LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation_in_India
Cohabitation or live-in relationships in India though not illegal, is considered socially and morally improper. Cohabitation is prevalent mostly among the people living in metro cities in India.
Legal decisions[edit]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 recognises “relationship in the nature of marriage” and protects female partners from domestic violence. Such partners can claim monetary and other reliefs under the Act.[1]
In S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Anr.,[2] the Supreme Court of India, placing reliance upon its earlier decision in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.,[3] held that live-in-relationship is permissible only in unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex. The Supreme Court on 13 August 2010 in the case of Madan Mohan Singh & Ors v. Rajni Kant & Anr. [4] has once again entered the debate on legality of the Live-in Relationship as well as legitimacy of Child born out of such relationship. The Court while dismissing the appeal in the property dispute held that there is a presumption of marriage between those who are in live-in relationship for a long time and this cannot be termed as 'walking-in and walking-out' relationship. In the case of Bharata Matha & Ors v. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. [5]dealing with the legitimacy of child born out of a live-in relationship and his succession of property rights, the Supreme Court held that child born out of a live-in relationship may be allowed to succeed inheritance in the property of the parents, if any, but doesn't have any claim as against Hindu ancestral coparcenary property.
The Delhi High Court in its decision on 10 August 2010, in Alok Kumar v. State & Anr[6] while dealing with the validity of live in relationship held that "‘Live-in relationship’ is a walk-in and walk-out relationship. There are no strings attached to this relationship, neither this relationship creates any legal bond between the parties. It is a contract of living together which is renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without consent of the other party and one party can walk out at will at any time."(Para 6)
The Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy v.D. Patchaiammal [7] held that, a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the following criteria:
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time, and in addition the parties must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’. It also held that if a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage’.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/amend-law-to-protect-women-and-children-in-livein-relationships-court/article5402879.ece

Amend law to protect women and children in live-in relationships: courtNew Delhi, November 29, 2013
Updated: November 29, 2013 05:27 IST

“Children born out of such relationship suffer most, which calls for remedial measures”
The Supreme Court has asked Parliament to bring in proper amendments to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, or enact a suitable legislation so that women and children born out of live-in relationships are protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
Making this suggestion, a Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said: “Parliament has to ponder over these issues, and bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the DV Act.”
The Bench said children born out of such relationships “suffer [the] most, which calls for bringing in remedial measures by the Parliament, through proper legislation.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Radhakrishnan said: “Married couples who choose to marry are fully cognisant of the legal obligation which arises by the operation of law on solemnisation of the marriage and the rights and duties they owe to their children and the family as a whole, unlike the case of persons entering into live-in relationship. Live-in relationship, as such, is a relationship which has not been socially accepted in India, unlike many other countries.”
The Bench said: “Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. Long-standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and Exhaustive.”
In the instant case, the appellant, Indra Sarma, had a live-in relationship with the respondent, V.K.V. Sarma, who was already married with two children. She maintained the relationship for about 18 years and claimed maintenance amount under the DV Act. A trial court awarded Rs. 18,000 a month and this was upheld by a sessions court. However the Karnataka High Court set aside the order. The present appeal is directed against this judgment.
Dismissing the appeal and declining to interfere with the High Court order, the Bench said the appellant was aware that the respondent was married when the relationship began. “ Hence the status of the appellant is that of a concubine or a mistress, who cannot enter into relationship in the nature of a marriage. If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an injustice to the legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to ‘domestic violence’ under Section 3 of the DV Act.”

http://www.thehindu.com/features/the-yin-thing/its-complicated/article4901623.ece?ref=relatedJuly 10, 2013
Updated: July 10, 2013 16:49 IST
News

