Live-In Relationships: Legal Status, Rights, and Social Challenges

BY : AADHYA GUPTA

Overview and Meaning

In India, marriage is considered a duty to be performed by every individual. The norm in most Indian Households is that of arranged marriages, wherein the parents of the “man” and “woman” consent and agree upon their union instead of the two adults. But with the onset of the concept of love marriages and Live-in relationships, this idea seems to be less idealised.

Live-in relationship is a way for people to cohabit without marrying. Cohabitation means an arrangement where two adults live together in absence of a formal relationship in the form of marriage. Though in the eyes of law such a cohabitation based on consent of two adults is not considered as illegal, they are still considered immoral in the Indian society. Unlike the normalised belief that two people are meant to be in a union of marriage for the greater good of the society, the contemporary world focuses more upon individual’s rights and choices. Living together with a partner without marrying should be an individual’s choice but the state’s stepping in becomes important too due to various reasons such as the legitimacy of the child born out of such a relationship. Meanwhile tribals in parts of Rajasthan belonging to the community of Garasia have normalised the concept of live-in relationships, believing in the right to choose and right to reject their partners.

There is no legal definition of the term live-in relationship. As per Fuller Live-in relationship is: “An arrangement of living under which the couples which are unmarried live together to conduct a long-going relationship similarly as in marriage.” And according to most authors it is a relationship where two people live together in a sexually and emotionally intimate relationship.

Live-in relationships are gaining such popularity because of numerous reasons. One of the major causes is to avoid the “shackles” of institutionalised marriages. Live-in is a great way to live with someone without the obligations of marriage. It allows people nowadays to test their compatibility on all aspects similar to marriage. But even after their legal recognition indulging in such a relationship comes with multiple challenges. Foremost, the Indian society being entrenched in historical cultures and traditions established long ago and refusing to adapt with changing times. Moreover, this is coupled with documentation, succession and inheritance challenges. But recently Live-in relationships have seen a graph of growth from the judgement of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation wherein it was held that a long-term relationship between a man and woman is presumed to be a marriage to the judgment of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Another v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Other wherein finally legitimacy and the right to a part of family succession was allowed to the children born to partners of live-in relationships. In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, the court determined that a child’s rights should be viewed independently of the nature of their parents' relationship. Justice A.K. Ganguly emphasized that children born from such unions are blameless and entitled to the same rights and privileges as those born within the bounds of legally recognized marriages.

Judgements

Live-in relationships in India are not provided with the same legal protection as married couples but there are certain legal judgments regarding the same. There are many revolutionary judgements ranging from S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal where the Supreme Court’s decision gave social recognition and acceptance to live-in relationships. Similarly, in the case of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, the court recognized that a long-term live-in relationship might be deemed a valid marriage under specific conditions. It further ruled that women in such relationships are entitled to claim maintenance from their partners following separation given:

a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

b) They must be of legal age to marry.

c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

This judgement reflected upon the shift of the societal norms to more progressive views and thus claiming that the society is evolving and the law must adapt accordingly.

But live-in relationships come with their own set of challenges, especially for the two people involved in it. Because even though as less complicated than a marriage, cohabiting together for a considerable period of time creates a sense of vulnerability and co-dependency. Therefore, in the Supreme Court provided protection for women and children born out of such cohabitation. The key question in Ajay Bhardwaj vs Jyotsna And Ors case was whether a woman in a live-in relationship, without being legally married, is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. This issue was previously addressed in Chanmuniya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Ors, where the Supreme Court held that when partners cohabit as husband and wife, a presumption of marriage exists. Subsequently, in the Ajay Bhardwaj case, the High Court affirmed that women in live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance similar to that of legally married wives. Though there is no legislative provision for live-in relationships in India except under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the act the term “domestic relationship” not only included relationship in nature of marriage but also a relationship “in the nature of marriage”. A person who falls in either category is entitled to get the benefit of maintenance.

Uniform Civil Code

The recent Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand contains a provision on mandatory registration on such live-in relationships. This provision raises a question on the very core idea of a live-in relationship. While the bill is first amongst its kind to give some sort of legal recognition to live-in relationships it has some cleared lines on multiple facets such as

a. the legitimacy of the child born,

b. desertion of the woman by her live-in partner can claim maintenance,

c. minimum age for marriage,

d. proposing equal inheritance rights for both men and women,

e. preventing instances of fraud and exploitation by mandating registration

But mandatory registration has its downsides too, majorly the intervention in those individuals’ private lives, extreme punishments in failing to do so, enhanced social stigma. In India one reason of people entering into such relationships is to avoid bureaucratic hurdles,

Moreover, in India the social stigma around inter-caste or inter-religion relationships sometimes attracts a hostile reaction eventually harming the two people. Similarly goes for homosexual couples.

Live-In Relationships: Nordic Countries

Western countries’ take on relationships has evolved in a more profound manner. The Nordic countries change in policies to adapt to a new living arrangement in order to support maximum families is tremendously done.

Countries such as Sweden, Estoni, Norway and France have the highest number of cohabitors with children, whereas Switzerland has more childless cohabitation. The recognition and rights to people in live-in relationship including Cohabitation agreements, Parental rights, social benefits same as that of married couples. Moreover, cohabitation is so common in these countries that there is way more social acceptance than that in India.

The 1999 French law introducing "civil solidarity pacts" allows partners, including same-sex couples, to form a legal union that grants them rights comparable to those of married couples in areas such as taxable income, inheritance, property, and social assistance.

Conclusion

The law changes by the shifting social patterns of society because it cannot afford to remain stagnant. Live-in relationships are one of them. It is personal choice of an adult to live with whomsoever they choose to and like whomsoever they want to. Although there is no explicit regulation that oversees a live-in relationship, it cannot be completely ruled out that there isn't a law that prevents it. And though the judicial endeavours provide recognition through a series of judgments, legislative recognition’s gap can still be felt. Moreover, considering these relationships and comparing them to marriages is a flawed concept. In doing so, the judiciary undermines the whole idea of cohabiting together.