Author: Sameeksha Ashok Puthran
Institute Name: KES’ Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College
Introduction
Centuries prior, civilized societies recognized the most essential instinctual of all – i.e., the requirement for companionship – and established an noteworthy institution known as marriage.
A live-in relationship is an arrangement in which an unmarried couple resides and shares the same roof in a long term courtship that is akin to a marriage. Indian culture has seen a sensational shift in the nature of romantic partnerships, with the thought of live-in connections getting to be a prevalent substitute for standard conjugal courses of action. Live-in couples, which were once considered unconventional and debilitated by preservationist standards, have dynamically acquired acceptability, reflecting changes in the social fabric and views towards intimate relationships.
Live-in relationships are quite prevalent in today’s time, but in hindsight the laws in India that are administering them are still ambiguous. In contrast to the institution of marriage, which is subject to a wide range of laws and rules, live-in associations have a vague legitimate status, which leaves partners exposed and without certain rights or safeguards.
History behind the concept of Live-in relationship
A live-in relationship is not a modern thing in Indian society but, there was some prove appeared in historical books live in relationship was one type on traditions in a few part of ancient India.
The concept of live-in together before marriage is not new since it was continuously present in the society. Though marriage was a common norm in old times, the Hindu sacred texts outline and recognize the presence of premarital relationships as well. In the Vedas, we discover the affirmation of eight classical sorts of marriages out of which the Gandharva marriage is similar to that found in a live-in relationship. In the Gandharva marriage, a man and a lady mutually choose to live together. It not one or the other includes the family of the couple nor a specific ritual to ceremonialize the marriage. It is fair a verbal commitment but it still comes beneath the ambit of marriage.
In spite of the fact that a couple was united implies a Gandharva Vivaha, the responsibility and commitment was identical to any of the other sorts of marriages appointed in the traditional writings. The marriage of Dushyant and Shakuntala is a commendable exemplification from the history of this lesson of marriage.
Live-in-relations may be a new term or something coming from the western culture to Indian society, but the truth is that it is a very ancient concept indeed in the Vedas there are illustrations for such relations. Vedas prescribe eight sorts of marriages and depending on the adversary ‘s proof of live-in-relations we can take the illustration of Gandharva vivaha and Asura vivaha.
In gandharva vivaha there is no interest of the family or any kind of ceremonies a man and lady who select to live together will begin their lives as if upon fair a word-of-mouth commitment, indeed in spite of the fact that they have the same duties of a hitched couple.In asura sort if a boy falls in love with a young lady, he will take off the young lady whom he cherishes after paying a lump sum to her family, this sort is common presently in a few tribal zones of India.
Legal status of Live-in Relationships
In a much-anticipated recognition of living with somebody without being hitched to them, the Apex Court accepted that a man and a woman living individually without marriage can’t be interpreted as an offense. “When two consenting individuals want to live together, what is the offense? Does it add up to an offense?” an exceptional Three-Judge Seat setting up the Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan and Judges Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan noticed. The Supreme Court said that there was no law limiting living with somebody or pre-marital sex. “Living with somebody is a choice to live” the Supreme Court expressed, apparently insinuating to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It guarantees the right to life and personal opportunity as a key right.
In the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the law-makers have given recognition to live-in relationships by conferring rights and assurance to those females in a relationship with a male companion and they are not married, yet are living together which is akin to a marriage. In spite of the reality that live-in relationship isn’t totally characterized in the Act however cleared out to the legal for interpretation. The court gave it the meaning of “relationship in the nature of marriage”.
The sections of the law have given a wide interpretation for the individuals who are in a live-in relationship with someone. This gives these women some basic rights to shield themselves from the abuse of false marriage, bigamous associations. In November 2000 the Malimath Committee which was the Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System was set up. In 2003 when the Malimath Committee displayed its report, it made a few propositions under the heading “offenses against females”. One of its suggestions was to reexamine section 125 CrPC,1973 to alter the term “wife”. Slowly but steadily the law is moreover recognizing the presence of such relations.