It’s complicated!
Many forms of man-woman relationships are recognised today. In the Facebook world, it’s simply called ‘complicated’. Since many legal rights and mutual obligations flow out of these relationships, one important issue when a dispute arises is proving the existence of the relationship.
Renuka and Ravi were dating each other for over six months. When Ravi proposed that they start living together, Renuka was a little apprehensive. Ravi tried convincing her, saying even ‘live-in’ relationships have legal recognition. However, Renuka insisted and they went through a small ceremony at the local temple presided over by a priest and, in the presence of a few friends, exchanged garlands and Ravi tied a mangalsutra. Despite Renuka’s repeated requests, Ravi did not register the marriage. Soon, Renuka began to suspect that he had another woman in his life. Sure enough, she found out that he was already married, and his marriage with Reshma was registered. Since it’s a public document, Renuka could obtain certified copies of the marriage certificate.
Renuka took Ravi to court but found to her dismay that she could produce no real proof of her own marriage to Ravi — no invites, no photographs, the priest had vanished, and the friends were all Ravi’s. She could not prosecute Ravi for bigamy. Worse, she found that her relationship with Ravi could have a legal ‘live-in’ status with obligations only if the man and woman are capable of potentially marrying each other.
The main purpose of compulsory registration is to facilitate a valid proof of marriage. It was observed in many cases pending before various courts in India that there were disputes regarding the date of marriage or, sometimes, even the existence of the marriage. The Supreme Court felt the need to make registrations compulsory and directed all state governments to make laws to the effect. A marriage that is registered is presumed to be valid. The presumption is rebuttable in situations like the one discussed in my previous column.
Compulsory registration aims to ensure that a public record of all marriages is maintained. This makes it easy to verify whether your future spouse or live-in partner is already married. It is also a means to reduce the instances of child marriage, as registration requires proof of age to be produced before the registrar. Since lying or falsifying documents before the registrar is a punishable offence, the law seeks to deter such practices. Further, many foreign countries require a valid certificate of registration of marriage to process visa applications, work permits, etc.
It is important to clarify, though, that merely because a marriage is not registered does not make it invalid. Registration is merely a valid legal proof. If there are sufficient other ways to prove the marriage, such as photographs and witnesses, the mere lack of a registration document will not make the marriage invalid. However, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, registration itself amounts to solemnisation, and non-registration affects the validity of the marriage, especially between members of two different communities. There is no penalty for non-registration of marriages that took place prior to these enactments.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-not-all-livein-affairs-are-relationship-in-the-nature-of-marriage/article841213.ece?ref=relatedNews
Supreme Court: not all live-in affairs are ‘relationship in the nature of marriage'NEW DELHI, October 22, 2010
Updated: October 22, 2010 00:47 IST

A man keeping a woman will not be in the nature of marriage for her to claim maintenance
If a man keeps a woman, this relationship will not be in the nature of marriage for her to claim the benefit of live-in to get maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005, the Supreme Court has held.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur pointed out that the Act had used the expression `relationship in the nature of marriage' and not ‘live-in relationship' for the grant of benefit to affected women. “In our opinion not all live-in relationships will amount to a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage' [for women] to get the benefit of the Act. A ‘relationship in the nature of marriage' is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that the couple, although not formally married, must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses. They must be of legal age to marry. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.”
(Earlier this month, Justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly referred to a larger Bench the issue relating to grant of maintenance to women in live-in relationships; whether it could be done under Section 125 Cr.PC. or the PWDV Act.)
Writing the judgment in this case, Justice Katju said: “Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship'.
“To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. No doubt, the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage' and not ‘live-in relationship'. The court, in the grab of interpretation, cannot change the language of the statute.”
The Bench quoted the judgments of various courts in the United States. “In the USA the expression ‘palimony' was coined, which means grant of maintenance to a woman who has lived for a substantial period of time with a man without marrying him, and is then deserted by him. Although there is no statutory basis for grant of palimony in the USA, the courts there which have granted it have granted it on a contractual basis.”
However, “in the case before us we are not called upon to decide whether in our country there can be a valid claim for palimony on the basis of a contract, express or implied, written or oral, since no such case was set up by the respondent in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC.”
D. Velusamy was aggrieved over a Madras High Court judgment upholding a Coimbatore trial court order, awarding maintenance of Rs. 500 to respondent D. Patchaiammal, declaring her his wife, though his first marriage with Lakshmi was not dissolved.
The Bench set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Family Court Judge, Coimbatore, and remanded the matter to the Family Court Judge to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of its observations.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/should-longterm-livein-partner-get-maintenance-if-deserted/article797031.ece?ref=relatedNews
New Delhi, September 26, 2010
Updated: September 26, 2010 12:19 IST

