PERMITTING LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN INDIA

THE LEGAL STATUS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS

In a traditional marriage, each spouse is assigned specific rights and tasks that must be fulfilled by either of them. Personal laws such as Hindu laws, Muslim laws, Christian laws, and so on control and safeguard a recognised couple’s marriage tie. Because the notion of “live in relationship” is foreign to Indian law, it has no legal ramifications for couples who live together without marrying.

Because living partnerships encourage premarital sex, there is a significant likelihood of a kid being conceived. These offspring, unlike the children born out of wedlock, have no rights to the inheritance. Furthermore, society considers them as illegitimate offspring, which is unacceptably cruel. However, the Supreme Court of India exonerated them of this atrocious act. And they were given the status of a legitimate kid, as well as the right to property. Legally, live- in partnerships were regarded void-ab-initio¹. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that such connections were lawful for the first time. If all of the requirements for marriage are met, such as mental soundness, the legal age of marriage, consent, and so on, the couple is regarded to be in a lawful live-in relationship.

Under Indian law, a live-in relationship between consenting adults is not prohibited. In the case of “Lata Singh v. State of U.P,” it was decided in 2006 that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of opposite sex, while considered immoral, did not constitute an infraction under the law. In another significant decision, “Khushboo vs Kanaimmal and another,” the Supreme Court stated, “Though the concept of live-in relationship is considered immoral by society, it is unquestionably not illegal in the eyes of the law.” Living together is a right to life and hence cannot be considered criminal.”

LEGAL PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN

Nowadays, couples desire to experiment with different ways of life. Because they are aware that the sense of understanding may differ, living in partnerships has grown frequent. Though most Indian couples embrace the notion, the patriarchal attitude has not been completely erased from society. On several cases, the male spouse took women for granted and abused them. However, there was no chance for judicial recourse under Indian law. However, when incidents of harassment and abuse became more common, the Supreme Court granted victims redress under the Domestic abuse Act. This act refers to “a relationship in the nature of marriage” rather than marriage. The right to maintenance is also a provision in current personal laws that is only available to married women. However, because these rules do not apply to anything other than marriage, women in a live-in relationship cannot, under any circumstances, seek maintenance from the male spouse. The courts eventually provided a remedy for this by broadening the extent of support under section 125². According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is dubious to criminalize any guy who does not offer sufficient maintenance to the lady.

POSITION OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN FOREIGN NATIONS

Live- in relationships, likewise known as cohabitation or de facto connections, relate to unwed couples living together in a married, long- term relationship, analogous to marriage but without the legal formalities. The acceptance and legal recognition of live- in relationships vary significantly from country to country, and indeed within different regions of a country.

Western Countries– In numerous Western countries, live- in relationships have come progressively common and extensively accepted. The legal rights and protections for cohabitating couples have also bettered over time. Some countries, like the Netherlands and Sweden, have indeed honored cohabitation as a legal status with analogous rights and scores as marriage.

North America– In the United States and Canada, live- in relationships are popular, especially among youngish couples. Cohabitation has grown into a social norm, and numerous countries and provinces have laws that address certain aspects of cohabitation, similar as property rights and child guardianship.
Asia– The acceptance of live- in relationships varies extensively across Asian countries. In further liberal and citified areas, cohabitation may be common and permitted, while in further conservative or pastoral regions, it might be lowered upon or indeed illegal. For illustration, India has seen an increase in live- in connections among the youngish generation, but the legal status is still kindly nebulous.
Middle East- Cohabitation is generally not extensively accepted in numerous Middle Eastern countries due to artistic and religious reasons. In utmost cases, it isn’t honored fairly, and unwed couples may face societal pressure or legal consequences.
Africa– Acceptance of live- in relationships in Africa varies from country to country and largely depends on artistic and religious influences. In some regions, it’s further common and permitted, while in others, it may be lowered upon.
Oceania- Countries like Australia and New Zealand have fairly progressive stations towards live- in relationships, and they give certain legal protections for de facto couples in areas similar as property, bequest, and well-being.

