An informative presentation explaining the concept of live in relationship in India and other countries

1. LIVE- IN
RELATIONSHIP
! A deep study of the concept of live- in relationship in India !

2. Even in the age of the growing world and technology, there has been no universal definition of “live
in relationship” derived by any law governing marriages in the world. Despite of such ambiguity,
there have been several conceptual definitions that in sum define the very concept of “live in
relationship”.
The expression ‘live-in-relationship’ in its ordinary sense to mean that two people living together
without intending to establish any kind of permanent relationship between them. It is purely an
arrangement between the parties that once a party to a live-in- relationship determines that he/she
does not wish to live in such a relationship comes to an end. Hence, It can also be called as a walk-
in & walk-out relationship.
In India it is called as ‘Mitru Sambandh’, is a de facto union in which couple shares common bed-
room without solemnizing marriage or getting into the legality of marriage.

3. Live-in relationship" might be a new term introduced in India
but the concept is ancient. In the Vedas, we find a mention of
eight types of marriages, one of which is the Gandharva type,
in which a man and a woman mutually consent to get married.
This neither involves the family of the couple nor a particular
ritual to solemnize the marriage. It is just a word-of-mouth
commitment. But it still comes under the purview of marriage.
Although a couple were united by means of a Gandharva
vivaaha, the commitment and responsibilities were identical to
any of the other types of marriages ordained in the traditional
texts. So unlike what a lot of people think that this concept is
entirely taken from the western countries, this concept has its
roots in the historic books of India.
Approved
Marriage
BHRAHMA
DAIVA
ARSHA
PRAJAPATYA
Unapproved
Marriage
ASURA
GANDHARVA
RAKSHASHA
PAISACHA

4. The Indian society is ever changing. Its custom and practices have seen a
lot of dynamism and a great influence from the western culture. People in
the society has opened their minds to the idea of Western lifestyle and
living an independent lifestyle away from cultural and family
responsibilities. One of such change is in the outlook of how people see
their relationships. Live-in-Relationships are neither a Crime nor a Sin,
though it is unacceptable to the certain extent in the Indian society. In a
country like India, where marriages are considered as a social foundation
to legalize the relationship between a man and a woman; the concept of
Live-in-Relationship has set up a new dimension in the arena of men-
women relationship. While people in India have progressed so much in the
acceptance
of live- in relationship but it is still considered as a taboo among the many
societies of India where a man and a woman can only live under one roof
after they have been legally wedded.

5. The biggest problem that has been identified in making live-in relationships legal in India comes
from the law itself i.e. There is no availability of uniform civil code in India and marriages are
most of the times are governed under personal laws of every Individual. The younger
generations in India might consider live-in relationships to be convenient, free of legal hassles,
and forward-looking, but in reality, they are extremely tricky. Of course, if a man and woman are
deeply in love, there is no need for a socio-religious or legal authority to endorse it. However,
that is only the ideal case. The reality is quite different as couples have differences in opinion,
fights, changes in career paths, and break-ups. These complications in turn results in legal cases
which need proper legislature to deal with them. The problem is that the concept of Live-In
Relationships is not expressly recognized by the legislature although the Courts in India time
and again while distinguishing morality from law have upheld the validity of such relationships
keeping in mind the constitutional principles.

7. The intention of Indian judiciary is to render justice to the partners of live-
in relationships who, were earlier not protected by any statute when
subjected to any abuse arising out of such relationships. Judiciary is
neither expressly promoting such concept nor prohibiting such sort of
relationships.
“With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society,
including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be
legitimate today.”
— Honourable Justice A.K. Ganguly
in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun

8. For the very first time, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), the legislature
has acknowledged live-in relationships
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 family.
• By virtue of aforementioned provision, the court interpreted the expression “relationship in the nature of
marriage” in D Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal. The provisions of Pwdva are presently made applicable to the
individuals who are in live-in relationships. Courts presume live-in relationships to be covered under the ambit
of the expression as the words nature of marriage and live-in relationship stand on the same line and meaning.
This gives women some basic rights to protect themselves from the abuse of fraudulent marriage, bigamous
relationships. It is akin to Common Law Marriage. The same expanded ambit of the section was upheld in a
2013 judgement of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma as well.

9. • In landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, the Supreme Court held that a living
relationship comes within the ambit of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and the act of
two major living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.
• Later the Supreme Court in its judgment in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation
gave legal validity to a 50-year live-in relationship. But in the same case the Supreme
Court observed that, “The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the
person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage
took place. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon a bastard.”
• Lately, Supreme Court dealt with the issue of live-in relationships in detail and also laid
down the conditions for live-in relationship that can be given the status of marriage

10. DURATIONOFPERIODOFRELATIONSHIP.
SHAREDHOUSEHOLD
POOLINGOFRESOURCESANDFINANCIALARRANGEMENTS
DOMESTICARRANGEMENTS
SEXUALRELATIONSHIP
CHILDREN
SOCIALISATIONINPUBLIC

12. • Sec. 112 of IEA provides legitimacy of a child is proved only if any person is born out of a
valid marriage between his mother and any man. Muslim law also recognizes only those
children as legitimate, who are the off springs of a man and his wife. Thus children born
out of live in relationships were illegitimate in the eye of the then existing law. But Sec.16
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 accords a legal status of legitimacy even to illegitimate
children for the purpose of inheritance. Thus, the Act intends to bring about social
reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of children, otherwise
treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.
• The first time when the Supreme Court held the legitimacy of children born out of live-in
relationship was in SPS Balasubramaniyam v. Suruttayan AndaliPadayachi.