Should long-term live-in partner get maintenance if deserted?
The Supreme Court has reserved verdict on an important question of law viz., whether a woman in a long live-in relationship is entitled to maintenance after she has been deserted by her partner.
The question arose on an appeal filed by Chunmuniya, who claimed that she was married to her husband's younger brother after his death. During the course of arguments, Justice A.K. Ganguly said every woman, whether wife or long term live-in partner, should get maintenance if she was deserted. Whether she had the status of a wife or she lived with a man without any substantial proof of marriage was immaterial. “Women can't be left vagrant. Right to life guaranteed under the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity. It is not possible to live with dignity when a woman has no food and leads the life of a destitute.”
The other judge on the Bench, Justice G.S. Singhvi, said: “Someone has to take care of her if she is not able to prevent vagrancy. Every woman in a long-term relationship should get maintenance if she was deserted and if it was proved that she was completely dependent on him for sustenance.”
Expressing his anguish at the use of words “illegitimate” children and “other woman” in various laws, Justice Singhvi blamed the “patriarchal” mindset of lawmakers. He said “The use of the word ‘illegitimate' stigmatises these children the day they are born.”
Chunmuniya claimed that after her husband, Ram Sharan, died on March 7, 1992, she was married to his younger brother as was the practice in her caste. He, however, deserted her in 1996. She moved an application for maintenance on March 26, 1997, but even as it was pending he married another woman in 1998. Her marriage, Chunmuniya claimed, was performed by simply doing a katha. A family court upheld her claim to maintenance. But on an appeal by Kushwaha, Ram Sharan's younger brother, the Allahabad High Court ruled in his favour on November 11, 2007, saying she could not prove the marriage between the two, and set aside the family court's order. Her appeal is directed against that judgment.
The judges, while reserving verdict on Thursday, agreed with counsel that the status of wife need not be a prerequisite for maintenance. A prolonged domestic relationship resembling marriage was enough to entitle a deserted woman to maintenance, the judges said.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/livein-is-just-a-walk-in-walk-out-relationship/article561374.ece?ref=relatedNews

‘Live-in is just a ‘walk in, walk out relationship’
NEW DELHI, August 10, 2010
Updated: August 10, 2010 02:56 IST

Woman's FIR against London-based Indian solicitor mala fide: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Monday quashed an FIR lodged against a London-based Indian solicitor by a woman who was in a live-in relationship with him, holding that she filed the case out of malice to prevent him from flying to London.
The woman lodged the FIR with the Indira Gandhi International Airport police here following a scuffle with solicitor Amit Kumar in the departure terminal. She accused him of outraging her modesty and committing mischief with her. Later, she added a rape charge. She even snatched his passport.
Her allegation was that the solicitor, after having been in a live-in relationship with her for five years, refused to marry her.
While quashing the FIR on a petition by Mr. Kumar, Justice S. N. Dhingra said the woman had lodged the FIR with the mala fide intention of preventing him from leaving the country. Her four- hour delay in lodging the FIR was to ensure that the petitioner did not get back his passport in time to board his flight.
Defining “live-in,” Justice Dhingra said it was a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship which entails no obligation on the parties. “It (live-in relationship) is a contract of living together which is renewed everyday by the parties and can be terminated by either without the consent of the other. Thus people who choose to have a live-in relationship cannot complain of infidelity or immorality….” Justice Dhingra added.
In the present case, the woman is a divorcee with a child, while the solicitor was married and was staying with the woman without divorcing his wife.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-ancestral-property-for-children-from-livein-relationship-court/article440879.ece?ref=relatedNews
No ancestral property for children from live-in relationship: court New Delhi, May 29, 2010
Updated: May 29, 2010 02:03 IST

