Live-in Relationship in India: Laws and Challenges | law journals

               

               Abstract

Live-in relationship is prominently increasing in India as an easy way similar to marriage. It is defined as a domestic cohabitation between an adult couple who are not married. Apparently, it appears like a stress-free companionship without any legal obligations; conversely, it has many complications, responsibilities and legal liabilities. Recently attempts have been made to bring it in the ambit of some laws.

It is no longer an offence in India and many guidelines pertaining to maintenance, property, the legal status of a child have been issued in various decisions of the Apex Court. Still it is a debatable issue in India. There are many grey areas which need appropriate attention like, official documentation, cultural issues, property rights, will and gift rights, anti-religion status, LGBT community and so on.

The primary focus of the article is on to comprehend the concept of live-in relationship with the help of secondary sources. Thereafter, an attempt has been made to study the problems and challenges faced by the couples with the help of descriptive and analytic methodology. Lastly, the article argues on the need for framing a separate, secular and gender-sensitive law for the couple opting to cohabit in a live-in relationship.

Introduction

Live-in relationship is an association where two people cohabit outside marriage. The concept is already accepted and legalized in many countries around the world. As per the Apex Court, for a man and a woman in love to live together is part of the right to life’; therefore, a live-in relationship is no longer an offence.

The Malimath Committee in 2003 paved the way for providing landmark recommendations. It is pertinent to mention that primarily it shed light on the term ‘wife’ and consider a woman in a live in relationship alike wife. Thereafter, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) 2005, which is regarded as the first piece of legislation provided legal recognition to relations outside marriage, by covering it under the ambit of relations ‘in the nature of marriage’ (Anuja Agrawal, 2012).

Many attempts have been made to bring it in the purview of some laws like domestic violence, maintenance, property, the legal status of a child, in order to regulate the dynamics of this new social order. Still, on moral and societal grounds it is always debatable and is yet a taboo in India. Marriage in the Indian culture has been considered as a holy bond since the Vedic times.

The idea of marriage has consistently advanced with time. With the continual development in society and human psychology, the concept of marriage and relationship has likewise advanced. The present generation is more generous and liberal about the idea and concept of cohabitation.

Though it seems like a quiet, comfortable and relaxed companionship and without any legal obligation towards each other, on the contrary, it also has many complications, responsibilities and legal liabilities.

Research methodology

In this article, the research methodology is doctrinal in nature. The primary focus is on to comprehend the concept, laws, Act, books, news, and cases pertaining to a live-in relationship in India and understand the dynamics of this new social order.

Thereafter, an attempt has been made to study the problems and challenges faced by the couples with the help of descriptive and analytic methodology. Lastly, in the context of the problems being faced by those who volunteer to embrace this emerging trend of cohabitation, the paper argues on the need for framing a separate, secular and gender-sensitive law for the couple opting to cohabit in a live-in relationship.

Marriage and live in

In India marriage, since the Vedic period has been considered as a sacred bond. Marriages in India take place either following the personal law of the religion to which a party belongs or following the provisions of the Special Marriage Act.

Marriage, as per the law, constitutes a contract between a man and a woman, in which the parties undertake to live together and support each other. The notion of marriage has advanced with time. Marriage is usually defined as one of the fundamental civil rights after the official ceremony.

It has legal significance and envisages several obligations and responsibilities, in the matter of inheritance of property, successorship, and so on. Marriage, consequently, includes lawful prerequisites of custom, exposure, selectiveness and all the lawful outcomes that stream out of that relationship.

A live-in relationship has yet not been socially accepted in India, unlike many other countries. Nevertheless, with steady societal advancement and far-reaching intricacies of marriage, people are opting for an alternative institution like live-in-relation to form a lasting conjugal relationship, which is like marriage but out of marriage.

Live-in relationship is not an offence

The Apex Court in its various judgments has stated that if a man and a woman living like a husband and a wife in a long-term relationship and even have children, the judiciary will presume that the two were married and same laws would be applicable to them and their relationship.

The concept of a live in relationship was recognized in Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan1 by the Allahabad High Court, where it is observed by the Bench consisting of Justice M. Katju and Justice R.B. Misra 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 it is not illegal.

There is a difference between law and morality.” Afterwards, in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & anr2 case, the Supreme Court observed that live- in relation between two adults without formal marriage cannot be construed as an offence. Further, it is added that there was no law prohibiting live-in relationships or pre-marital sex.

Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act 2005

The Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act (hereinafter PWDVA) 2005 was perhaps the first legislature which has acknowledged live-in relationships by giving rights and protection to those females who are not lawfully married, nonetheless, they are living with a male under the same roof in a relationship, which is like marriage but not marriage, furthermore akin to wife, though not equivalent to wife (Auroshree , 2019).

Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines: Domestic relationship means 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 family4 . Live-in relationship is not categorically defined in the Act but left to the courts for interpretation.

