Legal Status of Live-in Relationships in India

 Legal Status of Live-in Relationships in India

Introduction

Live-in relationships, or two adults cohabiting and not married, are today common among Indian urban dwellers as an experiment with personal freedom. India's law is not so enthusiastic about such marriages as a weak middle ground: the Supreme Court requires cohabitation in the form of Article 21, and certain High Courts lament it as inappropriate "settled" social norms. The binary subjects’ partners—and especially children and women—to legal doubt and social exclusion.

Constitutional Provisions: Article 21 and Personal Liberty

Article 21 of the Constitution to safeguard the right to life and personal liberty is the very essence of legal reasoning itself. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) reaffirmed before the Supreme Court that adults should be allowed to choose their life partner without discrimination based on religion and caste. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) reaffirmed later that individual dignity shapes relationship decisions for intimacy. Together, the decisions put live-in relationships squarely in India's fundamental rights jurisprudence.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence: From Recognition to Protection

The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line in the last two decades:

• Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): The Court stated that substantive, cohabitation-resembling marriage relationship is a "domestic relationship" under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) for protection orders and maintenance.

• D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010): Extended, monogamous, openly acknowledged like-marriage relationship solely within the purview of the PWDVA; fleeting relationships outside the purview of the Act.

• Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008): The children of live-in relations are legal heirs with equal rights of succession, and legal status of child can no longer be tarnished by marital status of parents.

These rulings, by the Supreme Court, have reaffirmed that live-in relationships are not immoral or against law and that justice has to offer protection to vulnerable parties.

High Court Divergence: Conservatism and Contradictions

Certain High Courts have, nevertheless, turned Supreme Court clarification on its head into moralising cant:

Allahabad High Court, in June 2025, in Shane Alam v. State of U.P., granting bail, noted that live-in relationships "violate the settled law in the Indian middle-class society" and are abominably injurious to women, who "are not able to return to marriage" on relationship failure. The same arguments were raised in Chawali v. State of U.P. (2015), when the Court warned that live-in relationships expose one to criminal exploitation and are based on no law—even to regard freedom of association as a constitutional ideal.

The foregoing arguments have a heart-freezing seesaw: judges invoke cultural mores to limit people's agency, and binding precedent binds cohabitation to be constitutionally approved.

Statutory Protections and Legal Lacunae

India has no live-in relationship law. Couples will have to rely on patchwork protections:

• PWDVA, 2005: Gives relief only if a bench maintains the relationship "in the nature of marriage" with scope for subjective interpretation.

• Section 114, Evidence Act: Assumes long cohabitants to be husband and wife unless rebutted, but does not state "long term."

• Section 125, CrPC: Courts will grant maintenance to deserted wives only where tests of dependency and morality are strictly proven.

In addition to these laws, children's custody, division of property, and inheritance (excluding Tul sa and PWDVA) fall prey to uncertainty. Couples—and kids—are left to fend with ad hoc decrees and not cut-and-dried legal entitlements.

Human Impact: Vulnerability and Stigma

The law loophole bites. Women who are abandoned after years of cohabiting struggle to obtain maintenance or residence orders. Children who are legal in law become socially stigmatized and the centre for long battles over estates. Men themselves get caught out by false assumptions or uncertainty concerning maintenance liability. The court seesaw sympathy and opprobrium on the part of society inflicts psychic and economic hardship on all concerned.

A Prescription for Legislative Reform

In order to bring law into alignment with constitutional promise, Parliament can enact a general Cohabitation and Domestic Partnership Act that:

- Establishes and Registers partnerships, with voluntary registry to gain legal status.

- Provides Maintenance and Property Rights, with formula rules to determine division of property and spousal support, regardless of gender.

- Entitles Succession and Inheritance to children and partners, and avoids judicial gatekeeping of legitimacy.

- Offers Special Tribunals to dispose of cohabitation cases speedily, in addition to overcrowded family courts.

Laws can adopt the best from Canada's ill-fated plan on civil union or Britain's cohabitation agreements and implement them in multicultural India. Rather than legislational specificity regarding judicial discretion, India would squarely state that adult self-determination pursuant to Article 21 should not be brought down to the bare essentials.

Conclusion

Live-in relationships are now in a compromising situation: legally legalized, but socially and legally ostracized. Indian judges cannot dither between idealism and revenge. We require a policy in legislation to direct judges, protect battered partners, and provide the individual freedom our Constitution promises us. Then and then only will millions be half-way to freedom and fear—witness to change.

Closing Credit

 Author- Atharva Bhatkhande

"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"