A child born out of a live-in relationship is not entitled to claim inheritance in Hindu ancestral coparcenary property and can only claim a share in the parents' self-acquired property, if any, the Supreme Court has held.
Reiterating an earlier ruling, a vacation Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar said: “In view of the legal fiction contained in Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages), the illegitimate children, for all practical purposes, including succession to the properties of their parents, have to be treated as legitimate. They cannot, however, succeed to the properties of any other relation on the basis of this rule, which in its operation, is limited to the properties of the parents.”
JUDGMENT SET ASIDE
The Bench set aside a Madras High Court judgment, which held that children born out of live-in relationships were entitled to a share in ancestral property as there was a presumption of marriage in view of the long relationship.
In the instant case, Rengammal claimed a live-in relationship with Muthu Reddiar and said her two children born out of this relationship were entitled to a share of his ancestral property.
The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, Bharatha Matha and another filed a suit against such a claim, and contended that Rengammal was a legally wedded wife of one Alagarsami Reddiar and there was no live-in relationship between her and Muthu Reddiar.
The trial court recorded a finding that Rengammal was the wife of Alagarsami Reddiar, who was alive at that time.
This decree was confirmed by the first appellate court. On second appeal, the High Court reversed the findings and held that her children were entitled to a share in Muthu Reddiar's ancestral property.
Allowing Bharatha Matha's appeal against this judgment, the Supreme Court said: “It is evident from the record that Muthu Reddiar did not partition his joint family properties and died issueless/intestate in 1974. Therefore, the question of inheritance of coparcenary property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in relationship, could not arise.”
Writing the judgment, Justice Chauhan noted that the High Court had re-appreciated the documentary evidence and taken a view contrary to the one taken by the two lower courts.
“It was not appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in second appeal as no substantial question of law was involved. Both courts below found that Rengammal was the legally wedded wife of Alagarsami”, the Bench said and set aside the impugned judgment.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/livein-relationship-premarital-sex-not-an-offence-supreme-court/article285361.ece?ref=relatedNews
Live-in relationship, pre-marital sex not an offence: Supreme Court
Updated: March 24, 2010 00:35 IST
. In an observation that will cheer votaries of pre-marital sex and live-in partners, the Supreme Court today opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.
“When two adult people want to live together what is the offence? Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence,” a three judge bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan observed.
The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex.
The apex court made the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petition filed by noted south Indian actor Kushboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-maritial sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005.
The judges grilled the counsel for some of the complainants in the case and repeatedly stressed that the perceived immoral activities cannot be branded as offence.
The argument of the counsel was that her comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and country’s ethos.
“Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life,” the apex court said apparently referring to Article 21 which granted Right to Life and Liberty as a Fundamental Right.
The apex court further said the views expressed by Ms. Khusboo were personal.
“How does it concern you? We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?” the bench asked the counsel.
The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after the said interview.
“How many homes have been affected can you tell us,” the Bench asked while enquiring whether the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, “Then, how are you adversely affected?”
Ms. Khusboo had approached the apex court after the Madras High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the criminal cases filed against her throughout Tamil Nadu.

