FACULTY OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

INTEGRATED LAW COURSE

FAMILY LAW

TOPIC- LEGALITY OF LIVE IN RELATIOSNHIP IN INDIA

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

SHAMBHAVI SUMAN Dr. IRWIN
20231003 ASST. PROFESSOR OF LAW
SEMESTER-III UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to several individuals who have been
instrumental in the completion of this project, Foremost, I express my sincere
appreciation to Prof (Dr.) Irwin, assistant professor of Family Law at University
of Delhi Faculty of Law, for her exceptional guidance and expertise, which has
significantly enriched the depth and quality of this paper. Her vast knowledge
and insightful suggestions have been pivotal in shaping the direction of my
work and have significantly elevated the quality of this project.
I am also indebted to my parents and friends for their constant encouragement
and belief in my abilities. Their motivation and faith in my potential have been a
driving force behind my dedication to this project. Additionally, their valuable
inputs and suggestions have added depth and perspective to my ideas, making
this project more comprehensive and well-rounded.
Contents
1. Acknowledgment
2. Introduction
3. Legality of Live-in Relationship
4. Grant of Alimony
5. Rights of Children Born Out of Live-in Relationship
6. Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005
7. Conclusion
Introduction
Live-in relationships, or cohabitation, are arrangements where two people decide to live
together on a long-term basis, typically in an emotionally or sexually intimate relationship
without being married. The concept generally refers to couples who wish to test their
compatibility before committing or who have financial reasons for cohabiting. While some
parts of the world accept and legally recognize these relationships, others are less open to the
idea; India, for example, is relatively strict in its acceptance of live-in arrangements. In
today's fast-paced, technologically advancing world, the social and cultural landscape has
shifted significantly. Globalization has accelerated these changes, impacting various aspects
of social life, including family dynamics, marriage, and intimate relationships. Traditionally,
marriage has been the legally and socially recognized form of partnership in many societies,
especially in countries with strong family structures and social bonds. This holds particularly
true in India, where marriage is highly valued and living together outside of marriage has
long been considered a social taboo. Recently, however, attitudes have begun to shift, and an
increasing number of couples in India are choosing to cohabit without marriage. These
relationships may be short-lived or may last for years. When they are maintained over a
significant period, they are typically termed live-in relationships, which are characterized by
prolonged cohabitation and a shared household by partners who have not legally formalized
their relationship. India currently lacks specific legislation or cultural norms governing live-in
relationships. In response, the Supreme Court has taken steps to interpret and outline certain
guidelines through various rulings, providing a legal framework to address these relationships
in the absence of formal laws. The research paper delves into the different decisions of apex
court delivered at different times and figure out current legal positions regarding the live-in
relationships.
Legality of Live-In Relationships
Live in relationship between consenting adult is not considered illegal under the Indian law.
In 2006 in the case of Lata Singh v. State of UP 1, it was held that a live in relationship
between two consenting adults of opposite sex though perceived as as immoral, does not
amount to any offence under the law. In another important case Khusboo v. Kanaimmal and
another2” The Supreme Court observed the Supreme Court observed that though the concept
of live in relationship is considered immoral by the society but is definitely not illegal in the
eyes of the law. Living together is a right to life and therefore it cannot be held illegal.
If the live in relationship continue for a long period of time and the couple present themselves
to the society as husband and wife they get recognised as being legally married. As early as
1978, in “Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director Consolidation 3” observation was made that if man
and women who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to proof after half a
century of wedlock by eyewitness evidence that they were validly married 50 years earlier,
fuel succeed. A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived
together for a long spell as a 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 rather than bastardy. Same observation was also made in another case
where it was observed that Vera man and woman live together as husband and wife for a long
time, presumption under the law would be in favour of their being legally married to each
other unless proved to the contrary and children born out of such live in relationship would be
entitled for inheritance in the property of the parents. If such relationship is only for sexual
reasons neither of the partners can claim benefits of a legal marriage. In another landmark
case namely “Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma 4” In which implications of different types of
relationships were examined whereby if both the partners are unmarried and enter into a
relationship mutually, it is not constitute any offence. Before 2018 domestic cohabitation of a
married or unmarried man with a married woman constituted a criminal offence of adultery
but for the man only according to section 497 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). But this section
was annulled by the Supreme Court of India in the case of “Joseph shine v. Union of India 5”
in 2018 As the court came to the conclusion that it was violated of the article 14 6 of the
constitution of India. This section treated men and women unequally as only the man and not
the woman is subject to prosecution for adultery. Moreover it was only the husband of the
concerned woman who could prosecute the man who was involved in the act and the woman
cannot prosecute her husband for adultery. Although adultery is no longer a criminal offence