The Court interprets the expression’ relationship in the nature of marriage’ by virtue of the aforementioned provision. Presently, the provisions of PWDVA validate the individuals who are in live-in relationships and provides some fundamental rights to women to protect themselves from the abuse of fraudulent marriage, bigamous relationships and so on

Essential Factors to mark live-in relationship legal

A relationship ‘like marriage’ under the 2005 Act must consent to some essential criteria which were stated by the Supreme Court in D Patchaiammal v. D Velusamy5 and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma6 case. Women in such relationships need to fulfil specific criteria to be benefited under PWDA, such as:

1. Age: The intended couple must be of legal age to marry, i.e., the couple should be major according to Indian law. The Allahabad High Court, stated “a lady of about 21 years of age being a major, has right to go anywhere and that anyone man and woman even without getting married can live together if they wish” in Payal Katara v. Superintendent Nari Niketan Kandri Vihar Agra and Ors.7 case. Although in a recent judgement of Nandakumar vs The State of Kerala 8 , the Kerala High Court held that an adult couple could be in a live-in relationship even the man’s age is below 21 years, which is the legal age for marriage.
2. A significant period: The expression ‘at any point of time’ is mentioned under section 2(f) PWDA, which means a significant or reasonable period to maintain and continue a relationship. Although depending upon the factual situation, it may vary from case to case (Rajagopal, Krishanadas, 2010). The relationship should not be taken for granted. There must be some sincerity and seriousness towards the relationship to prove it legal. Spending a week or a one-night stand cannot come under the preview of a domestic relationship. The live-in relationship if continued for a long time, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship and that there is a presumption of marriage between the parties stated in the Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant9 . This approach indicates the intention of the Court in favour of treating long-term living relationships as a marriage rather than making it a new concept like a live-in relationship. The Supreme Court, for the first time, recognised live-in relationship and gave legal validity to a fiftyyear live-in relationship of a couple in the Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation. Justice Krishna Iyer held 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 (Anuja Agrawal, 2012).
3. The couple must have voluntarily cohabited: Independent decision of the couple with a common intention to cohabit with each other is an essential criterion of live-in relationship. It includes supporting each other, sharing their respective roles and responsibilities, financial arrangements, socialisation in public and so on to prove the loyalty and endurance of their relationship (Auroshree , 2019). If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he uses principally for sexual reasons or possibly as a maid/slave and maintains her financially, it would not be considered, as a relationship in the nature of marriage or equal marriage.
4. Who may live together without marriage? The Supreme Court has illustrated five categories where the concept of live-in relationships can be considered and proved in the Court of law, as stated in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma, case, 2013. They are: a) Live-in relationship between an unmarried adult woman and an unmarried adult male, which is a less complicated relationship. b) Live-in relationship between an unmarried woman and a married adult male, where an unmarried adult woman knowingly enters into a relationship with a married adult male. c) Live-in relationship between a married adult woman and an unmarried adult male where an adult married woman, knowingly enters into a relationship with an unmarried adult male. d) Live-in relationship between an unmarried woman unknowingly enters into a relationship with a married adult male. e) Live-in relationship between same-sex partners (Gay and Lesbians), although PWDA does not recognize such a relationship and that relationship cannot be termed as a relationship in the nature of marriage under the Act.
5. Adultery : The third category defined under above-mentioned categories is debatable as it approves the live-in relationship between a married adult woman and an unmarried adult male which was earlier treated as an offence under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in Joseph Shine vs Union of India10 a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on 27 September 2018 unanimously ruled to scrap Section 497, and it is no longer an offence in India. It has been argued that the section violates two articles of the Constitution of India; Article 14, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India” and Article 15 “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.” While reading the judgment, Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, “it (adultery) cannot be a criminal offence,” however it can be a ground for civil issues like divorce.

Legal Status and property rights of Children Born Out of Live-in Relationship

a. Legal status: The Supreme Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya11 held that a child born out of such a relationship would no longer be considered as an illegitimate child. The noteworthy prerequisite for the same is that the parents must have lived under the same roof and cohabited for a significant period which proves their sincerity towards the relationship. S.P.S.

Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan12 was the first case which approves the legitimacy of children born out of a live-in relationship. The Supreme Court held that “if a man and woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for some 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.”

Additionally, the Court also interpreted Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India which direct its policies towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.

b. Property rights: The Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun approved the inheritance to the four children born out of the live-in relationship by considering them as ‘legal heirs’. Therefore, the Court has guaranteed that no child may be denied their inheritance who are born out of a live-in relationship of a significant period of time.

In Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan13 , case also the Supreme Court provided legitimacy to a child born out of a live-in relationship in the eyes of the law and held that he might be allowed to inherit the property of the parents. The Supreme Court held that a child born out of parents in a live-in might be allowed to inherit the property of the parents if any, but does not have any claim upon Hindu ancestral coparcenary property. Read More