AUTHOR: SOUPARNIKA V.N, BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

In recent years, the institution of marriage has witnessed a significant transformation particularly in the parts of Urban India. Alongside this change, Live in relationship have gained legal and social recognition by giving rise to an intense debate: Do Live in relationship undermine the sanctity and social values of marriage or are they merely a modern evolution of human companionship? 

This blog delves into this question from legal, social, ethical  perspective and is being backed by landmark Indian cases.

The institution of marriage is most cultures, it is considered as a sacred and binding Union between the two individuals. In India, marriage carries profound cultural, social and religious significance.

It is more than a contract ;as it is seen as a Union between two families ,a commitment to Life and as a platform for procreation. 

Indian laws such as Hindu Marriage Act ,1955 and

Special Marriage Act,1954 defines and protects marriage  legally .Rights related to inheritance, alimony, legitimacy of children and maintenance have arisen from this social institution. Thus, any alternatives to marriage is viewed by many as a challenge to this deeply embedded social structure. 

A live-in relationship refers to a domestic arrangement where two consenting adults cohabit without marrying. In urban India, such arrangements have increased due to factors like:

- Desire for individual freedom  

- Economic independence of women  

- Fear of legal and emotional obligations associated with marriage  

- Delayed marriages and changing priorities  

Despite societal resistance, courts in India have played a major role in extending legal recognition to live-in relationships, particularly in the context of protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA).

Judicial Recognition of Live-in Relationships

1. Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978)  

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship that lasted for 50 years could be presumed as a valid marriage. The Court gave legitimacy to the woman’s status and the children born out of the union.

2. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)  

The Supreme Court observed that not all live-in relationships are entitled to legal protection. The relationship must resemble marriage — with shared household, emotional and financial interdependence, and societal acceptance — to avail protection under PWDVA.

3. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)  

This landmark judgment differentiated between live-in relationships that deserve protection and those that don’t. The Court acknowledged the right of a woman in a relationship akin to marriage to seek legal remedies, thereby extending the scope of protection without equating such relationships to legal marriage.

1. Erosion of Social Norms  

Traditionalists argue that live-in relationships erode cultural values and moral norms. By bypassing rituals and social commitment, these relationships reduce the seriousness associated with marital bonds.

2. Undermining Legal Sanctity of Marriage  

Marriage has been associated with a framework of legal rights and responsibilities. Some critics argue that granting legal recognition to live-in relationships might eventually make the formal marriage seem unnecessary. This could create ambiguities around issues such as maintenance,inheritance rights and the legal status of children born from such unions. 

3. Emotional Instability and Lack of Responsibility  

Unlike marriage,which provides a legal and social mechanism  to resolve disputes and ensure long term commitment,Live in relationships may lack such structured support. Critics suggest that this lack of framework could contribute to the greater emotional strain and psychological challenges.

1. Personal Autonomy and Consent  

Live-in relationships are built on mutual consent,allowing individuals the freedom to decide how they wish to live and with whom.This model supports the principles of personal liberty and Right to privacy enshrined in the Indian Constitution,particularly under Article 21.

2. Not a New Concept.

   Living together without marriage is not entirely foreign to Indian culture. Historical and mythological references reflect the existence of love and bonds beyond the institution of marriage. 

3. A Response to Marital Discontent  

Many individuals are turning to live-in relationships due to dissatisfaction with the traditional concept of marriage which can be plagued by issues such as gender inequality and rigid societal roles .For some ,Live-in arrangements offer a healthier and more equitable  alternative. 

Rather than viewing live-in relationships as a threat to marriage,they should have been seen as an alternative to partnership .Courts have recognized this distinction-particularly to protect the rights of the women,without conflating every such relationship with marriage. 

Judicial precedents have affirmed that moral  policing has no place in a constitutional democracy. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that live-in relationships are not illegal and cannot be criminalized under obscenity laws.

Live-in relationships reflect the changing nature of modern partnerships.While they do challenge the traditional notions of marriage,they do not necessarily weaken the institution itself.Instead, they highlight the need for greater legal,social and emotional clarity in how we define relationships today Marriage and relationships can coexist in the society that values choice,respect and individual dignity. The real challenge to marriage does not come from the presence of alternatives, but from its resistance to evolving alongside societal changes and expectations. 

1. Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1557  

   
   

2. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469 

    

3. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755  

   
   

4. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600

     

5. Law Commission of India, 205th Report