Live-in Relationships and the Grey Zone of Indian Family Law

Abstract

Live-in relationships are neither illegal nor fully recognised as marriage. Over time, however, courts have evolved their view of such relationships by extending various rights to the parties involved. A brief review shows significant shifts through landmark cases such as S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma.

Judicial interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,[1] Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and the legitimacy provision of Hindu law has treated live-in relationships as relationships “in the nature of marriage”. More recently, the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code has introduced compulsory registration of live-in relationships.[2]

This paper examines whether current legislation protects those who choose to live together without marrying, while acknowledging that a life partnership is not equivalent to legal matrimony. It discusses the balance between protecting private choice and recognising relationships outside traditional familial structures through statutory reform. It concludes that, despite the growing number of protections extended by the judiciary, live-in couples continue to inhabit a grey zone within Indian family law.

Keywords: live-in relationship, Article 21, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, maintenance, registration.

I. Introduction

Indian family law has traditionally focused on a single institution: marriage. If one was not a wife or husband in the formal sense, the law had little to offer. Times have changed, especially in urban centres, where many couples opt for cohabitation over marriage. Courts have taken their time to understand this shift, but there have been some very progressive rulings as well.

So what does the law say about those who choose to live together in a relationship rather than tie the knot? Can they seek protection from domestic violence? Can they claim maintenance after a breakdown? What are their rights concerning children? Recent enactments indicate that the State itself wants to get involved by compelling registration, as seen in Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code, enacted recently.[3]

This article charts this landscape. It begins with the constitutional protection offered by Article 21, then turns to statutory frameworks such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), along with provisions of the Evidence Act and the Hindu Marriage Act. It concludes with newer developments involving the registration of such relationships.

II. Constitutional Recognition under Article 21

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In recent years, the Supreme Court has interpreted this article very expansively to include rights such as privacy and bodily autonomy.

On live-in relationships specifically, the apex court took up S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal.[4] In that case, criminal complaints were filed against an actor over her public statements on pre-marital sex and live-in relationships. The Supreme Court quashed the complaints and held that the mere fact of living together without marriage does not amount to an offence. It observed that morality and criminality are not co-extensive, and that every individual has the fundamental right to choose his or her own lifestyle and partner, subject to non-violation of any law.

It is important to note that, in this judgment, the Supreme Court directly connected live-in relationships with Article 21 of the Constitution. The verdict also set a precedent for other courts to protect consensual adult relationships even when they are contrary to social norms. Several High Court judgments cite this ruling to protect couples from harassment or threats by family or community merely because they live together without being married.[5]

A second area of jurisprudence arose from Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation,[6] which addressed how to treat people who had cohabited for a long time. The Supreme Court held that where a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for decades, the law presumes that they are married. This was never intended as a blessing for live-in relationships, but it showed that cohabitation could not simply be ignored by the legal system.

At the constitutional level, therefore, live-in relationships have gained visibility. This may not appeal to conservatives, but it follows from the protection of personal liberty, and long cohabitation is sometimes regarded as proof of marriage.

III. Statutory Frameworks: How Live-ins Enter Existing Laws

So far, Indian legislatures have not passed a specific “Live-in Relationships Act”. To fill this void, courts have tried to bring live-in relationships within existing Acts by interpreting their general terms suitably.

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The PWDVA is perhaps the most significant statute for our purposes. Section 2(f) defines a “domestic relationship” as a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together as a joint family. The inclusion of “a relationship in the nature of marriage” enables a woman in a live-in relationship to approach a Magistrate to secure her right to residence, protection orders and monetary relief.

The Act was drafted to cover more than those within a legally valid marriage. It endeavoured to cover situations where the woman’s marriage might be void, or where she is in a de facto marital relationship without formal ceremonies.

However, courts and commentators alike have stressed that not every live-in relationship satisfies the criteria. In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal,[7] the Supreme Court laid down parameters for a relationship to qualify as a domestic relationship. The couple must hold themselves out to society as spouses. Both must be of legal age to marry and otherwise qualified to enter into a valid marriage, including being unmarried. They must also have voluntarily cohabited in a shared household for a significant period.

Later High Court decisions have adhered to these guidelines strictly. For instance, where a woman was in a live-in relationship with a married man, the Bombay High Court held that she was not entitled to relief under the PWDVA, as the two were never capable of marrying each other.[8] Thus, although the law opens a door, it is open only to one specific kind of live-in relationship.

B. Section 125 CrPC and Maintenance

Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is a general provision aimed at protecting wives, minor children and parents against destitution. Although the provision uses the word “wife”, the Supreme Court has at times interpreted the term more broadly. In Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha,[9] the Court observed that a woman in a relationship bearing all the indicia of marriage cannot be denied maintenance merely because certain formalities of marriage were not fulfilled. The Court recommended that Parliament amend Section 125 to provide suitable protection to women in live-in relationships on par with marriage, and urged the judiciary in the meantime to adopt a purposive approach to interpreting the provision.