13. ◦ In another case Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan , the Supreme
Court held that a child born out of a live-in relationship may be allowed to
inherit the property of the parents (if any) and therefore be given legitimacy
in the eyes of law.
◦ A Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of G.S. Singhvi,
Ashok Kumar Ganguly in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011) remarked that
irrespective of the relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such
relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship of the
parents. It is as plain and clear as sunshine that a child born out of such
relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights and privileges
available to children born out of valid marriages which is the crux of Section
16(3) of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

15. ◦ Justice Malimath Committee (2003) and the 8th Law Commission recommended to the Law
Commission of India for the inclusion of women in live-in relations within the purview of Section
125 of Cr.PC .
◦ The SC in 1988 in Yamunabai v. Anant Rao, held that where a man married the second time, his
second “wife” had no claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, even though she might be unaware of his earlier marriage.
◦ In Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra & Others (2009), the Apex court observed that
while Right to Maintenance is granted to wives under all personal laws- namely, Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, or Zoroastrianism, none of these religions recognize live-in relationships. Instead an
unmarried woman living with a man is considered unchaste. Hence, in absence of any remedy
available to women engaged in such relationships, courts have extended the scope of
application of Section 125 of Cr.PC, under which if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for
a considerable period of time then she can claim maintenance under the said section.
◦ However, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, also held that when the woman is aware of the fact that
the man with whom she is having a living-in relationship and who himself is already has a
legally-wedded wife and two children, is not entitled to various reliefs available to a legally
wedded wife or of those who enter into “a relationship in the nature of marriage”.

16. In another leading case of Koppisetti Subbharao v. State of A.P
., the Supreme Court held that the
classification “dowry” has no magical charm. It alludes to a request of cash in connection to a
conjugal relationship. The court has not accepted the contention of the defendant that since he
was not legally married to the complainant, Section 498?A did not make a difference to him in a
stage ahead in shielding the lady from badgering for dowry in a live-in relationship.

18. 1. In France, a Civil Solidarity Pact known as
"pacte civil de solidarite"" passed by the French
Parliament in November 1999 that allows
couples to enter into a union by signing before
a court clerk. It is a contractual form which
binds two adults of different sexes or of the
same sex, in order to organize their joint life
and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded
to married couples in the areas of income tax,
housing and social welfare. The contract can be
revoked unilaterally or bilaterally after giving
the partner three months notice in writing.
2. In Philippines, live in relationship is
recognized, and it governs the property
relations by the rules on equal co-ownership
under Chapter 4 Conjugal Partnership of
Gains,. Philippines provides that where a man
and a woman who are capacitated to marry
each other, live exclusively with each other just
like a husband and wife, but without the
benefit of marriage, property acquired by
both the spouses through their work, their
wages and salaries shall be owned by them in
equal shares which shall be powered by equal
co-ownership rule."

19. 3. In China, a
couple can sign
a contract for
live in
relationship.
The rights of a
child are
secured as a
child born
outside the
wedlock has
the same
benefits as
enjoyed by the
child born
under a
marriage
4. In the UK, live-in-couples do
not enjoy legal benefits and
status which are granted to
married couples. People in
such a relationship are literally
free from all legal bindings.
Partners do not have
inheritance right over each
other property unless named in
their partners will . Allowance
that is available to widowed
spouses is also not available to
live-in partners who have lost
their mate However, the law
seeks to protect the rights of a
child born under such
relationship. Both parents have
the onus or bringing up their
children irrespective whether
they are married or cohabiting.
5. The laws of Ireland and
Australia also recognizes
live in relationship. The
family law of Australia
recognizes -de Facto
relationship between
couples, while in Ireland
the impetus is towards
greater recognition to live
in relationship as there
has been demand for
right to maintenance by
separated live in couples.
However, in Ireland
Cohabiting couples do
not possess the same
legal rights and
obligations as married
couples or civil
partnerships in Irish law.
6. In USA live-in
relationships
are governed
by the concept
of Palimony
(maintenance
to woman who
having live-in-
relationship) in
a state of flux
which arose out
of the famous
cases of Marvin
v. Marvin.
7. In Scotland, The
Family Law
(Scotland) Act,
2006 introduced
new rights and an
obligation
concerning
cohabiting couples
In case of
breakdown of such
relationship,
Section 28 of the
Act gives a
cohabitant, the
right to apply in
court for financial
provision on the
termination of the
cohabitation.