http://www.vakilno1.com/legalviews/live-relationship-india-closer-look.html
Supreme Court’s Efforts to Mitigate the Stigma Associated With Live In Relationship
Earlier last year, the Supreme Court of India had thrown its weight behind live in relationships – a practice that is often frowned upon because of what could perhaps be called miscomprehended notion amongst a large chunk of our population about morality and ethical values.
On May 22, 2013, the apex court had observed that if a man and a woman in love decide to live together as a couple, it is well within their right to life and by no means can be deemed a “criminal offence”. Understandably the verdict must not have go down well with all Indians – especially considering how there are still many who genuinely believe that premarital relationship between a man and a woman is nothing but a sin! However, despite its inevitable failure to change such mindset amongst a sizable chunk of the population, the SC’s ruling was rather a significant one because it provided couples living in such arrangement with the much needed protection of the law of the land. “If two people, man and woman, want to live together, who can oppose them? What is the offence they commit here? This happens because of the cultural exchange between people,” a special three-judge bench of chief justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, justices Deepak Verma and B.S. Chauhan observed.
The court delivered this landmark judgment while hearing a petition filed by actress Khusboo to quash more than 20 FIRs filed against her by a number of Tamil forums and activist groups. Apparently, the South Indian cine star was brought amidst such legal controversies only because she uttered a few sentences in favor of live in relationships half-a-decade back. Apparently, Khusboo commented during an interview that there was nothing wrong with “sex before marriage”, provided girls took adequate protection against uncalled for pregnancy andsexually transmitted diseases (STD). Her detractors aggressively retorted by arguing that it was “offensive” and a source of “public nuisance” to ask males not to expect virginity from the women they would marry. However, their argument failed to convince India’s highest judicial forum. “If living together is an offence, then the first complaint should be filed against the Supreme Court, because we have permitted living together,” the court said in a rather stern manner. The bench was referring to a 2006 judgment by the apex court that asked the police and administration across the country to safeguard runway couples from being harassed or intimated. The court even went a step further by directing the police to initiate action against anyone who resort to violence against such couples. “It is part of right to life to go away with some one you love,” the bench remarked.
Page Contents [hide] * A rough overview of what live in relations are * Live in relationships in India * Live in relation in other countries * Conclusion and suggestions A rough overview of what live in relations are Live in relation which can also be referred to as cohabitation, in essence, is an arrangement whereby two people agree to live together on a permanent or long term basis in a sexually and/or emotionally intimate relationship. However, that moniker is typically used to denote unmarried couples who live under the same roof. Cohabitation or live in relationships have turned into a common pattern amongst people across the Western world. There are a multitude of reasons why a couple may want to live together. It may be because they want to evaluate their compatibility in a more practical way, or to establish financial security before officially tying the knot. Apart from that, it may be also due to legal constraints that would not allow them to marry – for example, if they belong to the same sex. Certain individuals may also prefer to be in a live in relationship because in their opinion, relationships are their personal and private matters that ought not be controlled by religious, political and/or patriarchal institutions. Meanwhile, some may prefer cohabitation because such an arrangement does not legally compel them to be in the relationship for an extended period (live in relationships are often easier to establish as well as dissolve). In some jurisdiction, live in relationships are viewed legally as common law marriage – it may be applicable after the duration of a pre-specified period, or after the birth of a child, or for certain other legally defined reasons. Live in relationships in India
In India, live in relationships have been a taboo right since the British raj. However, this is no longer entirely true amongst young couples in big cities like Bangalore, Mumbai, Delhi, etc. However, one can not deny that maintaining such relationships in most of the country’s rural areas would be nothing but to invite loads of unwanted attention, or may be even trouble. The government, however, has been taking various measures for the past few years (especially after the intervention from the judiciary) to protect the interest of female live in partners. In one such move, the government had extended economic rights to women in live in relation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. Similarly, the Maharashtra state government in 2008 granted a proposal suggesting a woman involved in cohabitation for a “reasonable period” should be given the status of a wife. In the same year, the Ministry of Women and Child Development was urged by the National Commission of Woman to include female live in partners in the definition of wife as described in the Section 125 of Cr PC. The objective of this recommendations was to harmonize various other sections of law with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Malimath Committee of the Supreme Court recommended that this be turn into a law by all states. The committee had observed that “if man and woman are living together as husband and wife for a reasonable long period, the man shall be deemed to have married the woman.”
The Malimath Committee also recommended that the word ‘wife’ under Cr.P.C. be amended to include any “woman living with a man like his wife”.
In the Payal Katara v. Superintendent Nari Niketan Kandri Vihar Agra and Others trial (2002), the Allahabad High Court ruled that “ a lady of about 21 years of age being a major, has right to go any where and that anyone-man and woman even without getting married can live together if they wish.” Similarly, in Patel and others case of 2006, the apex court had observed that cohabitation between an adult male and an adult woman without formal marriage should not be considered as an offence. In another case just two years later, Supreme Court ruled that if an unmaried couple of opposite sexes live together for a prolonged period of time, they can be considered as man and wife. Also, their child, if any, would be legitimate.
Live in relation in other countries
Scotland: The Family Law Act, 2006 for the first time officially identified and legalized cohabitation in Scotland. According to estimates. at the time when the law was passed, almost 150000 people across the country were involved in live in relationships. In case of such a relationship breaks, a cohabitant enjoys the rights to apply for financial support under section 28. In the event one of the partners die, the survivor has the right to seek financial support from the deceased’s estate.
France: Cohabitation is governed by the Civil Solidarity Pact of ‘pacte civil de solidarite” which was passed by the French National Assembly in October, 1999. According to the law, cohabitation in France is defined as a “de facto stable and continuous relationship” between two persons of different sexes or of the same sex living together as couple.” The United States: Live in relationships used to be illegal in all states before 1970. However, soon after, it was accepted as a common law subject to certain basic requirements. Canada: In Canada, cohabitation is officially recognized as “common law marriage”. In a lot of cases, the federal law of the country grants common law couples the same rights as married couples. All common law live in couples enjoy legal sanctity if they have lived together for a minimum of 12 consecutive months, or they give birth to/adopt a child. United Kingdom: A man and a woman living together in a stable and consensual sexual relationship is often called “common law spouses”. According to the UK laws, live in couples owe one another more than that is worthy of the moniker. In the even the couple decides to separate, the courts do not have the legal power to override that decision. Australia: The Family Law Act of Australia suggests that any “de facto relationship” can exist between two people of the same of different sex and also that a person can be in a de facto relationship even when legally in a de facto relationship with (or married to) another person. Ireland: Even though living together is legally recognized in Ireland, public opinions are strictly against a new legislation that aims to facilitate legal rights for “separated” cohabitating couples to demand maintenance and/or share their property with the financially dependent partners. The legislation is applicable to same sex unmarried couples as well as couples from opposite sexes, provided they have been conhabitating for at least 3 years (or 2 years if they have children). The government, with this new legislation, plans to fetch financial and legal protection for financially dependent and vulnerable cohabitants in the event of break up or death.
Conclusion and suggestions
Slowly and gradually, live in relationships are becoming popular in India – especially across all major cities. Unlike a few years back, when social norms was strictly against such relationships even in the urban areas, a lot of young couples these days are living together without marriage. The primary reasons behind cohabitation between unmarried couples in India, include:
● Young couples in love try it to know each other better
● Many try it to test their compatibility as a couple
● College students or young professionals also cohabit to limit their expenses (for example, house rent) However, in the Indian society which more often than not misinterpret its traditions and customs, there are several disadvantages of live in relationships such as: ● It can be mistaken for a high tech adultery
● Because of lesser commitment, women in such relationships are often vulnerable to future sufferings
● A child resulting from such relationship may be subject to social stigma – especially if the father refuses to officially marry the mother.
● There are no legal provision for securing the future of children born from live in relationships.
● Rights, obligations and responsibilities of both parties are not clearly defined
● It is not clearly defined how long a live in couple must wait before being considered husband and wife.
● Live in relationships are often based on short term objectives, and therefore can dissolve at any moment. Hence, it can prove to be a failure in building a safe and secure society.
Cohabitation or live in relationship often tends to be a human rightist and individualistic approach. Despite being highly prevalent in majority of the western countries, the reality with regard to the social fabric of India is drastically different. This can be comprehend from the fact that in India, marriage continues to be the institution that is preferred to any other form of union. But that does not mean that adult unmarried couples who wish to live together under the same roof, should be prohibited or frowned upon for any reason whatsoever. The judiciary’s efforts to protect the interests of people living in such arrangements is definitely a welcome step for the greater benefits of the society.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/supreme-court-frames-guidelines-for-determining-live-in-relationship-453024
Supreme Court frames guidelines for determining live-in relationship
All India | Press Trust of India | Updated: December 01, 2013 10:26 IST