POSITION OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA

In India, cohabitation was considered taboo since British rule. still, stances have changed, particularly in big metropolises, where live- in relationships are now more accepted. nevertheless, in pastoral areas with conservative values, cohabitation is still frequently lowered upon. Under the Protections of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005, feminine live- in mates have certain economic rights. The Maharashtra Government approved an offer in October 2008, suggesting that a woman involved in a live- in relationship for a ‘reasonable period’ should be granted the status of a woman.

The determination of what constitutes a ‘reasonable period’ is grounded on the specific data and circumstances of each case. The National Commission for Women recommended to the Ministry of Women and Child Development on 30th June 2008 that the description of ‘woman’ as described in section 125 of Cr.P.C.(Criminal Procedure Code) should be amended to include women involved in a live- in relationship³. The purpose of this recommendation was to bring the protection of women from domestic violence in line with that of fairly wedded couples. The Justice Malimath Committee, set up by the Supreme Court, supported this view and stated that

if a man and a woman live together as hubby and woman for a reasonable long period, the man should be supposed to have married the woman. The Malimath Committee also suggested amending the word ‘woman’ under Cr.P.C. to include a ‘woman living with the man like his woman,’ making a woman in a live- in relationship entitled to alimony. On 16th September 2009, the Supreme Court, in a case, observed that a woman doesn’t need to rigorously establish a formal marriage to claim conservation under section 125 of Cr.P.C. This means a woman in a live- in relationship can also claim conservation under this section.In another case, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a woman of about 21 times of age, being a major, has the right to live with a man indeed without getting wedded if both parties so wish. The Supreme Court further observed that if a man and a woman are involved in a live- in relationship for a long period, they will be treated as a wedded couple, and any child born to them would be considered licit.

LEGITIMACY OF THE CHILD BORN OUT OF A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

In “Tulsa vs Durghatiya,” the Supreme Court stated that children born from a live-in relationship would not be treated as illicit if their parents lived under one roof and cohabited for a significant period of time in order to be recognised as husband and wife, and it could not be a “walk in and walk out” relationship. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 26 of the Special Marriage Act confer legality on kids born of void and voidable marriages, respectively, by stipulating that children born of a null and void marriage or where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage shall be legitimate or deemed to be legitimate. However, according to Subsection (3) of the same provisions of the Act, such children’s right of inheritance is confined to the parents’ property exclusively. As a result, if their parents were not legally married, such children do not enjoy coparcenary rights in the property of the Hindu undivided family (HUF)⁴. As a result, the provisions of these parts of the Act have been used to guarantee the right of inheritance to children born out of a live-in relationship in the parents’ self-acquired property. However, if their parents are not officially married, kids cannot claim coparcenary rights in their father’s HUF property. Claiming support under law 125 of the Cr. P.C. is entirely within the rights of dependent children born from live- in partnerships, as the law specifically states “both legitimate and illegitimate child.” When it comes to guardianship, the mother is considered the natural guardian for such children.

INHERITANCE RIGHTS

The Supreme Court held that a kid born from a live-in relationship is not eligible to inherit in the Hindu ancestral coparcenary property (in the event of an undivided joint Hindu family), but only a portion in the parents’ self-acquired property. This judgement reversed a Madras High Court decision that inferred marriage based on the length of the relationship and permitted children born from live-in partnerships to inherit family property.

