Author: Sachin Siddharth, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), Delhi.

Cohabitation of two adults who agree to live together without getting married is a topic of debate in Indian law and society. In the past, people in India considered marriage as a social and cultural necessity for one’s family. Currently, people are relocating to cities and changing their lifestyles and are more open to the concept of cohabitation. It is still the case that there is no formal legislation in place to handle such relationships within the Indian legal framework which makes it cumbersome to ascertain the rights and legal protections available to the parties involved. The article examines how the law in India is evolving for couples who choose to cohabitate without legal recognition of marriage. The book captures the other side of marriage, capturing the legal side including court construction of legislation, a body of jurisprudence, significant court cases on women and children rights, and the socio-legal problems of infrahuman persons called spouses. The article supports the argument that there is a need for legislation that would provide such people with adequate measures to uphold the principles of equality, justice, and non-discrimination. Moreover, it supports the need to defend such social values alongside legal reality.

Keywords

Live-in relationships, Women’s rights, Children’s legitimacy, Constitutional morality, Judicial pronouncements, Protection under PWDVA.

The law in India operates within a cultural framework that regards marriage as a religious institution. With the passage of time comes change, and so do relationships. In days gone by, living together without marriage was socially unacceptable. These couples live together and manage household chores just like couples in a legally recognized marriage, but they do not have the process or registration associated with it.

According to the law, these kinds of partnerships challenge the freedom of each person, the right to live and be respected, and the scope of family law rules. However, the absence of a concrete law has meant that most of the legal certainty so far has come from the judicial branches. The case law we see forming shows a battle between freedom of person and the social norms of the day. The intent is to comprehend this unusual and complicated legal landscape, and to contextualize the need for a written legal system.

Being unmarried and living together has also influenced people's perceptions of gender roles and perhaps the extent of an individual's control over his/her home life. Choosing to live with a partner, and not getting married, truly is a cultural change, especially in a society that practices arranged marriage and patriarchal family structures. This also represents a step towards an idea that privileges the individual rights of persons over family. Apartment living, and growing numbers of people living together without marriage, not only have to do with individual choices, but also represent broader social and economic shifts, such as postponing marriage, valuing work commitments and new jobs, and moving to urban localities. The occupations or careers they may be in could be rather new, so they may want to cohabitate, provided their work schedules aren't too rigid, while being much less of a time commitment than other life.

India has no specific law yet to address live-in relationships. They do not have official legal status, which makes them uncertain and unclear. The judiciary has been forward-thinking and has interpreted existing laws in a manner that is suitable for the relationships of today.

This act defines domestic violence as any act of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by a spouse or a person living in the same household. According to Section 2(f) of the Act, a "domestic relationship" also includes a relationship that resembles marriage.

The Act, which was passed in 2005, is a law that aims to safeguard women from violence in their homes.

In Chanmuniya v. The Supreme Court said that not giving women in live-in relationships any protection would contradict the purpose of the Act, which aims to prevent violence against women at home.

• Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141. .

Furthermore, courts have made it clear that living together with mutual agreement among adults is not illegal and is not a crime under the Indian law. In S. Khushboo v. The highest court in India agreed with the idea that people can choose to live together without being married, but they also said that morality and law are not the same thing.

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

Legal declarations cannot fully capture the complexities of these relationships. They cannot give you general answers or solutions that can apply to many different situations, such as arguments about land, kids, or ending a relationship. As a result, the need for written laws becomes apparent. .

In addition, there is uncertainty about how taxes will be handled, who will be nominated for life insurance, pension benefits, or legal next-of-kin status, which further complicates the situation. Most co-residing partners face difficulties in asserting their rights in medical emergencies or inheritance claims due to the lack of a legal definition.

A live-in relationship's purpose is to protect women from internal abuse and financial abuse. Women in domestic relationships relying on their spouse's finances or social status are more likely to be a victim of harm than women who are otherwise.

In its landmark judgment in the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court established key conditions under which a relationship could be held to be "in the nature of marriage. " These are:

1. The couple should live together for a reasonable period of time.

2. It is important for both of them to present themselves as a united couple to the outside world.

3. 3.Both individuals should be of legal age and able to enter into a marriage (i.