NEW DELHI: Duration of relation, shared household and pooling of resources are some of the guidelines the Supreme Court has framed for bringing live-in relationship within the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' for protection of women under Domestic Violence (DV) Act.

A bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said though the eight guidelines are not exhaustive, these will definitely give some insight to such relationships.

Framing guidelines for determining live-in relations, the bench said that pooling of financial and domestic arrangements, entrusting the responsibility, sexual relationship, bearing children, socialization in public and intention and conduct of the parties are some of the other criteria to be considered for determining the nature of relations between parties.

For duration of period of relationship, the bench said section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression "at any point of time", which means a "reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation."

Similarly, it said the guideline of pooling of resources and financial arrangements meant "supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor".

The bench said domestic arrangements where there is entrustment of responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up-keeping the house are indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

The guidelines include presence of sexual relationship and children which mean, "Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.

"Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication."

The Supreme Court passed the verdict while adjudicating dispute between a live-in couple where the woman had sought maintenance from the man after the relationship came to an end.

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/historic-supreme-court-approves-live-in-relationships-asks-par-30912.html?page=1

Historic: Supreme Court approves live-in relationships, asks Parliament to enact law
India TV reporter [ Updated 29 Nov 2013, 16:53:21 ]
New Delhi: In a landmark judgement with wide ramifications on marriage laws prevalent in India, the Supreme Court of India today said, live-in relationship was nor a crime, not a sin, and Parliament should enact law to regulate live-in relationship and amend Domestic Violence Act too.

In the landmark judgement, a bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan framed guidelines for bringing live-in relationship within the expression ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ for protection of women from Domestic Violence Act.

“Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children, born out of such kinds of relationships be protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage,” the bench said.

The apex court formulated the following guidelines relating to live-in relationship on following points:

1) Duration of period of relationship

Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression “at any point of time”, which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

2) Shared household

The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements

Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.

4) Domestic Arrangements

Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

5) Sexual Relationship

Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.

6) Children

Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

7) Socialization in Public

Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.

8) Intention and conduct of the parties

Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship.

The apex court also said, “we cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that inequities do exist in such relationships and on breaking down such relationship, the woman invariably is the sufferer.

