Live-in relationships, where two adults cohabit without formal marriage, have become increasingly common in India due to changing social attitudes, urbanization, and emphasis on personal autonomy. However, they raise significant legal questions about legitimacy, rights, and societal acceptance. Traditionally, Indian society has placed marriage at the centre of family life, and relationships outside marriage were stigmatized. The law too, for a long time, did not expressly recognize live-in relationships, leading to uncertainty about their validity and consequences.
Judicial interpretation has played a vital role in shaping the legal recognition of live-in relationships. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have held that while live-in relationships are not marriages, they are not illegal either. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), the Court observed that a live-in relationship between consenting adults is permissible and cannot be considered unlawful. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also indirectly recognized live-in relationships by extending protection to women in “relationships in the nature of marriage,” thereby allowing women in such arrangements to claim relief against abuse.
The issue of legitimacy of children born from live-in relationships has been addressed progressively. In Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008), the Supreme Court held that children born from live-in relationships are legitimate if the parents lived together for a significant period as husband and wife. In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan (1992), the Court applied the presumption of marriage under the Evidence Act to long-term live-in relationships, thereby granting legitimacy to children and entitling them to inheritance rights. This recognition was vital in preventing children from being treated as illegitimate merely because their parents did not formally marry.
Despite these advances, live-in relationships remain a grey area in Indian law. While courts have upheld the right of consenting adults to live together under Article 21, they have stopped short of equating live-in relationships with marriage. Rights relating to inheritance, maintenance, and property remain limited and depend on case-by-case judicial interpretation. For example, while women in live-in relationships may seek maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, broader matrimonial rights such as succession and adoption are not automatically available. The absence of a clear statutory framework leaves significant ambiguity in matters of property rights and financial security.
The societal acceptance of live-in relationships remains limited, especially in rural areas, where such arrangements are often viewed as immoral or against cultural values. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of live-in relationships but noted that not all such relationships qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage,” especially those casual in nature. The Court also emphasized that while the law can protect individuals, society’s attitude is still evolving, and social morality often clashes with constitutional morality in such matters.
The legal validity of live-in relationships in India thus rests on constitutional principles of liberty and dignity. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that adults have the right to choose their partners and the manner in which they live, even outside marriage. However, the lack of a uniform statutory framework continues to cause uncertainty. There have been suggestions that India should enact laws to regulate live-in relationships, similar to some Western jurisdictions where cohabitation agreements define rights and obligations. Such a move could bring clarity, protect vulnerable partners, and ensure that children’s rights are safeguarded.
In conclusion, live-in relationships in India are not illegal and enjoy protection under constitutional guarantees of liberty, equality, and dignity. Judicial decisions and statutory provisions like the Domestic Violence Act have given them partial recognition, particularly in protecting women and children. Yet, their legal validity remains incomplete, relying heavily on judicial interpretation rather than legislative clarity. As Indian society continues to evolve, the law too must adapt, balancing tradition with modernity, and ensuring that the rights of individuals in live-in relationships are protected within the constitutional framework.