1
Lata Singh vs State of U.P. & Another (AIR 2006 SC 2522). Indian Kanoon website. 2006.
https://indiankanoon.org/ doc/1364215/.
2
Khushboo vs Kanaimmal and another in 2010 (5 SCC 600 2010). Indian Kanoon website.
2010. https://indiankanoon.org/ doc/1327342/.
3
Badri Prasad vs Deputy Director, Consolidation and other. (AIR 1978 SC 1557). Indian
Kanoon website. 1978. https:// indiankanoon.org/doc/215649/.
4
Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma (15 SCC 755). 2013. https://
indiankanoon.org/doc/192421140/.
5
Joseph Shine vs Union of India (SCC Online 1676). 2018.
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/joseph-shine/.
6
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
but for the matter of cohabitation with any married man or woman it can be a matter of civil
issue constituting a ground of divorce in which case it would be gender neutral. Similarly
cohabitation with sexual relationship between two adult partners of same sex also constituted
crime of unnatural offence under section 377 of Indian Penal Code before 2018. But the
position was reversed in the case of “Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India 7” The Supreme
Court of India honoured section 3778 which criminalised the homosexual acts of two or more
adults in private who possess competency to consent. It was declared unconstitutional,
arbitrary, irrational and violative of article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the constitution. Though
consensual homosexual sexual acts were legalised but the same sex marriage are not
recognised in India do performing a symbolic same sex marriage is not prohibited either. In
“Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma”, the Supreme Court was of the view that all live in relationship
are not relationship in the nature of marriage. In this case it was found that the appellant
having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person could not have
entered into a live in relationship in the nature of marriage because it has no essential
characteristics of a marriage. The court made different observations in this case stating that
such relationship may endure for a long time and can result in a pattern of dependency and
vulnerability and increasing number of such relationships calls for adequate and effective
protection specially to the women and children born out of that live-in relationship.
Legislature cannot promote premarital sex though at times such relationships are intensively
personal and people may express their opinion for and against. Thus, the parliament has to
ponder over these issues bringing in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the
act so that women and their children born out of such kinds of relationships are protected do
such relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of marriage. According to section
4949 and 49510 of IPCC any marriage of a person within the lifetime of his/her husband or
wife make setup punishable offence unless it is permitted by the personal laws of the
concerned person. Therefore a live in relationship of a married man with a woman or of a
married woman with a man cannot be recognised as in the nature of marriage as it is
expressly prohibited by law. However children born out of such relationship though not
regarded as legitimate would have certain rights.

Grant Of Alimony
In US, the term “palimony” is used for granting relief in the live in relationship. The word
palimony is combined form of word Pal and alimony. The term “palimony” was conceived
during a famous celebrity divorce case of Marvin v. Marvin11 in California, US. In the
concerned case the appellant was living with the man in a live in relationship for a long
period of time and after break up she approached the court to get financial compensation
7
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (5 SCC 1). https://
indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/. 2018.
8
Indian Penal Code § 377.
9
Indian Penal Code § 494.
10
Indian Penal Code § 495.
11
Marvin vs Marvin. OneLBriefs website. 1976. http://onelbriefs.
com/cases/property/marvin_marvin.htm.
from her partner. Although this particular suit was unsuccessful the courts found that in the
absence of an express agreement courts may look into the variety of other remedies to divide
property equitably. It was observed that if there was a cohabitation agreement for the couple
before moving in together the court may consider grant of palimony. In India the need for
such relief was felt by Malimath Committee which recommended amendment in the
definition of the word ‘wife’ in Section 125 of the criminal procedure code(Cr P.C) To
include women who was living with the man as his wife for a reasonably long period of time.
Section 125 of the Cr P.C provides for claiming maintenance by wives, children and parents
from a person on which they are dependent and are unable to maintain themselves.