Reading these decisions together with the PWDVA, it is clear that where a live-in relationship satisfies the “nature of marriage” test, the court will treat the woman almost as a wife for the purpose of providing maintenance and basic financial support.[10]

C. Evidence Act and Presumption of Marriage

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) permits courts to draw certain presumptions, including from long-term cohabitation. Since Badri Prasad, it has been reiterated that if a man and a woman live together for many years as husband and wife, a presumption of marriage arises, thereby protecting the woman and the children born of such a union.

Thus, although no provision deals with live-in relationships as such, Section 114 allows rights that would normally accrue only on marriage to be claimed by those who choose this path.

D. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Courts have extended the idea behind Section 16 to children born of live-in relationships, ruling out discrimination in their right to inherit the self-acquired property of their parents, whether the parents’ relationship was formalised or not. The essence is not to validate the relationship between two people but to safeguard their children from the consequences of being labelled illegitimate.

IV. What Constitutes a “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage”?

Many of these protections rely on the “nature of marriage” test established in cases such as Velusamy and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma,[11] and in subsequent decisions. The following parameters can be drawn from the case law.

First, the couple must live together in a shared household and present themselves socially as a couple. Second, both must be of legal age and unmarried, and must otherwise be qualified to enter into a legally valid marriage. Third, the cohabitation must have lasted for a significant period; the relationship must not be short-lived. Fourth, mutual financial and emotional dependency is important, since these features are common among married couples.

What does not count? Relationships in which one partner is already married to someone else, where the other partner knows of it, fall outside the test. So do relationships that are secret, short-term or purely sexual, and that involve neither a shared home nor public acknowledgment.

Given this, live-in relationships in India can broadly be placed in three categories. The first comprises relationships fully outside legal protection, with no access to the PWDVA or to maintenance. The second comprises relationships halfway protected, by virtue of coverage under the PWDVA or maintenance provisions. The third, in rare circumstances, comprises relationships that are treated as marriage for specific legal purposes. The last two categories are where much of the interesting legal debate lies.

V. Practical Consequences for Live-in Partners

A. Maintenance and Financial Support

A woman may approach the court under the PWDVA if her relationship with her partner meets the qualifying criteria. Depending on the case, some women may also claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.[12]

Under the PWDVA, monetary relief includes compensation for losses caused by the violence (such as loss of earnings), reimbursement of medical expenses, and maintenance, including for the woman’s children. Under Section 125 CrPC, courts aim to ensure that a dependent partner is not left destitute when the relationship ends.

It is important to note, however, that courts do not lay down a universal standard under which all live-in partners automatically receive maintenance. They consider factors such as the duration of the relationship and the extent of mutual dependence. Generally, where the relationship was short-lived or casual, the chances of obtaining maintenance are lower.

B. Residence and Protection from Violence

Another key feature of the PWDVA is that a woman can continue to live in the shared household and obtain protection orders against an abusive partner without having married him. This is crucial because many live-in partners are economically dependent and therefore especially vulnerable to abuse if thrown out by the partner or his family. Judicial discourse has emphasised that denying legal redress merely because these women are “not wives” would defeat the very objectives of the Act.[13]

It has also been emphasised, however, that the relationship must be sufficiently marriage-like to create a shared household for these purposes.

C. Succession and Property

Although both partners enjoy the protection of living together under one roof, neither gains automatically on the death of the other, except as provided by the succession laws applicable to all persons. Live-in partners have no right of inheritance of the kind that spouses enjoy. Some judgments have indicated that a partner may lay claim to property to which she made significant contributions during the relationship, but such claims rest on equitable principles rather than on personal matrimonial laws.

VI. Newer Development: Registration of Live-in Relationships

Beyond judicial interpretation, several legislative measures and policies have recently sought to address live-in relationships.

One of them is the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC), notified in 2025. It makes registration of live-in relationships compulsory. Section 378 requires persons entering such partnerships to submit a statement of the relationship to the registrar within a specified time of beginning to live together as partners.[14] Those who fail to do so face penalties, including fines and short imprisonment. The registrar must verify the age, marital status and consent of both partners. If either partner is under 21 years of age, that partner’s parents or guardian must be informed of the live-in relationship.

Supporters argue that these measures primarily protect partners and children who are economically dependent on a live-in partner, by preventing the other partner from exiting easily without accounting for his or her actions later. Critics, on the other hand, have raised concerns about privacy and autonomy. Compelling an adult couple to disclose their intimate relationship to the State, and exposing them to criminal consequences for failing to do so, runs contrary to the tenor of Article 21 and the Supreme Court’s privacy jurisprudence. Similarly, requiring parental notification where one partner is under 21, even though that partner is a major, raises questions of intrusiveness.

