Authored By: Navnoor Kaur
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar
Abstract
Live-in relationships are increasingly visible in Indian society, especially in urban areas. Although Indian law traditionally focuses on marriage, courts have gradually recognized that two adults have the right to live together without marrying. Over time, the judiciary has extended certain protections to such relationships, particularly under constitutional principles of dignity, equality, and personal liberty. However, there is still no specific legislation that clearly regulates maintenance rights when these relationships end. This article examines how Indian courts have developed the law on live-in relationships, highlights the legal uncertainties regarding maintenance, and argues that Parliament should enact a clear statutory framework to ensure fairness and consistency.
I. Introduction
Marriage has always been central to Indian family law. Most rights related to maintenance, inheritance, and child custody are based on a valid marriage. However, social realities are changing. Many couples now choose to cohabit without formal marriage.
Indian courts have repeatedly held that such relationships are not illegal. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal,¹ the Supreme Court clarified that live-in relationships between consenting adults cannot be treated as an offence. Similarly, in Lata Singh v. State of U.P.,² the Court protected the freedom of adults to choose their partners.
While the judiciary has recognized autonomy, the real legal difficulty arises when the relationship breaks down. If one partner has been financially dependent, can maintenance be claimed? Since Parliament has not enacted a specific law on live-in relationships, courts have had to interpret existing statutes creatively.
II. Development of the “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage” Doctrine
A major development occurred in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal.³ In this case, the Supreme Court explained that not every live-in arrangement would qualify for legal protection. The Court introduced the idea of a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” It stated that such a relationship should:
Be between adults legally capable of marriage,
Involve voluntary cohabitation,
Continue for a significant period, and
Resemble marriage in practice.
Later, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma,⁴ the Court expanded these criteria. It suggested that judges should consider factors such as shared household, pooling of financial resources, intention of the parties, and social recognition. However, purely casual or short-term relationships were excluded from protection.
These judicial guidelines have shaped the law, but they remain case-based rather than statutory.
III. Maintenance Rights Under Existing Laws
A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
The primary legal basis for maintenance in live-in relationships is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(f) includes relationships “in the nature of marriage.”⁵ Under Section 20, courts may grant monetary relief.⁶
This provision has allowed many women in long-term live-in relationships to seek financial support. However, the Act does not clearly define duration or financial dependency standards.
B. Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS
Maintenance is traditionally granted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.⁷ This provision primarily applies to legally wedded wives. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 now replaces it under Section 144.⁸
Courts have sometimes relied on the presumption of marriage doctrine in long cohabitation cases, as seen in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation.⁹ However, this approach does not provide consistent protection in all live-in cases.
IV. Constitutional Protection
The recognition of live-in relationships is strongly connected to constitutional rights.
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.¹⁵ In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,¹² the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right. This strengthens the argument that adults have autonomy in intimate relationships.
Articles 14 and 15¹³ ¹⁴ ensure equality and prohibit discrimination. Denying maintenance solely because a relationship was not formally solemnized may contradict substantive equality principles.
Indian courts have increasingly emphasized constitutional morality over social morality.
V. Rights of Children Born in Live-in Relationships
The judiciary has taken a progressive stance regarding children. In Tulsa v. Durghatiya,¹⁰ the Supreme Court recognized legitimacy of children from long-term cohabitation. Similarly, in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun,¹¹ inheritance rights were protected in certain contexts.
The guiding principle remains the “best interest of the child.” This ensures that children are not punished for their parents’ marital status.
VI. Comparative Legal Perspective
In several countries, cohabitation is regulated through legislation.
Australia recognizes de facto relationships under statute.¹⁸
Canada recognizes common-law partners for certain financial rights.¹⁹
The UK Law Commission has recommended financial remedies for cohabiting partners.¹⁷
Compared to these jurisdictions, India relies heavily on judicial interpretation rather than clear legislation.
VII. The Need for Legislative Reform
The current Indian framework suffers from uncertainty:
No statutory definition of live-in relationship
No minimum duration requirement
No fixed maintenance guidelines
No property division rules
A comprehensive law could:
Clearly define live-in relationships
Prescribe objective criteria
Provide structured maintenance rules
Protect economically dependent partners
Reduce misuse and prolonged litigation
The Law Commission of India has also discussed reform in family law.¹⁶
Such legislation would not weaken marriage but would regulate social realities in a balanced manner.
VIII. Conclusion
Indian courts have played an important role in recognizing live-in relationships and extending maintenance protection under existing statutes. However, judicial innovation cannot permanently replace legislative clarity.
As live-in relationships become more common, Parliament should enact a comprehensive legal framework. This would promote fairness, predictability, and protection of vulnerable partners while respecting constitutional values of dignity and autonomy.
Clear law will reduce litigation, ensure consistency, and strengthen justice in contemporary family relationships.
FOOTNOTE(S):
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 S.C.C. 600 (India).
Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 S.C.C. 475 (India).
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 S.C.C. 469 (India).
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 S.C.C. 755 (India).
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, No. 43 of 2005, § 2(f), India Code (2005).
Id. § 20.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2 of 1974, § 125, India Code (1974).
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 144 (India).
Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 S.C.C. 527 (India).
Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 S.C.C. 520 (India).
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
INDIA CONST. art. 15.
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law (2018).
UK Law Commission, Cohabitation: The Financial Consequences of Relationship Breakdown (Law Com No 307, 2007).
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) pt VIIIAB (Austl.).
Family Law Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2d Supp.) (Can.).
Bibliography
Cases
Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 S.C.C. 527 (India).
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 S.C.C. 469 (India).
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 S.C.C. 755 (India).
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 S.C.C. 475 (India).
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 S.C.C. 600 (India).
Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 S.C.C. 520 (India).
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Statutes
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (India).
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India).
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (India).
