What is a Live-in Relationship?
A live-in relationship means that two adults live together like a married couple but without getting legally married. It is a personal choice where people decide to share their lives without following the traditional marriage system.
In India, live-in relationships are becoming more common, especially in cities. However, many people still see them as against traditional values. Some consider live-in relationships to be immoral, while others see them as a modern lifestyle choice.
Why is a Live-in Relationship Controversial in India?
Live-in relationships create a lot of debates in India because:
- Indian society values marriage as a sacred institution. Many people believe that living together without marriage is wrong.
- Some religious and cultural groups strongly oppose live-in relationships, saying they weaken family values.
- There are legal challenges because live-in couples do not have the same rights as married couples.
Despite these controversies, Indian courts have repeatedly ruled that live-in relationships are legal. The Supreme Court has recognized them as a part of a person’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Why is This Topic Important?
Many young couples today choose live-in relationships over marriage. However, they often face legal confusion and social judgment. Understanding what rights, they have and what challenges they might face is crucial.
Legal Status of Live-in Relationships in India
Live-in relationships are completely legal in India. There is no law that prohibits two adults from living together without marriage. However, while live-in relationships are not considered illegal, they also do not have the same legal status as marriage. This means that
partners in a live-in relationshipdo not automatically receive legal rights related to maintenance, property, and inheritance, which are available to married couples. If a dispute arises, the courtsevaluate each case separately to decide whether legal protection should be given.
Constitutional Protection for Live-in Relationships
The Indian Constitution guarantees personal freedom under Article 21, which includes the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has recognized that this right extends to an individual’s choice of living arrangements, including live-in relationships. Since the Constitution does not specify any restriction on cohabitation, no individual or authority—including the police, family, or society—has the power to interfere in the decision of two consenting adults to live together.
Important Supreme Court Judgments on Live-in Relationships
Indian courts have played a major role in clarifying the legal status of live-in relationships. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that live-in relationships are neither illegal nor immoral. It ruled that if two adults willingly decide to live together, they cannot be punished simply because their relationship does not follow traditional norms. Another significant case, Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), reaffirmed that two consenting adults have the right to live together and that society or family members cannot interfere with this personal decision. However, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the court made it clear that not all live-in relationships get legal protection. If the relationship is casual or short-term, it may not be granted the same rights as a legally recognized marriage.
Impact of Adultery Law on Live-in Relationships
Earlier, live-in relationships involving a married person were considered adultery under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Not there in Bhartiya Nyaya Sahitha), which made it a criminal offense for a married person to have an extramarital relationship. However, in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized adultery, stating that it violated personal liberty. The judgment clarified that adultery can be a ground for divorce, but it is no longer a criminal act. This decision means that a married person who chooses to enter a live-in relationship cannot be punished under criminal law.
Can a Woman File a Rape Case After a Live-in Relationship?
Big Decision by Delhi High Court in S. Rajadurai v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.!
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a Live-in Relationship is a mutual decision between two adults. It is not a crime, and a woman cannot file a rape case later just because the man did not marry her.
In the case of S. Rajadurai v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr., the court ruled that if a woman willingly enters into a Live-in Relationship, she cannot later claim that the man promised marriage and file a rape case under IPC Section 376. The court stated that a Live-in Relationship is considered a marriage-like arrangement, so just because marriage did not happen, it cannot be treated as rape.
This ruling makes it clear that if two adults choose to live together, and later marriage doesn’t happen, it will not be considered cheating or a crime.
Do Live-in Relationships Get the Same Legal Protection as Marriage?
Even though live-in relationships are legal, they do not enjoy the same legal protections as marriage. Marriage offers automatic rights related to maintenance, alimony, property, and inheritance. In contrast, live-in partners must prove the legitimacy of their relationship to claim any legal benefits. Courts analyze whether a live-in relationship qualifies as a relationship in the nature of marriage, especially when issues like maintenance and domestic violence arise. Some protections exist under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which will be discussed in the next section.
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Legal Protections
Recognition of Live-in Relationships under the Domestic Violence Act
One of the biggest concerns regarding live-in relationships is the legal protection available to partners, especially women, in cases of abuse or abandonment. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) was enacted to safeguard women from physical, emotional, economic, and sexual abuse in domestic relationships. While the act was originally meant for married women, the Supreme Court later clarified that live-in relationships also fall under its protection.
Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines "relationship in the nature of marriage," which includes long-term live-in relationships where partners live together like husband and wife. This means that if a woman faces domestic violence in a live-in relationship, she can seek legal protection, maintenance, and even financial compensation under this law. However, not all live-in relationships qualify under the DV Act. Courts have ruled that casual relationships or purely sexual relationships without commitment do not get protection.
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Supreme Court laid down certain conditions to determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies for protection under the DV Act. The court ruled that the relationship must be long-term, stable, and similar to marriage, where the couple has lived together and presented themselves as partners in society. On the other hand, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the court denied protection to a woman whose partner was already married, stating that the relationship could not be considered "in the nature of marriage."
Maintenance and Financial Rights in Live-in Relationships
One of the major legal disadvantages of live-in relationships is the lack of automatic financial security. In marriage, a woman is legally entitled to maintenance or alimony after separation. However, in live-in relationships, maintenance is not guaranteed and depends on whether the relationship is recognized under the law.
Under Section 125 of the CrPC)/144 BNSS, a woman can claim maintenance from her partner if she proves that their relationship was similar to marriage. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that women in "de facto marriage-like relationships" should be entitled to maintenance, similar to wives in a legally recognized marriage. However, courts also differentiate between long-term, committed live-in relationships and short-term relationships based on convenience or financial benefits. If a woman was in a casual or temporary relationship, she may not be able to claim maintenance after separation.
Property and Inheritance Rights in Live-in Relationships
Unlike married couples, partners in a live-in relationship do not have automatic property rights over each other’s assets. If a married spouse dies, their partner and children have legal inheritance rights under laws like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, a live-in partner does not automatically inherit property unless their name is mentioned in a will or legal document.
In the absence of a legal marriage, live-in partners cannot claim ancestral property or joint property ownership unless they have legally contributed to acquiring the property. Courts have ruled that if a live-in couple purchases property together, ownership rights will be determined based on whose name is on the property papers. If a property is jointly owned, then the surviving partner will have a legal share, but if the property is solely in one person’s name, the other partner has no legal claim.
Rights of Women in Live-in Relationships
Legal Protection for Women in Live-in Relationships
Women in live-in relationships often face legal uncertainties, especially regarding protection from abandonment, financial security, and domestic abuse. Since live-in relationships are not legally equivalent to marriage, women do not automatically receive the same rights as wives. However, Indian courts have extended certain protections to women in long-term live-in relationships.
Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), women can seek legal protection if they face physical, emotional, financial, or sexual abuse in a live-in relationship. The Supreme Court, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), ruled that women in stable, long-term live-in relationships deserve protection under the DV Act. However, if the relationship is purely casual, temporary, or secretive, courts may not grant such protection.
One of the biggest challenges women face in live-in relationships is societal stigma and lack of legal recognition. Many women find themselves abandoned after years of cohabitation, with no financial security or legal rights over shared property. To address this issue, courts have ruled that women in "marriage-like relationships" can seek maintenance under CrPC Section 125/144 BNSS, which traditionally applies to wives. However, proving the nature of the relationship remains a challenge, as partners in live-in relationships do not have official marriage certificates or legal documents supporting their claim.
Protection Against Domestic Abuse and Harassment
One of the most critical aspects of legal protection for women in live-in relationships is protection against domestic violence. The DV Act, 2005, recognizes that abuse can happen in relationships beyond marriage, including live-in relationships. If a woman faces physical assault, emotional abuse, financial exploitation, or coercion, she has the right to file a complaint under this law.
Under Section 12 of the DV Act, a woman in a live-in relationship can seek a protection order, which can prevent her abusive partner from approaching or harming her. Additionally, under Section 20, courts can grant financial compensation if the woman has suffered economic hardship due to the abuse. This ensures that a woman is not left without financial support after leaving an abusive relationship.
The Supreme Court, in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), clarified that the DV Act applies only to relationships that resemble marriage. This means that if a couple has been living together for a long period, sharing expenses, and presenting themselves as husband and wife to society, the woman is eligible for legal protection. However, casual relationships, short-term affairs, or purely sexual arrangements do not qualify for these protections.
Maintenance Rights for Women in Live-in Relationships
Financial security is one of the biggest concerns for women when a live-in relationship ends, especially if they have been economically dependent on their partner. Unlike in marriage, where alimony is a legal right, maintenance for live-in partners is not automatically granted. However, courts have recognized that if a woman has been in a long-term, stable live-in relationship, she may be entitled to maintenance under CrPC Section 125/144 BNSS.
