A Project

On

“Verdict on Live-in Relationships in India”

In partial fulfillment of the subject Legal Aspects of Business in two year
fulltime MBA Programme under Gujarat Technological University

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8
Live-in Relationships
India is a country, which is slowly opening its doors for western ideas and lifestyles and one of
the most crucial episodes amongst it, is the concept of live-in relationships. We can witness the
number of unmarried partners living together is scaling high. Just a generation or two ago, it was
scandalous for an unmarried man and woman to live together. Today, most couples, who marry,
live together first has gone mainstream. But that change happened so quickly, it is no wonder
things are inconsistent.

Some couples find living together is easy. Others find themselves attacked by angry family
members, excluded from faith communities, baffled by how to introduce each other and
discriminated against because they are not married. In some places and situations, unmarried
partners can share a policy and get certain legal protections; in other situations, they are
considered legal strangers with no rights, even if they have lived together for decades.

Live-in relationships are living arrangement in which a man and a woman who are unmarried
live together like a husband and wife without the legal sanction called marriage. This is a
concept that has not gained social acceptance in India. When live-in relationships first came into
the open, it created a public outrage as it was considered volative of Indian culture and moral
values. Recent court judgments on live in relationships triggered public awareness and clarity
about this social issue that has now gained legal sanction as well.

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8
Live-in Relationships: Supreme Court Verdict
March 24, 2010 witnessed a landmark verdict by the Supreme Court, legalizing live-in
relationships in India. The Apex court justified that if two sound-minded adults of the opposite
sex seek to live together without getting married the question of a “criminal offence” does not
arise at all. It also cited the example of Lord Krishna and Radha’s relationship to substantiate its
judgment.

This verdict was arrived at in response to multiple

petitions filed against South Indian actress Khusboo.
An astounding 22 FIRs were filed against the
actress, in 2005, in response to her statement to an
entertainment magazine about the rampancy of live-
in relationships and pre-marital sex in India.
Alarmingly, the actress’s effigies were burnt and life
was threatened, for what reason? Exercising her
fundamental right to speech?

The verdict is being widely criticized by certain political and social groups on the ground that it
would encourage the practice of live-in relationships in India. Also, while Khusboo continues to
receive widespread flak for her comments, the fact remains that live-in relationships have
become a common (and practical) norm in most Indian Metros. If two adults choose to have
physical relations, without a marriage certificate to reinforce the legality of their actions, it is
nobody’s business but their own.

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8
Legalizing of Live-in Relationships: A Final Word

The verdict of the Supreme Court is a welcome surprise, offering legal protection to individuals
in a live-in relationship from the moral police and pseudo patrons of “Indian” culture in the
nation. The SC bench, comprising of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices BS Chauhan
and Deepak Verma, has also retorted to opponents of the verdict that the couples in live-in
relationships are as liable to be sued as the Apex court itself for passing the verdict.

Live-In Relationship as No Offence: Indian Court

Liberty in relationship is given an another boost that Indian couple earlier didn’t have the
privilege to come up openly but time has changed Indian facet when the Supreme Court
observed it as legal and no more an offence.

Considering on this important live-in factor that is quickly adapting into the Indian culture, a
bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B S
Chauhan mentioned, “When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it
amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence.”

Reflecting on an analogy from the Hindu mythology of Lord Krishna and Radha, the court stated
that having pre-marital relationship is fine. Even the apex court mentioned that there was no law
which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.

Noted actress Khushboo had made appeal to the court by stating, “Please tell us what is the
offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life,” to which the apex court
stated Khushboo’s views were personal.

The bench queried the counsel by stating, “How does it concern you. We are not bothered. At
the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?”

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8
Court Judgments: Breakdown of Live-in Relationship is No Excuse to Misuse
Justice System
In a landmark court judgment in Alok Kumar v. State, the complainant claimed that she was in a
live-in relationship with the defendant for over 5 years. She alleged that the defendant had
promised to marry her but later, she came to know that the defendant was about to marry
someone else. She met the defendant at the IGI airport to discuss the matter. The defendant gave
her his passport before going to the washroom. On returning, he began to abuse her physically.
When people came to her rescue, he ran off, leaving his passport with her. Following the
incident, she lodged an FIR, under section 376 of IPC against the defendant. However, the Delhi
High Court dismissed her plea, observing that live-in relationships create no legal liabilities on
either of the parties as it is similar to a contract which can be renewed or terminated at will by
either of the parties. Also, the court quashed the FIR to prevent the misuse of criminal justice
system for seeking personal revenge against a partner of live-in relationship.

