Published On: August 17th 2025
Authored By: Rashi Agarwal
Manipal University, Jaipur
ABSTRACT
Live- in connections, formerly considered a taboo in Indian society, have decreasingly gained social acceptance over the once many decades. With urbanization, liberal study, and evolving cultures, numerous couples now conclude for cohabitation without formal marriage. Despite this shift, the legal frame in India remains nebulous, as particular laws do n’t slightly fete similar arrangements. This composition explores the status of live- in connections in India through legal developments, judicial interpretations, and statutory vittles. It further analyses the rights of mates, issues of conservation, legality and rights of children born out of similar unions, and prevailing social challenges. The composition highlights the need for a cohesive and comprehensive legal approach that addresses both societal realities and individual rights.
INTRODUCTION
In a society deeply rooted in the sanctity of marriage and family, live-in relationships represent a quiet revolution. These arrangements—where two consenting adults live together without getting married—are increasingly seen across urban India, particularly among younger generations who view them as a way to test compatibility, avoid marital obligations, or assert independence. What was once considered scandalous or immoral is gradually becoming part of modern Indian society’s lived reality. However, this social shift has far outpaced legal recognition and clarity.
Despite being constitutionally protected under the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), [1]live-in relationships in India continue to exist in a grey legal zone. There is no specific legislation that defines, protects, or governs such relationships. As a result, individuals—especially women and children—face legal uncertainty when it comes to maintenance, inheritance, custody, domestic violence, and property rights.
The judiciary has played a critical role in filling this legislative vacuum, with landmark judgments extending limited rights and protections to live-in partners. Courts have affirmed that live-in relationships are not illegal or immoral, and have offered legal presumptions in favor of long-term cohabiting couples. However, due to the absence of codified law, these decisions vary across cases and jurisdictions, leading to inconsistencies.
This article explores the evolving legal landscape of live-in relationships in India by analyzing statutory gaps, key judicial decisions, and the social transformation that demands a more inclusive and structured legal approach. As the country walks a fine line between tradition and modernity, it becomes crucial to ensure that the law does not lag behind in safeguarding individual rights within non-traditional partnerships.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
India lacks a codified law that explicitly recognizes or regulates live- in connections. still, colorful legal vittles and interpretations by the bar have extended limited rights to mates in similar arrangements.
1.Indigenous Backing
Composition 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and particular liberty. Courts have interpreted this to include the right of subscribing grown-ups to live together, irrespective of their connubial status.
2. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005( PWDVA)
Section 2( f) of the PWDVA defines a “ domestic relationship ” [2]to include a relationship “ in the nature of marriage. ” This description is the primary statutory recognition extended to live- in connections. A woman in such a relationship is entitled to protection from domestic violence and can seek conservation, sanctum, and other reliefs.
3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973( Section 125) [3]
Although this section pertains to conservation of women , children, and parents, courts have in some cases interpreted the term “ woman” to include a woman in a live- in relationship, handed the relationship was of a prolonged nature and not casual.
4. Indian substantiation Act, 1872
Section 114 [4]allows for the presumption of marriage if a man and woman live together for a long period. still, this presumption is rebuttable and not automatic.
5. Heritage Laws
Children born out of live- in connections are considered licit and have heritage rights from their parents under Hindu law[5], as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Despite these scattered legal touchpoints, there’s no invariant enactment offering comprehensive rights and protections to live- in mates.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
1. Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of connection( 1978) [6]
The Supreme Court upheld a 50- time live- in relationship as valid, invoking the presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Indian substantiation Act.
2. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal( 2010) [7]
The Court stated that a live- in relationship must act a marriage to qualify under PWDVA. It laid down essential criteria participated ménage, emotional and sexual relationship, domestic arrangements, and societal acknowledgment.
3. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma( 2013)[8]
This corner case linked five orders of live- in connections that may qualify under PWDVA and clarified that not all cohabitations are defended. It rejected a woman’s plea for conservation on grounds of an extracurricular relationship.
4. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal( 2010)[9]
The Supreme Court held that live- in connections are n’t illegal or immoral and that societal morality can not stamp individual rights under Composition 21.
5. Tulsa v. Durghatiya( 2008)[10]
The Court held that children born out of long- term live- in connections are licit and entitled to heritage from their parents.
Judicial precedents give critical relief, especially to women and children, but their case- to- case nature makes them changeable. Without codified guidelines, courts are forced to interpret law astronomically, leading to inconsistency.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
While judicial activism has filled many gaps, the legal position of live-in relationships in India is still ambiguous and insufficient in providing full protection or clarity to those involved.