In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that women in relationships that are "marriage-like" should be treated similarly to legally wedded wives when it comes to maintenance. This means that if a woman is financially dependent on her live-in partner and is later abandoned, she can file for maintenance in court. However, courts carefully examine whether the relationship was long-term and if the woman genuinely depended on her partner.
Women seeking maintenance must provide evidence of their live-in relationship, such as shared property, joint bank accounts, or witness testimonies. Courts often reject maintenance claims if the relationship was short-lived, purely casual, or secretive. Therefore, women in live-in relationships should be aware that legal protection is available, but it is not automatic and depends on the facts of the case.
Property Rights of Women in Live-in Relationships
A major disadvantage for women in live-in relationships is the lack of property rights. Under Hindu Succession Act, 1956, married women have inheritance rights over their husband's property. However, live-in partners do not get any automatic property rights unless they have a legal agreement or joint ownership.
If a live-in couple buys property together, the person whose name is on the property documents legally owns it. This means that if the relationship ends, a woman cannot claim a share in the property unless her name is included in the ownership documents. The Supreme Court, in Surjit Kaur v. Garja Singh (1994), ruled that if a woman can prove long-term cohabitation, she may be entitled to some property rights, but such cases depend entirely on strong evidence.
To protect their financial interests, women in live-in relationships should ensure their name is included in joint property agreements or have a legal cohabitation agreement specifying property ownership rights. Unlike in marriage, where women have legal claims over their husband's assets, live-in partners must legally document their property rights to avoid disputes.
Legal Options for Women Abandoned by Their Live-in Partners
When a live-in relationship ends suddenly, women often find themselves financially and emotionally vulnerable. Unlike in marriage, where divorce laws protect spouses, live-in relationships do not have a structured legal framework for separation. However, women do have some legal remedies:
- Protection under the Domestic Violence Act – If a woman faces domestic abuse or unjust abandonment, she can file for a protection order and seek financial compensation from her partner.
- Maintenance under CrPC Section 125/ BNSS 144 – If she was financially dependent, she can approach the court to claim monthly maintenance.
- Filing a cheating or fraud case under IPC Section 415/BNS Section 316 – If the man promised marriage and later abandoned her, she may file a case of cheating if there was misrepresentation or fraud.
- Child custody and support under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – If the woman has children from the relationship, she can claim child support and custody rights.
Women in live-in relationships should be aware that legal protection exists, but they must prove the nature and duration of their relationship to avail these rights. Unlike marriage, where rights are automatic, legal recognition for live-in relationships depends on strong evidence.
Rights of Children Born in Live-in Relationships
Legitimacy of Children Born from Live-in Relationships
One of the most important legal concerns surrounding live-in relationships is the status of children born from such unions. Traditionally, Indian society has viewed marriage as the only legitimate foundation for a family. However, with the increasing prevalence of live-in relationships, the courts have had to clarify the rights of children born from these relationships.
The Supreme Court, in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011), ruled that children born in live-in relationships are considered "legitimate". This judgment was based on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. The court emphasized that children should not be punished for the choices of their parents and should be entitled to legal rights just like children born in a marriage.
Although children from live-in relationships are legally recognized, their rights depend on the stability and nature of their parents' relationship. If the parents were in a long-term, marriage-like relationship, the child has stronger legal protections. However, if the relationship was casual or short-lived, courts may require additional proof to grant legal benefits to the child.
Inheritance and Property Rights of Children
A key concern for children born in live-in relationships is their right to inherit property from their parents. Under Hindu law, children born in a legal marriage automatically inherit ancestral and self-acquired property of their parents. However, the law was unclear about children from live-in relationships until the Supreme Court provided clarity.
In Tulsa & Ors v. Durghatiya (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that if a couple lives together for a long time and is perceived as a family, their children will have the same inheritance rights as children born in a marriage. This means that if the father dies, the child can claim a share in his self-acquired property. However, for ancestral property, inheritance rights are not automatic and must be proven in court.
If the father’s name is not mentioned in the child’s birth certificate or official documents, the child may have to provide evidence of paternity to claim inheritance. In such cases, courts may consider DNA tests or witness testimonies to establish the child's legal right to inherit property.
Guardianship and Custody Rights of Children
Another important issue in live-in relationships is who gets custody of the child if the parents separate. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, states that the mother is the natural guardian of a child born outside of marriage. This means that if the parents separate, the child will usually remain in the mother’s custody, unless the father actively seeks guardianship.
In ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that an unmarried mother does not need the father’s consent to be recognized as the child’s legal guardian. This case strengthened the rights of single mothers who have children outside of marriage, including those from live-in relationships.
However, the father can still claim custody or visitation rights if he proves that he has been involved in the child’s upbringing. Courts generally consider the child’s welfare as the most important factor when deciding custody disputes. If the father wants custody, he must show that he can provide a stable and supportive environment for the child.
Child Support and Financial Responsibility
If a child is born in a live-in relationship and the parents separate, the father cannot escape his financial responsibility. Indian law recognizes that both parents are responsible for the upbringing of their child, regardless of their marital status.
Under CrPC Section 125/ 144 BNSS, a mother can file a petition in court demanding child support from the father. The court can order the father to provide financial assistance for the child’s education, healthcare, and daily expenses. If the father refuses to pay child support, legal action can be taken against him.
The Supreme Court, in Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010), clarified that children born in live-in relationships are entitled to financial support from both parents, even if the relationship was not legally recognized as a marriage. This ruling ensures that a child does not suffer financially due to the absence of a formal marriage between their parents.
Social Challenges Faced by Children from Live-in Relationships
While Indian courts have provided legal protections for children born from live-in relationships, they still face social stigma and discrimination. Many people still view marriage as the only "proper" way to have a family, and children from live-in relationships may face identity issues or societal judgment.
One challenge they often face is obtaining official documents such as birth certificates, passports, and school admissions, as many institutions still expect a father's name to be listed. However, following court rulings like ABC v. State (2015), government authorities have been directed to recognize single mothers and children from live-in relationships without insisting on the father’s details.
To further protect the rights of these children, there is a need for better awareness and policy changes so that they are not denied opportunities simply because their parents chose to live together without marriage.
Marriage vs. Live-in Relationships – A Comparative Analysis
Legal Rights and Obligations in Marriage vs. Live-in Relationships
Marriage and live-in relationships are two different forms of partnerships, but their legal implications are vastly different. Marriage is a legally recognized institution, governed by laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Special Marriage Act, 1954, and Muslim Personal Law. It provides spouses with well-defined rights and obligations, including financial support, inheritance, and social security.
In contrast, live-in relationships do not have specific legal recognition in India, and partners do not automatically receive the legal benefits that married couples do. For example, a wife has a legal right to maintenance and alimony if the marriage ends, whereas a woman in a live-in relationship must prove the legitimacy of the relationship before claiming financial support. Similarly, property inheritance laws apply to legally married couples, but live-in partners cannot claim a share in each other’s assets unless explicitly mentioned in a will or joint ownership agreement.
Despite these differences, the Supreme Court has extended some legal protections to live-in couples, particularly in cases of domestic violence and child rights. Women in live-in relationships can seek protection under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and children born from such unions are considered legitimate with inheritance rights. However, live-in relationships still lack the comprehensive legal framework that marriage offers.
Social and Religious Challenges of Live-in Relationships
In Indian society, marriage is deeply rooted in religious, cultural, and traditional beliefs. Most religions, including Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity, consider marriage to be a sacred bond and do not recognize live-in relationships. This has led to social disapproval and stigma surrounding couples who choose to cohabit without marriage.
Families often reject live-in relationships, fearing that they violate social norms and weaken family values. Women, in particular, face greater scrutiny and societal pressure, as they are often judged for living with a partner outside of marriage. In many cases, families and communities refuse to accept children born from live-in relationships, leading to issues in obtaining legal documents and social recognition.
Religion also plays a role in shaping legal rights. For example, under Hindu law, a wife has strong property and inheritance rights, but a woman in a live-in relationship does not get these protections. Similarly, under Muslim personal law, live-in relationships are not recognized, and inheritance rights are granted only to legally married spouses. Due to these complexities, many couples choose court marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, instead of live-in relationships, to avoid social and legal difficulties.
Global Perspective on Live-in Relationships
In many Western countries, live-in relationships, also known as cohabitation, are legally recognized and provide rights similar to marriage. Countries like France, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States offer legal protections to live-in partners regarding property division, financial support, and inheritance. Some countries, such as Sweden and Norway, have laws that give live-in couples nearly the same legal status as married couples if they have lived together for a certain number of years.