Court Judgments: Children Born to Live-in Couple are not Illegitimate, Says
SC
Court judgments have always given broad interpretation of law to protect the rights of women
and children. In live-in relationships, court judgments have considered it important to protect
child rights, in particular. In January 2008, a Supreme Court bench that was headed by Justice
Arijit Pasayat held that children who are born out of live-in relationships will not be considered
illegitimate. It was stated, “Law inclines in the interest of legitimacy and thumbs down
‘whoreson’ or ‘fruit of adultery.’”

In August 2010, the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship that has existed for a long
time will be considered a marriage and that the children born to such a couple will not be
illegitimate. Justice P Sathasivam and Justice BS Chauhan of the Supreme Court passed this
judgment and it will have strong legal implications on disputes relating to the legitimacy of
children who are born to live-in partners.

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8
Court Judgments: Domestic Violence Act Applicable to Live-in Relationships

Different court judgments have discussed on different disputes pertaining to live-in relationships.
Live-in relationships are now considered at par with marriage under a new Indian law pertaining
to domestic violence. The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are now extended to
those who are in live-in relationships as well. The amendments intend to protect the victims of
domestic abuse in live-in relationships. Section 2 (g) of the aforementioned Act provides that a
relationship between two individuals who live together or have lived together in the past is
considered as a domestic relationship. A woman who is in a live-in relationship can seek legal
relief against her partner in case of abuse and harassment. Further, the new law also protects
Indian women who are trapped in fraudulent or invalid marriages.

Final Legal Take Away Tip:

A woman who is subject to any form of violence in a live-in relationship as well as a marital
relationship can file a complaint under section 498 A, IPC. She can also seek relief through
protection orders, compensation and interim orders citing sections 18 to 23 of the Domestic
Violence Act.

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8
Rights of women in live-in relations under court lens

The Supreme Court Wednesday reserved its verdict on the question whether a woman in a live-
in relationship or under the mistaken belief of being the wife of an already married man was
entitled to maintenance.

The court will also interpret the provision of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence
law which talks about live-in relationship in the ‘nature of marriage’.

Senior counsel and amicus curiae Jayant Bhushan told the court that at the time of passing the
domestic violence law, parliament was told that this provision of the law would not extend an
aggrieved woman the right to the property of her live in partner.

However, the court said that the act was silent on the aspect of maintenance.

‘It would be against the public policy and would demolish the institution of marriage if we
award maintenance in the case of assumed marriage when the first marriage is surviving,’ an
apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur said.

The court reserved its order in a case where D. Velusamy has challenged an order of the Madras
High Court directing him to pay maintenance of Rs.500 per month to his ‘second wife’ D.
Patchaiammal. Velusamy allegedly married Patchaiammal when his first marriage was still
intact.

The court said that ‘If your relationship is just for sex then it is not a marriage. It (marriage) is
love and affection, mutual respect, regard, sacrifice and give and take,’ Justice Katju said.

The court also examined the question that if the ‘other’ woman was granted maintenance then
she would also stake claim to her share in the man’s family pension in a possible eventuality.

Justice Thakur posed the question ‘if there was need for proceedings of the court to declare
‘second marriage’ void or it is presumed to be void (in the wake of first marriage surviving)’.

Bhushan told the court that such live-in relationship could be covered by the common law that
was sill prevalent in 11 states of America and in most of Canada. The common law is not
recognized in England.

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8
Amicus curiae said that live-in relationship under the common law had no sanction of authorities
but the couple present themselves as spouse to the world. This is a quasi judicial marriage, he
told the court.

Bhushan also told the court that the law commission in Britain has recommended statutory
provisions recognizing co-habitation that extends to three to five years. He said that this
recommendation has yet to be acted upon.

N.R. Institute of Business Management

8