Law relating to Live-in Relationships
Constitutional Perspective:
The Indian Constitution, beneath Article 21, ensures the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which has been expansively deciphered by the judiciary to include the right to cohabit with a partner of one’s choice. Live-in relationships, in spite of the fact that not unequivocally specified in the Constitution or any statute, drop within the ambit of this personal liberty. The Supreme Court has over and over held that adults have the autonomy to make personal choices, counting the decision to live together without marriage.
However, this individual freedom frequently finds itself in strife with prevailing ideas of societal morality. Whereas the judiciary has inclined towards protecting individual choice, public recognition still sways between acknowledgment and judgment. This pressure underscores the delicate adjustment between constitutional rights and social conservatism in India.
Domestic Violence Act:
This Act offers assurance to women from abusive relationships, counting live-in partnerships. The law recognizes “relationships in the nature of marriage” and permits ladies to claim maintenance, residence, and protection from abuse under its provisions.
Section 125 of CrPC/ Section 144 of BNSS:
This section enables a woman in a live-in relationship to claim maintenance from her partner, provided she can establish the relationship’s long-term and steady nature. The judiciary has clarified that women should not be left dejected only since the relationship needed lawful marriage.
Hindu Succession Act & Property Rights:
The legal status of children born out of live-in relationships has made a significant progress. Courts have held that such children are legitimate and have inheritance rights in the property of their parents. In any case, uncertainty still remains regarding property rights between live-in partners themselves, especially in the absence of a will or written agreement.
Complications in Live-in Relationships
Legal Ambiguity
One of the noteworthy challenges encompassing live-in relationships in India is the lawful uncertainty, as there is no codified law particularly governing such relationships. Whereas some court judgements have recognized live-in relationships in certain contexts, especially in terms of giving legal protection to women under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, there is no specific legislation that expressly addresses the rights and duties of individuals in live-in relationships.
Social Stigma
Social stigma around live-in relationships remains predominant in numerous parts of India, especially in rural and traditionalist regions, due to deep-rooted traditional values, social norms, and religious beliefs that prioritize marriage as a sacred part of the culture and society.
Women’s Vulnerability
Women in live-in relationships in India confront critical vulnerability due to the absence of a clear legal system overseeing maintenance rights. As a result, they may battle to secure financial support or claim alimony in case of separation, with legal outcomes often depending on the discretion of the courts, which includes their instability and abuse.
Property and Succession issues
In the legal marriage, couples, people have a recognized claim to each other’s property or assets unless expressly stated in a will but it is not at all like in live-in connections. This legal gap leaves women powerless, particularly in cases where they have contributed to family or in building assets but have no claim to them as they are not in a formal arrangement.
Judicial Discretion
Courts evaluate cases independently, driving to inconsistency.This leads to unpredictable decisions about with the choices based on the particular actualities of each case and the translation of the relationship’s “marriage-like” nature. In order to differentiate formal relational unions with built up lawful rights, live-in connections need clarity by enacting a standardized law. The lack of uniform approach not as it were complicates legal procedures but too exposes women to potential misuses, as judicial outcomes can in some cases be impacted by subjective elucidations or maybe than a clear codified law.
Judicial Precedents on Live-in Relationships
Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan Kalindri Vihar,MANU/UP/0288/2001
The High Court in this case recognised the validity of live-in relationships.It ruled that it is not illegal for an unmarried couple to reside together despite the fact that it is frowned upon in the society.
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, MANU/SC/0872/2010
The Hon. Apex Court laid down the following criteria for a live-in to be recognised:
Voluntary cohabitation of parties and posed to the world as akin to spouses for a significant period of time. They should have possession of “shared household”. It is defined in Section 2(s), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005.
Both the parties must be single or otherwise eligible to enter into a legal marriage.
Conclusion
Live-in relationships in India, in spite of the fact that progressively obvious, stay entrapped in lawful uncertainty and social conservatism. Whereas legal proclamations have endeavored to fill the legislative void by maintaining person autonomy and amplifying certain protections, particularly to women, the absence of a clear statutory system proceeds to cultivate inconsistency and vulnerability.
As societal standards advance, there is a pressing require for comprehensive legitimate reform that balances constitutional rights with cultural sensitivities. Recognizing and controlling live-in connections through codified law would not as it were to safeguard personal rights but moreover assert the authenticity of different forms of companionship in an advanced democratic society.
About the Author