In contrast, India still lacks a clear legal framework for live-in relationships. While courts have provided some protections, such as maintenance rights and domestic violence laws, there is no formal recognition of live-in relationships under Indian family law. This creates uncertainty for couples, particularly in matters of inheritance, property division, and financial security after separation.
Comparing India to other countries highlights the need for legal reforms to address the gaps in live-in relationship laws. While Indian society is gradually evolving, the legal system still Favors marriage over cohabitation. Future legal changes could include clearer definitions of live-in relationships, inheritance rights, and financial support provisions, ensuring that partners and children are not left vulnerable in case of separation.
Judicial Interpretation and the Future Legal Framework
Key Judicial Trends and Evolving Jurisprudence
Indian courts have played a crucial role in shaping the legal status of live-in relationships. Since there is no specific law governing live-in relationships, courts have relied on constitutional principles, landmark judgments, and international legal trends to address various legal issues related to cohabitation.
Over the years, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have recognized that live-in relationships fall under the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) of the Indian Constitution. Courts have repeatedly held that two consenting adults have the right to live together, and such relationships cannot be deemed illegal or immoral. The judiciary has also emphasized that society’s moral beliefs cannot dictate personal relationships, as long as they do not violate any existing laws.
One of the most significant judicial interventions was in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), where the Supreme Court ruled that live-in relationships are neither illegal nor immoral. Similarly, in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), the court held that family or society cannot interfere in a couple’s decision to cohabit. However, the judiciary has also clarified that not all live-in relationships qualify for legal protection, especially in cases where the relationship is temporary, casual, or exploitative.
The courts have extended legal safeguards in cases involving domestic violence, maintenance, and the rights of children born in live-in relationships. However, these protections are case-specific, and there is still no uniform legal recognition of live-in relationships. This judicial uncertainty has led to increasing calls for a comprehensive legal framework that clearly defines the rights and obligations of live-in partners.
The Need for Legislative Reforms
Despite growing acceptance of live-in relationships, India still lacks a dedicated legal framework to govern such partnerships. Currently, live-in partners must rely on general laws like the Domestic Violence Act, CrPC Section 125, and Supreme Court rulings, which provide limited and inconsistent protections. There is an urgent need for legislative reforms to bridge these gaps and ensure greater legal clarity.
One major area of concern is financial security. While courts have ruled that women in long-term live-in relationships can claim maintenance under CrPC Section 125, there is no specific law guaranteeing financial support after separation. Similarly, inheritance laws do not recognize live-in partners, making it difficult for them to claim property rights in case of a partner’s death. A well-defined legal framework should address these concerns by introducing clear guidelines on maintenance, alimony, and property division for live-in partners.
Another critical area for reform is child rights. Although the Supreme Court has recognized children born in live-in relationships as legitimate, there is still ambiguity regarding their inheritance rights. The Hindu Succession Act and other personal laws should be amended to ensure that such children receive equal rights to parental property without needing to prove the nature of their parents' relationship in court.
Legislative changes should also focus on protection against exploitation. One common criticism of live-in relationships is that they lack legal commitment, which sometimes leads to women being abandoned after years of cohabitation. Laws should ensure that long-term live-in relationships provide certain legal protections similar to marriage, particularly in cases where a woman has sacrificed her career or financial independence for the relationship.
By implementing these reforms, India can strike a balance between personal freedom and legal security, ensuring that live-in partners and their children receive necessary legal protections without forcing them into the framework of marriage.
Conclusion
Live-in relationships in India are becoming more common, especially among young couples in urban areas. While society still holds mixed opinions, the legal system has recognized the rights of live-in partners in many ways, including protection from domestic violence and inheritance rights in certain cases.
However, challenges remain, such as social stigma and the lack of clear laws on some aspects of live-in relationships. As attitudes continue to change, it is important for society and the legal system to adapt and provide better legal protection and social acceptance for couples who choose this way of living.
Ultimately, relationships should be based on mutual respect, trust, and understanding—whether in marriage or live-in arrangements.
DISCLAIMER
The contents in this article are just for informational purposes only. Efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of information, the author(s) and publisher do not guarantee its completeness or precision. Any matter written in this article does not express the opinion of the author or the publisher. Additionally, it does not reflect the views of the organisation. Readers should self-analyse the information and perceive accordingly. The author(s), The publisher and the organisation are not responsible for any losses or damage occurring due to the interpretation of the article.
CREDITS:
Team Research-(Legal Commentary)