Rights of Children Born Out of Live-In Relationship

In “Tulsa v. Durghatiya12” The Supreme Court while granting right of property to a child
observe that children born from live in relationship will not be treated as illegitimate if their
parents would have lived under one roof and cohabited for a considerable long period of time
so as to be recognised as husband and wife and it must not be a ‘walk in and walk out
relationship’. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and section 26 of the special
Marriage Act gives legitimacy to children born out of void and voidable marriages and states
that children born out of marriage which is null and void or where a decree of nullity is
granted in respect of voidable marriage shall be legitimate or deemed to be legitimate
respectively. But right of inheritance of such children is limited to the property of the parents
only. Therefore such children do not have the Coparcenary rights in the property of Hindu
undivided family if their parents were not legally married to each other. Therefore the
provisions of these sections of the act have been applied to provide right of inheritance to
children born out of live in relationship in the self- acquired property of the parents. In the
matter of deciding for the guardianship, mother is considered as the natural guardian for such
children.

Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Live-in relationship were brought into the ambit of domestic relationship as well. Section 2(f)
of prevention of domestic violence Act 2005 (PDV Act, 2005)13 defines domestic relationship
as a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together at any point of time in
a shared household when they are related by consanguinity or through a relationship and the
nature of marriage adoption or our family members living together as a joint family.
According to this definition live-in relationships which are in nature of marriage i.e, the
couples living together for a long period of time and presenting themselves as husband and
wife will also come under the ambit of the PDV Act, 2005. Therefore, the woman in live in

12
Tulsa & others vs Durghatiya and others ((4) SCC 520). https://
indiankanoon.org/doc/988131/. 2008.
13
Live-in Relationships and Domestic Violence, Chanakya National Law University
Centre for Research in Criminal Justice, https://www.crc.cnlu.ac.in/post/live-in-
relationships-and-domestic-violence.
relationship can take protection under protection of women from domestic violence act 2005
and can claim maintenance also. This question of application of PDV Act, 2005 to the live in
relationship came into picture in the case of Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand14.” It was held
that the victim, the wife or the live in partner would be entitled relief under the act in a shared
household. The court also awarded alimony under the PDV Act, 2005 to a woman in living
relationship in “Ajay Bhardwaj v. Jyotsna15.” It is important to note that relief under the PDV
Act, 2005 is not available to men in live in relationships. In the case of “Khushboo v.
Kannaiamal”, the court observed that a live-in relationship is invariably initiated by men.

14
Lalita Toppo vs State of Jharkhand. Indian Kanoon website.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6354756/. 2018.
15
Ajay Bhardwaj vs Jyotsna (SCC Online P&H 9707). Indian Kanoon website.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182660125/. 2016.
Conclusion
Live-in relationships, or cohabitation, involve two people choosing to live together in an
intimate partnership without marriage. While such arrangements are accepted and legally
recognized in some regions, India has traditionally held conservative views on this concept,
where marriage is deeply embedded in the social structure. Despite historical resistance, the
changing socio-cultural landscape, influenced by globalization and evolving family
dynamics, has seen a gradual shift in public attitudes in India, with more couples choosing to
live together outside marriage. The legality of live-in relationships has been increasingly
acknowledged by the Indian judiciary. In landmark cases, such as Lata Singh v. State of UP
and Khusboo v. Kannaiamal, the Supreme Court ruled that cohabitation between consenting
adults is not illegal, despite societal perceptions. This shift is supported by cases that
recognize long-term cohabiting couples as having similar presumptive rights as married
couples, allowing for the potential inheritance rights of children born from such unions.
However, certain legal limitations persist. For instance, cohabitation involving a married
person still raises legal complications, especially under the Indian Penal Code, where
previous statutes criminalized adultery and same-sex relations. Both issues were addressed in
recent rulings, Joseph Shine v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
which decriminalized adultery and consensual same-sex relations, marking significant
progress in expanding personal freedoms. To protect vulnerable partners, the Supreme Court
extended the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to cover women in
live-in relationships, granting them rights to maintenance and protection from abuse.
Similarly, though children born from these relationships may inherit the property of their
parents, the broader family inheritance laws, like the Hindu Undivided Family's coparcenary
rights, are not fully applicable. These judicial interpretations indicate India's evolving legal
landscape regarding live-in relationships. While the law provides certain protections, the
debate over the need for formalized legislation remains, as courts continue to address
complex familial and societal issues that arise from these partnerships.