The Bench, comprised of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatantar Kumar, affirmed an earlier ruling that examines illegitimate children, for practical purposes such as lineage to their parents’ properties, to be regarded as legitimate under the legal fiction contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (which deals with the legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages). However, the scope of this regulation is confined to the properties of the parents, and they cannot inherit assets from any other relatives based on this provision. A kid born from a live-in relationship may only lodge a claim on the parent’s own property. Some contend that because Section 16 allows a share in the parents’ property, this interpretation may also enable the kid to claim a portion in the parents’ ancestral property⁵. Thus, it is debatable whether the individual is entitled not just to self-acquired property but also to a portion of ancestral property. While a formal marriage exists, a spouse cannot claim a live-in relationship with another person and seek inheritance for the children from that other person’s property. An affair with another person when the partner is still alive is regarded as ‘adultery,’ not a ‘live-in relationship.’ It should be noted that ‘live-in relationships’ are permitted in unmarried heterosexual couples. If one of the aforementioned individuals is married, the guy may be guilty of adultery, which is punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP

Live-in relationships, in which partners live without official marriage, have a variety of psychological consequences. On one hand, they provide additional liberty and freedom, allowing spouses to learn about one other’s daily routines and compatibility prior to marriage. However, cultural standards and familial expectations can lead to stress, as people wrestle with issues of legitimacy and acceptability. In the lack of formal connections, there may be confusion regarding property rights and financial duties, which may have an influence on long- term security⁶. Furthermore, negotiating cultural attitudes and explaining the connection to children, family, and friends can be difficult emotionally. Thus, while live-in relationships provide certain liberties, they also need addressing psychological, emotional, and social complications to maintain the partners’ well-being.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the growing acceptance and legalization of live-in relationships in India mark a significant shift towards acknowledging individual autonomy and relationship diversity. This step reflects the evolving societal dynamics and the recognition that personal choices and emotional connections can exist beyond traditional marital bonds. By permitting live-in relationships, India has an opportunity to promote open dialogues about relationships, consent, and personal rights, which can contribute to a more inclusive and progressive society. However, to ensure the successful integration of this concept, there is a need for comprehensive legal frameworks that safeguard the rights of partners, especially concerning property, inheritance, and social security. Additionally, awareness campaigns could help dispel the stigma associated with such relationships, fostering greater understanding and acceptance among families and communities. Moreover, educational institutions could play a role in promoting healthy relationship models and communication skills. Ultimately, a balanced approach that combines legal provisions, social acceptance, and education can pave the way for a more respectful, inclusive, and harmonious coexistence of various relationship choices in the Indian cultural context.

¹ Live-in relationships in India: Legal but do they have enough safeguards? (2022) https://www.outlookindia.com/. Available at: https://www.outlookindia.com/national/live-in-relationships-in-india-legal-but-do-they-have-enough- safeguards–news-238838 (Accessed: 14 August 2023).
² Vikaspedia domains. Vikaspedia. (n.d.). https://vikaspedia.in/social-welfare/women-and-child- development/women-development-1/legal-awareness-for-women/women-and-the-indian- constitution #: ~:text=Equality%20before%20law, – Article%2014%20embodies&text=Article%2015(3) %20makes%20it, educationally%20backward%20classes%20o f%20society.
³ Tripaksha Litigation (2023) Legality of live in relationship in India, Tripaksha Litigation. Available at: https://tripakshalitigation.com/legality-of-live-in-relationship-in- india/#: ~:text=Kanniammal%20(2010) %205SCC%20600%2C, be%20considered%20illegal%20or%20unlawful. (Accessed: 17 August 2023).
⁴ Mahawar, S. (2022, December 19). The legitimacy of children born out of live-in relationships – iPleaders. iPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-legitimacy-of-children-born-out-of-live-in- relationships/#: ~:text=Subsequently%20the%20Supreme%20Court%2C%20through, out%20of%20the%20socially
5 Limited, M. T. P. (n.d.). {twitter. title}. MyAdvo.in. https://www.myadvo.in/blog/inheritance-rights-in-india/
⁶Bonobology, T. (2022, September 2). What Are The Disadvantages Of Live-In Relationships? Bonobology.com. https://www.bonobology.com/what-are-the-disadvantages-of-live-in- relationships/# ~:text=There%20could%20be%20trust%20issues, step%20of%20moving%20in%20together.