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

Women in such relationships are entitled to:

• Protection under PWDVA.

1. The right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available to the accused.

2. The person has the right to remain in the shared living space.

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 125, No.

The decision of Indra Sarma v. V. K. V. Sarma explained more about these principles. The court stated that each case must be examined individually to determine if the relationship is comparable to marriage.

The decision of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma further elaborated such principles. The court reiterated that every case has to be viewed on its own facts in order to ascertain if the relationship is similar to marriage.

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

The lack of ownership rights is a significant problem. In most situations, men are the ones who own property, and women have no legal rights to it. Moreover, due to the fact that many live-in relationships are hidden from the public, women are now having difficulties finding evidence to prove their right to reside within the live-in relationship.

The obscurity of this scenario leaves the woman not only unable to acquire financial independence, but also unable to plan for the future. When a relationship ends, women may have partially or wholly invested emotionally and financially, but they have no legal protections for their interest.

The legal status of children born in live-in relationships is a significant concern. The child's inheritance and identity can be greatly harmed by illegitimacy.

In Revanasiddappa v. The Supreme Court ruled that children born to couples who live together cannot be denied inheritance rights. The Court stressed that the child's legitimacy should not be doubted because of the parents' marital status.

 • Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1. According to the Court, children who are born out of wedlock in India are recognized by the law as legitimate and have the right to inherit their parents' property. Possible :Hindu succession law does not allow children to inherit property from their ancestors if their parents are not married. The child's rights are protected even if the law does not mention the parents' relationship.

Most legal professionals believe that the law should change to make certain that the rights of children born out of these relationships are protected in every respect, including education, health care, inheritance and emotional well-being. The most important thing for lawmakers and courts to get right will be making certain the basic needs of children are being taken care of. Acknowledging the legal status of children born of unmarried couples who cohabit should give some definition to the relationship and provide reassurance that social disapproval according to mores, they are legitimate relationships. In fact, as we see in countries like Sweden and Denmark where cohabitation is socially accepted, children have equal rights without respect to their parent's marital status.

There have been many cases that have greatly influenced the legal decisions regarding live-in relationships:

Lata Singh v. The highest court in the country ruled that grown-ups have the right to cohabit without being married, and that people's opinions cannot override their constitutional rights..

• Lata Singh v. State of U. P. , AIR 2006 SC 2522. .

Nandakumar v. The state of Kerala once again asserted that the right to live together exists under Article 21, even if the couple is not legally married.

• Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602. .

Badri Prasad v. Dy. The Court ruled that a 50-year cohabitation was a valid marriage based on the presumption of marriage principle.

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

 These cases illustrate: There is a consistent court-held expectation to respect the dignity and autonomy of people living within committed relationships. Courts have enlarged the legal definition of intermediate relationships, and this is a statement of duty that should be observed. The Court often is a first-mover when it comes to expanding constitutional rights and acknowledging people's choices. If there is to be development of the law by the Courts, there needs to be complementary development through legislative initiatives that provide protections, and prevent discrimination. 

Conclusively, Courts have put legislators on notice, but not because they have acted idealistically; rather, that the political discourse concerning the extent to which people can engage in non-marital cohabitation is restrained, possibly because of its sensitive nature. Apart from these judgments, several High Courts have had considerable influence in affirming live-in relationships. In Ontario, there were a number of cases in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted a decree in favour of people residing together without marriage, who were persecuted through either their family or community affiliation.

The converted method of 'protecting' the people, and issued as an interim measure, showed that the Court was cognizant of the nature that exists in the country, but just as significantly they recognized that there was a lack of national policy consistent with places and the types of relationships they represent.

The judiciary has given a lot of support, but most people in India still think that living together without being married is not okay. Even though society has changed, some people still believe that living together without getting married is wrong because of traditional values, family honor, and societal expectations. Women, particularly, face rejection, abuse, and exclusion from society.

This resistance monitors the moral conduct of couples who live in public spaces or hotels. Local authorities or families may evict, threaten, or falsely accuse live-in couples.

