Written by Smriti Sharma,
Jiwaji University
April 2026
The way men and women interact, and the attitudes towards cohabitation, have changed significantly with the development of postmodern or industrial societies. Living in relation refers to a couple choosing to cohabitate without getting married. The modernisation of communities has introduced many new ideas and values. With growing affection and the decision to get married after considering all the possibilities of a healthy relationship, many young people today believe in living together before marriage to test compatibility, known as “live-in relationships”. This paper examines the legal framework governing this practice in India and covers the maintenance and property rights of the partners involved.
INTRODUCTION
A “Live-in relationship” is when two partners live together in a home for a long time without getting married. In such a relationship, an unmarried partner lives with another in a manner that resembles marriage without actually being married. Many countries around the world have accepted the idea of such relationships. Live-in relationships are not new; they have evolved alongside the development of human civilisation. In the pre-civilisation era, there were no marriages. The traditional nature of marriage required men and women to live together. At that time, people did not worry about the term “sapinda marriages” or the restrictions associated with them.
The Commission suggested to the “Ministry of Women and Child Development” that the definition of “wife” as laid out in section 125 of the Cr.P.C, be broadened to include women living in live-in relationships[1]. This recommendation aimed to give equal status to couples in live-in relationships as legally recognised marriages and to align legal rules for protecting women from domestic abuse. As a result, the Supreme Court formed the Justice Malimath Committee, which stated that “if a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for a reasonable period of time, the male shall be considered to have married the woman.[2]”
LEGAL STATUS OF LIVE- IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA
Absence of specific legislation
In the Indian legal system, there is no specific law that acknowledges “live-in relationships.” Therefore, there is no legal definition for it, and it does not determine the rights and responsibilities of the individuals involved or the status of any children born to such relationships. No Indian law, including the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, formally recognises a “live-in relationship[3].”
Constitutional protection and judicial recognition
The Supreme Court of India has ruled in several cases that if two adults (a man and a woman) live together for a long time and have children, the courts will treat them as married. Their relationship and their rights will be subject to the same laws that apply to Indian marriages.
Article 21 and the right to cohabitate
Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, living together as a couple is considered part of the right to life. The courts have examined the legal status of live-in relationships in various cases and concluded that such relationships are not criminal acts[4].
LANDMARK JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
- Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy (1927)
In the case of A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy, the Privy Council observed that if it is proven that two adults are living together for a long time, particularly in relevant circumstances, the law presumes they are married unless the contrary is proved beyond doubt[5].
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006)
In Lata Singh v. State of U.P., the court noted that even though live-in relationships are seen as immoral by society, they are not illegal if both parties are consenting adults[6].
- Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1978)
In the case of Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Supreme Court held that it is unlikely that a married couple who lived as husband and wife for fifty years would be able to prove their marriage through eyewitness testimony[7].
- SPS Balasubramanian v. Suruttayan (1994)
In the case of SPS Balasubramanian v. Suruttayan, the court reiterated the observation made in the Badri Prasad case and added that children born to live-in relationships are entitled to inherit the property of their parents[8].
- Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
In the landmark judgement of Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma, the Supreme Court clarified that if both parties are unmarried and enter into a live-in relationship, it does not fall under any criminal offences[9].
LEGAL RIGHTS OF PARTNERS IN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
Maintenance rights under section 125 Cr. P.C.
Although live-in relationships are not given the same legal status as marriage, some historical rulings have granted partners certain rights. The landmark case Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha established that women living with their partners have the right to maintenance if the relationship is considered similar to marriage. Denying maintenance could result in destitution, which in turn could prevent the fulfilment of support duties[10].
Conditions established in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal
The Supreme Court outlined that for maintenance claims, certain strict conditions must be satisfied[11]:
- Both individuals must be of legal age to marry,
- Both individuals must be unmarried at the start of the relationship,
- Both individuals must be living together voluntarily as husband and wife,
- The relationship must be socially recognised for a reasonable period of time.
