Published On: 25th June 2025
Authored By: Tanya kumari
Asian Law College
Abstract
Live-in relationships are increasingly becoming prevalent in India as a simplified alternative to traditional marriage. They are defined as domestic cohabitation between adult couples who are not legally married. At first glance, such arrangements may appear to offer a stress-free companionship without legal obligations. However, they come with their own set of complexities, responsibilities, and legal liabilities. Recent legal developments have attempted to bring live-in relationships within the ambit of established laws. The Supreme Court has issued various judgments concerning maintenance, property, and the legal status of children born out of such relationships, establishing that live-in arrangements are not criminal offences in India. Nevertheless, the topic remains debatable due to lingering cultural taboos and legal ambiguities. Several grey areas persist, including issues related to documentation, cultural acceptance, property rights, testamentary capacity, religious opposition, and recognition of same-sex partnerships.
This article aims to understand the concept of live-in relationships through secondary sources. It further attempts to highlight the challenges faced by cohabiting couples using descriptive and analytical methods. Finally, it argues for the need to frame a separate, secular, and gender-sensitive legal framework that addresses the socio-legal issues associated with live-in relationships.
Keywords: live-in relationship, maintenance, property, same-sex, child
Introduction
A live-in relationship is a form of cohabitation where two individuals reside together without entering into a formal marriage. This concept has gained legal recognition in various countries worldwide. As per the Supreme Court of India, a man and woman in love living together fall under the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, live-in relationships are not considered criminal offences.
The Malimath Committee Report (2003) was instrumental in initiating discourse around this concept. It notably examined the definition of ‘wife’ and extended comparable recognition to women in live-in arrangements. Subsequently, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 became the first Indian legislation to offer legal protection to non-marital relationships by categorising them as relationships “in the nature of marriage” (Anuja Agrawal, 2012).
Multiple efforts have been made to bring such unions under the purview of existing laws related to domestic violence, maintenance, inheritance, and child legitimacy. Despite legal recognition, societal acceptance remains limited, and the notion continues to be viewed with scepticism in conservative circles.
While arriage is traditionally revered in Indian culture as a sacred bond, social evolution and changing human psychology have led to a broader understanding of relationships. Today’s youth exhibit a more liberal and pragmatic outlook. Although a live-in arrangement may seem like a relaxed partnership devoid of legal obligations, it also involves emotional, financial, and legal complexities that warrant attention.
Living Relationships is Not an Offence
The judiciary has affirmed through multiple rulings that a man and woman living as husband and wife in a long-term live-in relationship—especially with children—can be presumed to be married.
In Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, the Allahabad High Court held:
“A man and a woman, even without getting married, can live together if they wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by society, but it is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality.”
The Supreme Court in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr reiterated that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not criminal, nor is premarital sex. Similarly, in Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel, the Court confirmed that such relationships do not attract criminal sanctions.
These rulings clearly establish that cohabitation between consenting adults is constitutionally protected under Article 21.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 2(f) of the PWDVA defines “domestic relationship” to include those “in the nature of marriage,” thereby extending statutory protection to live-in partners. This inclusion allows women in live-in relationships to seek legal remedies against domestic abuse.
Rights conferred under the Act include:
-
The right to reside in the shared household
-
The right to seek protection orders
-
The right to claim compensation for damages arising from abuse
Thus, the Act places women in live-in relationships on an equal footing with married women in terms of legal protection.
Essential Factors to Make Live-in Relationships Legal
The Supreme Court in Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma laid down criteria to identify relationships “in the nature of marriage.” These include:
1. Age: Both partners must be of legal marriageable age (18 for women, 21 for men). However, in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court held that adults can choose to live together even if the man is below the legal marriageable age.
2. Voluntary Cohabitation: The relationship must be based on free will and mutual intention to cohabit. This includes emotional, financial, and social sharing, such as supporting each other and public acknowledgment of the relationship (Auroshree, 2019).
Importantly, if a woman is kept solely for sexual purposes or domestic service without mutual support or public recognition, it will not qualify as a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Who May Live Together Without Marriage
In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court classified live-in relationships into the following categories:
a) Unmarried adult woman and unmarried adult man
b) Unmarried adult woman and married adult man, with her full knowledge
c) Married adult woman and unmarried adult man, with her full knowledge
d) Unmarried woman unknowingly cohabiting with a married man
e) Same-sex couples (not recognised under PWDVA as “in the nature of marriage” but still lawful under Article 21)
Legal Status and Property Rights of Children Born Out of Live-in Relationships
In Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008), the Supreme Court held that children born out of live-in relationships are legitimate, provided the parents have cohabited for a significant period. This ruling grants such children inheritance rights under Hindu law and legitimises their birth.
Property Rights
Although live-in partners do not automatically inherit each other’s property under Indian law, Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) affirmed that a partner may claim rights to jointly acquired assets if they can prove a substantial contribution.
Maintenance Rights
Women in live-in relationships can seek maintenance under both Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and PWDVA, 2005, provided the relationship meets the judicial standards for “marriage-like” status. Maintenance claims are evaluated case-by-case.
Conclusion
Though live-in relationships remain controversial, they are increasingly visible in modern India, largely due to globalisation and changing social norms. Many young adults prefer such arrangements over formal marriage due to reduced responsibilities and greater autonomy.
While these relationships can offer flexibility and freedom, they also require awareness of socio-legal responsibilities. Both judiciary and civil society are gradually endorsing these arrangements, with noteworthy efforts like the Madhya Pradesh Women’s Commission’s recommendation to grant legal status to such unions for tribal women, and NGOs facilitating senior citizens’ companionships.
Despite these positive trends, significant legal gaps remain. There is an urgent need for a separate, secular, gender-sensitive legislation that fully addresses the legal ambiguities and cultural complexities surrounding live-in relationships.