1. Lack of Definition
There is no statutory definition of what constitutes a live-in relationship. This leaves room for subjective interpretations and leads to uncertainty about the legal status of such relationships.
2. Burden of Proof
In most cases, especially under the PWDVA, the burden falls on the woman to prove that her relationship was “in the nature of marriage.” Lack of documentary evidence (like joint accounts, lease agreements, etc.) often works against her.
3. Social Stigma and Discrimination
Despite legal recognition in certain contexts, societal attitudes remain conservative. Live-in couples often face housing discrimination, workplace harassment, and family estrangement.
4. No Rights of Inheritance for Partners
While children may inherit property, live-in partners have no legal claim on each other’s estate unless named in a will. This is a significant disadvantage compared to married couples.
5. No Codified Rights for Men
The focus has largely been on protecting women, which is necessary, but the lack of legal protection or maintenance rights for men in live-in relationships is also an issue.
6. Contradictions Across Personal Laws
India’s plural legal system complicates the situation, as different personal laws have different interpretations of marriage and legitimacy, making it difficult to arrive at a consistent conclusion.
A uniform civil code or specific statute addressing live-in relationships is necessary to resolve these practical and legal challenges.
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
One of the most progressive developments in Indian jurisprudence has been the recognition of the rights of children born out of live-in relationships. Traditionally, Indian society treated such children as “illegitimate,” depriving them of dignity, inheritance rights, and societal acceptance. However, the Indian judiciary has gradually moved toward a child-centric approach, affirming that a child’s legal status should not suffer due to the nature of the parents’ relationship.
In Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008), [11]the Supreme Court observed that if a man and woman cohabit for a long period, the law may presume marriage, and the children born from such a union are legitimate. This principle was reiterated in Bharata Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan (2010)[12], where the Court held that children born out of live-in relationships have inheritance rights in their parents’ self-acquired property, even if the parents were not formally married.
Furthermore, under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, children born from void or voidable marriages are considered legitimate for the purpose of inheritance from parents. Although this does not extend to ancestral/coparcenary property under Hindu law, it marks a significant step in protecting such children’s rights.
Additionally, children born from live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ensuring financial support from the father. Courts have emphasized that the law must evolve to protect the best interests of the child, regardless of the parents’ marital status.
Despite these advancements, legislative ambiguity remains, especially concerning succession and property rights in joint Hindu family property. A clearer statutory mandate would help safeguard the dignity, security, and future of children born in non-traditional family structures.
CONCLUSION
Live-in relationships are a mirror to the evolving nature of Indian society—a reflection of changing values, aspirations, and the increasing emphasis on individual choice. While this form of cohabitation is becoming more common, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas, the legal framework remains largely underdeveloped and reactive rather than proactive. At present, individuals in live-in arrangements rely primarily on fragmented judicial interpretations and limited statutory provisions, such as those in the PWDVA and Section 125 of the CrPC. Although the judiciary has adopted a progressive outlook in many cases, recognizing live-in relationships and extending legal protection in matters of domestic violence, maintenance, and child legitimacy, this case-by-case approach cannot substitute for a structured legislative framework. The current ambiguity disproportionately affects women and children, who remain vulnerable in the absence of well-defined rights regarding property, custody, and support.
Furthermore, the societal stigma attached to live-in relationships continues to exert pressure on couples, limiting their access to housing, employment, and even basic social acceptance. The disconnect between evolving social norms and static legal interpretations necessitates urgent legislative attention. Lawmakers must consider introducing a dedicated statute or expanding existing family and civil laws to explicitly include live-in relationships and provide comprehensive rights and remedies to all parties involved. Such reform does not mean undermining the institution of marriage but rather respecting the right of individuals to choose alternative relationship models. A legally secure environment for live-in partners, grounded in equality and human dignity, is vital for a progressive society. Until then, the struggle for recognition, justice, and equality within live-in relationships in India will remain an unfinished chapter in the evolution of family law.
REFERENCES
[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 21
[2] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, s 2(f)
[3] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 125
[4] Indian Evidence Act 1872, s 114
[5] Hindu Marriage Act 1955, s 16
[6] Badri Prasad v Dy Director of Consolidation AIR 1978 SC 1557
[7] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469
[8] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755
[9] S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
[10] Tulsa v Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520
[11] Tulsa v Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520
[12] Bharata Matha v R Vijaya Renganathan (2010) 11 SCC 483