PROPERTY RIGHTS: A COMPLEX LEGAL LANDSCAPE
Absence of automatic inheritance rights
Live-in partners’ property rights are still complex and unclear. Unmarried partners do not have automatic rights by virtue of marriage to each other’s property, unlike in the case of married individuals.
Presumption of marriage
A presumption of a valid marriage may be made in favour of cohabiting couples under Section 114 of the Evidence Act after a sufficient period of living together, which helps in inheriting rights[12].
Limitation on inheritance
The landmark Case “Vidyadhari vs. Sukhrana Bai” illustrates that if one partner is already married, then the partner in the live-in arrangement cannot claim inheritance rights. Neither can they, by mere will, be made beneficiaries, nor can there be an assumption of marriage made by the court, and they cannot claim any legal rights in the matter under the Hindu Succession Act[13].
Property division principles
During a relationship, there have to be references to contract law and property law tenets. However, in jointly purchased properties, it is on the basis of financial input and agreements reached. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act grants the right to shared living in jointly possessed households, but not ownership rights.
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN FROM LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
Children in live-in relationships are better protected than their parents. The Supreme Court stated that they are entitled to claim inheritance as legitimate heirs[14]. The Hindu Marriage Act, under section 16, safeguards children from being penalised for their parents’ relationship choices. Although live-in relationships have received some legal recognition, the parties involved in such relationships must understand that their rights are nevertheless less robust compared to those of married couples[15].
CRITICAL CHALLENGES AND LEGAL GAPS
Gender disparities and vulnerability
The major hindrance to this is the lack of comprehensive legislation being in place. There is coverage for sexual discrimination issues merely through judicial pronouncements and nothing else.
Inadequate Succession Rights
Succession rights are still far from satisfactory. While spouses in married relationships have succession rights as members of Class I succession, partners in living together relationships cannot inherit in the absence of being mentioned in a will or being recognised as being in a legal marriage in a court of law.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGAL REFORM
Optional National Registration System
It has been argued that in order to bring uniformity in this regard, the optional national registration system, based on Uttarakhand’s model but modified to safeguard privacy, would document national recognition to establish family ties. National registration would facilitate access to benefits, and ‘unregistered family relationships would continue to be protected through access to justice.’
Succession Law Reforms
Succession laws should consider partners as potential successors. For instance, partners in an exclusive relationship lasting five years or more should be able to inherit through an intestate succession.
Enhanced Implementation & Public Awareness
There is a need to improve the efficacy of the implementation of existing protective measures by training law enforcers and the judiciary in conjunction with the implementation of public education campaigns, with the aim of reducing the stigma associated with the vice and enabling victims to seek redress.
CONCLUSION
The Indian judiciary maintain inconsistent view on Live-in relationship. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court ruling generally supports the assent of cohabitation between adults; on the other hand, various high courts have expressed criticism or disapproval. Without specific legislation governing such relationships, the court clarified broad discretion in interpreting constitutional rights, through supreme court precedents established that agreed live-in arrangements are legally permissible.
An evaluative distinction must be drawn between morality and legality. Existing law should be interpreted by judges rather than imposing personal moral judgments. Under the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects individual autonomy and gives freedom for decision-making, which the state must safeguard in any case of prevailing moral opinions.
REFERENCE
[1] Law commission of India, report on section 125 Cr.P.C.
[2] Justice Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System (2003)
[3] The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No. 25 of 1955)
[4] Constitution of India, Article 21 – Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
[5] A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy, AIR 1927 PC 185
[6] Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 475
[7] Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1557
[8] S.P.S. Balasubramanian v. Suruttayan, (1994) 1 SCC 460
[9] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755
[10] Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 141
[11] D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469
[12] The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[13] Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, AIR 2008 SC 1061
[14] The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005)
[15] Legal services authorities’ guidelines on maintenance and property rights.