Furthermore, the meaning of the "relationship in the nature of marriage" is a matter of personal interpretation that can be changed by the courts. The outcome of courts can differ based on the cultural background, the way judges think, or the prevailing social mindset, which leads to unpredictability.

There are also worries about the misuse of protective laws, such as the PWDVA. False accusations or manipulative tactics in legal matters related to separation or property division can result in unwarranted harassment. As such, it is vital to have a suitable and just law that offers justice while discouraging abuse. 

Cohabiting relationships are also complicated because they raise questions about right and wrong and beliefs about what has always been and generational differences. In a conservative family unit, whatever the couple does may pose a threat to cultural preservation. Education and acknowledgment help to ensure that the decision to live outside of marriage is done with some form of respect toward everyone else. 

Unmarried cohabitation is an unusual concept where I come from, and remains a taboo subject. It is quite clear that many women from rural places would easily adopt new ways of living, like cohabitating while pursuing careers or education in cities, but that would mean disconnecting from their local cultural connections. 

Disconnecting from the local cultural connections is risky, especially for women, who become even quieter due to violent repercussions from society. Furthermore, social and religious structures are also a significant factor as well with regards to the acceptability of same sex relations. The Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and liberty but cultural values drastically diminish these liberties. There needs to be advocacy in the legal sense, but in a broader societal sense, I hope to highlight social civic and cultural structures too.

Different nations across the world have adopted more leniency about cohabitation. The US has a few states that allow common law marriages, which means domestic partners get equal rights as married couples over time. The United Kingdom has laws that protect people who live together in a partnership.

The PACS is a legal document that allows couples to live together and share property, but it does not grant them the same rights as married couples.

The following models offer valuable insights for India. Rather than just using domestic violence laws to protect people, having a formal way of registering or declaring live-in relationships would help control what rights, duties, and responsibilities people have.

A legal recognition system can also allow government services, tax returns, and decision-making in medical emergencies—areas where married couples already have advantages.

Additionally, countries like Sweden and Norway in Scandinavia suggest more liberal approaches by integrating cohabiting couples into the regular legal system. These countries show how legal and social acceptance can happen at the same time. If these models are modified to fit India's unique social and cultural circumstances, they could be effective solutions.

A codified law on live-in relationships for India must be based on the following provisions:

• Definition and Identification: Clearly define live-in relationships and distinguish them from casual or exploitative unions.

• You can choose to have a registration option for cohabitant partners who want to get legal rights.

• The rights and responsibilities related to maintenance, residence, sexual relations, and child custody will be discussed.

• Measures to Prevent Abuse: Punishments for fake or forceful unions.

• Child Welfare: Ensure that children born out of live-in unions have legitimacy, identity, and well-being.

This can be suggested as a chapter in the existing family laws (such as the Hindu Marriage Act) or as a separate legislation similar to the Domestic Partnerships Act.

In a legal literacy campaign, citizenship is a preparatory step for the awareness of rights and duties. Some organizations such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), legal aid centres and universities could assist the group that is interested in the whole country and wants to change the rules about how families can protect themselves, might also consider how people living together, but not married nor in a civil partnership deal with one another.

Their report could be used as a foundation for a white paper and future laws.

The more nuanced ways people cohabit without being married indicates a change in love and friendship in India and changing to choice within relationships in India. Some endorsement of legal protection is being given by courts where they judge from an idea of social acceptance of a type of relationship, but again there is no consistency. The social stigma and lack of legal protection - to confront the children and women issues is even more distressing.

It is, therefore, imperative that the legislature use Challenge Clause representation to make legislation whole and that represents advancing constitutional principles and social needs. A system that is documented and known, has some presumption of clarity and will also demonstrate that the law is equitable for everyone, regardless of what capacity people may wish to present as.

The law of societies should not only protect rights but significantly affirm the shared experiences of people.

The constitution of the country signifies equality, liberty, and justice constitutionally. India can show its integrity to the world that it respects choice, and produces law about social expectations and social engagement before it needs to.

India is undergoing social change and development, by continuing when others make choices to divert their lives, will not deter India's forward progress. When true development is connected with diversity and the inclusion of diversity, not tolerating diversity.