More recently, the Rajasthan High Court has taken steps towards developing a legal framework for registering live-in relationships, so as to provide financial support to non-earning partners and children. This too reflects a desire to regulate such relationships formally, perhaps because they are no longer “invisible” to policymakers.

VII. Problems, Doubts and Open Questions

One need not venture into the more arcane waters of criminal law and cruelty clauses to see the unresolved issues with this approach.

1. Subjectivity of the test. The factors indicating relationship status (duration, public presentation and degree of commitment) can be applied very unevenly, which raises the question of why such parameters should be taken at face value. Should two couples who cohabit for exactly the same period, but are perceived differently by neighbours, families or courts, be treated unequally before the law?

2. The expectation of a “marriage-like” appearance. The current approach implicitly expects live-in couples to adopt a marriage-like form if they want legal redress. Couples who commit to a stable, exclusive arrangement, living in one household and managing money jointly, may find the present framework easier to navigate than those who are less inclined to follow conventional gendered norms of family life.

3. State regulation of intimate relationships. Given the movement towards registration, backed by sanctions, to what extent do we want the State to regulate our intimate relationships? On the one hand, registration may provide courts with evidence of the relationship’s existence and thereby protect women and children. On the other, such a mechanism may be used by family members or authorities to monitor and control decisions that ought to fall within personal liberty under Article 21.

4. Gendered framing. Much of this discourse and law-making has been gendered, focusing on protecting women from male partners while overlooking male and non-binary victims and the need for a gender-neutral framework. Although this reflects social realities, there remain significant gaps in recognition and protection for all genders. Creating narrowly gender-specific protections without broader general ones risks diluting the rights secured to women in marriage and in live-in relationships.[15]

VIII. Conclusion

Live-in relationships have come a long way from being a mere footnote. They have carved out space within Indian constitutional and statutory law, particularly through the Supreme Court’s application of Article 21 and the progressively liberal interpretation of various enactments, including the PWDVA, Section 125 CrPC, the Evidence Act and the Hindu Marriage Act.[16]

However, while offering some legal redress to these couples and their children, the law has not established complete equivalence between live-in relationships and marriage. Protection cannot be claimed unless the “nature of marriage” test is satisfied, and there is still no comprehensive code governing the rights and responsibilities of persons living together. Recent developments, such as Uttarakhand’s compulsory registration under the UCC, indicate an attempt to move forward, but they too raise concerns about the sanctity of personal data and autonomy.

We appear to be witnessing a period of transition in which the older approach, based purely on status (formal marriage), is being replaced by one based on the nature of the relationship. We may be heading towards recognising varied forms of family as valid entities, but until then, live-in couples will remain in the grey zone.

References

[1] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, INDIA CODE (2005), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15436/1/protection_of_women_from_domestic_violence_act,_2005.pdf (last visited Aug. 11, 2025).
[2] Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Rules, https://ucc.uk.gov.in/server/file/uploads/shared-files/ucc-rules-en.pdf (last visited Aug. 11, 2025).
[3] Manupatra, https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/upload/0f9385c7-ddf2-41eb-a7db-fa111c39bfd8.pdf (last visited Aug. 12, 2026).
[4] S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 (India).
[5] See S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 (India), as relied on in various High Court decisions.
[6] Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527 (India).
[7] D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 (India).
[8] Bombay High Court decision applying the Velusamy parameters to a live-in relationship with a married man (case citation to be supplied by the author).
[9] Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 (India).
[10] Uttarakhand Unveils New Rules for Live-in Couples under UCC: Here’s What You Need to Know, FINANCIAL EXPRESS, https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/uttarakhand-unveils-new-rules-for-live-in-couples-under-ucc-heres-what-you-need-to-know/3730796/lite/ (last visited Aug. 11, 2026).
[11] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 (India).
[12] Uttarakhand Government Became First State to Implement UCC, SCC ONLINE BLOG (Jan. 30, 2025), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/01/30/uttrakhand-government-became-first-state-to-implement-ucc/ (last visited Aug. 12, 2025).
[13] Part III: The Domestic Violence Act – Definitions, THE LEAFLET, https://theleaflet.in/know-your-rights/part-iii-the-domestic-violence-act-definitions (last visited Aug. 12, 2026).
[14] Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, § 378, supra note 3.
[15] Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, MANUPATRA STUDENT MODULES (Law of Crimes), http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Studentmodules/Law-of-Crimes/Protection-Of-Women-From-Domestic-Violence-Act-2005.htm (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).
[16] Live-in Relationships and the Law in India: Rights, Protections and What Courts Have Ruled, TIMES OF INDIA, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/legal/news/live-in-relationships-and-the-law-in-india-rights-protections-and-what-courts-have-ruled/articleshow/131225580.cms (last visited Aug. 13, 2026).