Meaning- The relationships where two people cohabit outside marriage without any

legal obligations towards each other are known as live-in relationships. This is a
relationship in the nature of marriage but unlike a marriage.

No legal definition - There is no legal definition of live-in relationship, and

Indian view- Marriage in the Indian society has been considered as a sacred bond
since the Vedic period. This concept of matrimony has continuously evolved with
time. With the ever-changing society and human psychology, the concept of marriage
and relationship has also evolved. However, such relationships are considered a taboo
in the Indian society, where living with someone before marriage is not socially
acceptable.

Domestic Violence Act- For the very first time in Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Pwdva), the legislature has acknowledged live-in
relationships by giving rights and protection to those females who are not legally
married.
Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines:
Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at
any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption
or are family members living together as a joint family.
Courts presume live-in relationships to be covered under the ambit of the expression
as the words nature of marriage and live-in relationship stand on the same line and
meaning

CPC- Section 125 CrPC was incorporated in order to avoid vagrancy and destitution
for a wife/minor children/old age parents, and the same has now been extended by
judicial interpretation to partners of a live-in relationship.
Leagl status of children- The Indian law does not provide any rights or obligations
on the parties in live relationship. The status of the children born during such
relationship is also unclear and therefore, the court has provided clarification to the
concept of live in relationships through various judgments. The court has liberally
professed that any man and women cohabiting for a long term will be presumed as
legally married and their child will be legitimate under the law unless proved
contrary.
- In Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, the Supreme Court had said, “If a man and
woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for some years, there will be a
presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife
and the children born to them will not be illegitimate.”
- Supreme Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya has held that a child born out of such
relationship will no longer be considered as an illegitimate child.

Inheritance Rights of Children- Courts have always ensured that any child who is
born from a live-in relationship of a reasonable period should not be denied the right
to inheritance and this practice is in sync with Article 39(f) of the Constitution of
India. The Supreme Court in Vidyadhari v Sukhrana Bai passed a landmark judgment
where the Court granted the right of inheritance to the children born from a live-in
relationship and ascribed them with the status of “legal heirs”.
The legal fiction created by section 16 of HMA makes it possible for children born
out of such marriages to inherit their parent’s property. Only the self-acquired
property of the parents can be transferred and not their ancestral property. 1 The rule
contained in section 16(3) of HMA, postulates that children are prohibited from
receiving properties of persons other than their parents.
However, the Supreme Court in Revansidapa v. Malikarjun observed that the use of
the word “property” indicates no distinction between ancestral property or self-
acquired property. Thus, children will be able to acquire both self-acquired property
as well as ancestral property.

Inheritance Rights of Partners- Partners in a live-in relationship do not enjoy a right

1
Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi, (2003) 1 SCC 730.
2
Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
not specify the succession rights of the partners in a live-in relationship. Some other
sets of rights are also available in Live-in relationships. A woman can claim
maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C, and for that purpose, she need not prove the
existence of a marriage. There is no provision in the current legal framework which
grants a person any inheritance rights in a live-in relationship.
Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1978-
This was the first case in which the Supreme Court of India recognized live in
relationship and interpreted it as a valid marriage. In this case, the Court gave legal
validity to a 50 year live in relationship of a couple. It was held by Justice Krishna
Iyer that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have
lived together for a long term as husband and wife. Although the presumption is
rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its
legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.
Tulsa & Ors vs. Durghatiya & Ors, 2008-
The Supreme Court provided legal status to the children born from live in
relationship. It was held that one of the crucial pre-conditions for a child born from
live-in relationship to not be treated as illegitimate are that the parents must have lived
under one roof and co-habited for a considerably long time for society to recognize
them as husband and wife and it must not be a "walk in and walk out" relationship.
Therefore, the court also granted the right to property to a child born out of a live in
relationship.
Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V.Sarma, 2013-
The Supreme Court has illustrated five categories where the concept of live in
relationships can be considered and proved in the court of law. Following are the
categories:
 Domestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female, both
unmarried. It is the most uncomplicated sort of relationship.
 Domestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried
woman, entered knowingly.
 Domestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married
woman, entered knowingly. Such relationship can lead to a conviction
under Indian Penal Code for the crime of adultery.
  Domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married
male, entered unknowingly.
 Domestic relationship between same sex partners (gay or lesbian).
The Court stated that a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship
in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of women Against
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 3and provided certain guidelines to get an insight of
such relationships. Also, there should be a close analysis of the entire relationship, in
other words, all facets of the interpersonal relationship need to be taken into account,
including the individual factors.
D.Velusamy vs. D.Patchaiammal, 2010-
The judgment determined certain pre-requisites for a live in relationship to be
considered valid. It provides that The couple must hold themselves out to society as
being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a
legal marriage, including being unmarried. It was stated that the couple must have
voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses
for a significant period of time. The court held that not all relationships will amount to
a relationship in the nature of marriage and get the benefit of the Domestic Violence
Act. It further clarified that, if a man keeps women as a servant and maintains her
financially and uses mainly for sexual purposes, such relationship would not be
considered as marriage in the court of law. Therefore to get such benefit the
conditions mentioned by the Court must be satisfied, and has to be proved by
evidence.

3
Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, S.2(f).