefore registration is mandatory. From a legal perspective, live-in relationships are not registered and therefore cannot be considered as a valid form of marriage. However, in certain cases, the Courts of the country have disagreed with popular opinion and accepted a more tolerant outlook towards the intimate relations between a couple.
While live-in relationships are seen as a way of being able to cohabit with one’s beloved without having to bear the burden of marriage, the nature of live-in relationships is volatile and usually does not carry the feeling of closure as found in marriages. Since there are no laws regulating live-in relationships, there is much ambiguity in the legal sphere. This ultimately leads to people, especially women, suffering grievances borne out of live-in relationships with no way of legal remedy. Keeping all these issues in mind, the Courts have taken a liberal approach to live-in relationships to protect the rights and safety of women.
RECOGNITION OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
As mentioned earlier, no statutes recognize live-in relationships in India. However, the judiciary has taken a more liberal approach to this. In the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation[5], the Court held that “A strong presumption arises in favour of wed-lock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin.”[6]
Further, in the landmark case of S Khushboo v. Kanniammal[7], the Supreme Court of India held that live-in relationships come under the Right to Life under Article 21[8] and hence they are not illegal. However, the next question that arose was if every live-in relationship would amount to marriage, even if they were for a very short period of time. The Court sought to differentiate between a “walk-in, walk-out” relationship and a long-term live-in relationship. In the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Supreme Court gave guidelines for a live-in relationship to be given the status of marriage:
- “Duration of period of relationship: which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case.
- Shared household
- Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements: Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, etc.
- Domestic Arrangements: Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc.
- Sexual Relationship: Marriage-like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for the procreation of children.
- Children: Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long-standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.
- Socialization in Public: Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.
- Intention and conduct of the parties: Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship.”[9]
RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
Now that the definition of a live-in relationship in legal terms is established, there is more certainty. This allows for the redressal of grievances faced by some partners in a live-in relationship, especially women. Issues such as maintenance and domestic violence were suffered by women in a live-in relationship, with no statute to offer a remedy. The Courts have once again taken it upon themselves to establish certain rights for women in live-in relationships.
- Right against domestic violence
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[10]was enacted by the Parliament with the objective of protecting married women from domestic violence. However, since the legality of a live-in relationship had not yet been established, there was no mention of it in the act. However, in the case Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma[11], the Supreme Court held that the act is also applicable to women in live-in relationships. Section 2(f) of the Act defines “domestic relationship” as “a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”[12] Live-in relationships that satisfy all the conditions listed in the same case can be considered to be in the nature of marriage, therefore protecting the women in such relationships.
- Right to Maintenance
Married women have a right to maintenance under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act[13] and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[14] (CrPC). However, there is no mention of maintenance to be provided to a live-in partner. The term used is “palimony”. The Supreme Court of California first coined it in the landmark US case of Marvin v. Marvin[15]. Palimony refers to the financial support provided to a woman who has cohabited with a man for a long time without marriage. In the case of Velusamy v. Patchiammal[16], it was held that the definition of “wife” under Section 125 of CrPC could be expanded also to include live-in partners. Maintenance could be claimed provided that the partner can prove that:
- The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
- They must be of legal age to marry.
- They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
- They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, we see that although there are no legislations that govern live-in relationships, the Supreme Court has taken steps to ensure that women are protected in the country. In a society that is still patriarchal in nature, it is necessary to ensure that women are not mistreated on the basis of a legal loophole. While the concept of live-in relationships is still fresh, its becoming a common occurrence in metropolitan cities where the restraints of culture and traditional values are less binding and have a more progressive and liberal society. The legislature is also taking steps to normalize live-in relationships as seen in the state of Uttarakhand. The recently passed Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand has an entire part dedicated to live-in relationships. Part 3 of the Act mandates the registration of live-in relationships with the registrar and also legitimizes children born out of live-in relationships. Along with this, Section 388 also allows a woman in a live-in relationship to claim maintenance if her partner deserts her. Similarly, other states in the country can also take a step towards normalization and recognition of live-in relationships to ensure safety and protection of women. The Supreme Court has initiated this process with the help of judicial decisions, which can further be emphasized with legislative backing. Although the morality of live-in relationships is still considered ambiguous by some, the women who are in such relationships cannot be denied their rights or protection against violence. Therefore, it is necessary for the legislature to adapt to the changes in society act accordingly. The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand can be viewed as a step in the right direction towards establishing live-in relationships legislatively and therefore ensuring the protection of women in such relationships. However, due to the various issues surrounding UCC, there is hesitance to enact it on a nationwide scale. Rights in a live-in relationship need not be a product of UCC exclusively and a separate legislation can be enacted which follows similar provisions as in the Uttarakhand UCC, but on a national level. This can help ensure the safety and protection of women.
Author(s) Name: Mohit G (School of Law, M S Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)
References:
[1] Hindu Succession Act 1954
[2] Special Marriage Act 1954
[3] Indian Succession Act 1925
[4] Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 7
[5] Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 1978 AIR 1557
[6] Varsha I, ‘Rights of a Woman in a Live-In Relationship in India: Legal Status and Landmark Judgements’ (B&B Legal, 23 Nov 2022) <https://bnblegal.com/article/rights-of-a-woman-in-a-live-in-relationship-in-india-legal-status-and-landmark-judgments/> accessed 18 June 2024
[7] S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3196
[8] Constitution of India 1949, Art. 21
[9] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 2013 AIR SCW 6783
[10] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005
[11] Supra note 8
[12] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 2(f)
[13] Supra note 4
[14] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 125
[15] Marvin v. Marvin, 122 Cal.App.3d 871, 176 Cal. Rptr. 555 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)
[16] D Velusamy v. D Patchiammal, (2010) AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 479