“Law of Constructive Trust developed as a means of recognizing the contributions, both pecuniary and non-pecuniary, perhaps comes to their aid in such situations, which may remain as a recourse for such a woman who find herself unfairly disadvantaged.
“Unfortunately, there is no express statutory provision to regulate such types of live-in relationships upon termination or disruption since those relationships are not in the nature of marriage.

“We can also come across situations where the parties entering into live-in-relationship and due to their joint efforts or otherwise acquiring properties, rearing children, etc. and disputes may also arise when one of the parties dies intestate.

“Such relationship, it may be noted, may endure for a long time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such relationships, calls for adequate and effective protection, especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship.

“ Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex, though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion, for and against. See S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and another (2010) 5 SCC 600.

“Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children, born out of such kinds of relationships be protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.”

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Children-born-of-live-in-relationships-are-legitimate-Supreme-Court-says/articleshow/34126867.cms
Children born of live-in relationships are legitimate, Supreme Court says
NEW DELHI: Giving an important clarification on live-in relationships, the Supreme Court has said that if a man and woman "lived like husband and wife" for a long period and had children, the judiciary would presume that the two were married.

A bench of Justices B S Chauhan and J Chelameswar on Monday issued the clarification on a petition filed by advocate Uday Gupta, who had questioned certain sweeping observations made by the Madras high court while dealing with the issue of live-in relationships. Importantly, the SC said children born out of prolonged live-in relationships could not be termed illegitimate.

Gupta had challenged the HC's observation that "a valid marriage does not necessarily mean that all the customary rights pertaining to the married couple are to be followed and subsequently solemnized".
His counsel, M R Calla, sought deletion of the HC's observations terming them as untenable in law. He apprehended that these remarks could demolish the very institution of marriage.

The bench went through the judgment and said the HC's observations could not be construed as a precedent for other cases and would be confined to the case in which these were made.

Justices Chauhan and Chelameswar said,"In fact, what the HC wanted to say is that if a man and woman are living together for a long time as husband and wife, though never married, there would a presumption of marriage and their children could not be called illegitimate."

In 2010, the apex court had in Madan Mohan Singh vs Rajni Kant case said, "The courts have consistently held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years. However, such presumption can be rebutted by leading unimpeachable evidence."

The same year, the court had in another judgment hinted at the legitimacy of children born out of such relations. "It is evident that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act intends to bring about social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of children, otherwise treated as illegitimate, as its prime object."

Section 16 of Hindu Mariage Act provides,"Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such a child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of the marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act."
Live in relationships- are they good for you?
TNN | Oct 18, 2014, 12.00AM IST

inShare

Live in relationships- are they good for you? (Thinkstock Photos/Getty Images)
Live in relationships have been there for many years, only the focus has shifted to them recently.

Live in relationships are more common than you might think. With the urban India becoming more open minded and the obvious western influence and students moving out of their homes at early age, live in relationships have become even more prevalent.

But is it really a good idea? Well, there are many positives for sure. There are no complications compared to the kinds you have in a marriage. You can be in the relationship for as long as you want, and this way you keep it fresh and happy. The bondage of being their with each other for the rest of your life might get heavy on your heart and the slightest provocation or disturbance can bring in that fear. This fear is not there in live in relationships.
The downside is that they are still not socially acceptable in most parts of India. You will be frowned upon in many social situations and that might take the toll, eventually. India is still not one of the most friendly places for singles and unmarried people, especially for women. And if you are living with a person of opposite sex outside of marriage, things are even more difficult.

It is a very personal and subjective matter which might or might not work for everyone. It can be a cause of concern for women more so who might suffer harassment or insecurity being in a relationship that guarantees very little in terms of security.

It might have all the negatives and positives, but it also, like any other relationship, depends on the people involved in the relationship.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/If-married-man-walks-out-of-relation-live-in-partner-not-entitled-to-relief-SC/articleshow/26543522.cms
If married man walks out of relation, live-in partner not entitled to relief: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Nov 29, 2013, 02.26AM IST

If a married man walks out of a live-in relation, the partner is not entitled to relief, Supreme Court said on Thursday.
NEW DELHI: Check the man's marital status before going in for a live-in partnership was the loud signal from the Supreme Court which ruled that Domestic Violence Act could not be invoked by a woman in a live-in relationship with a married man, especially if she knew his marital status.

A relationship between a woman and a married man could not be termed a 'relationship in the nature of marriage', the basic requirement for an aggrieved woman in a live-in relationship to take recourse to DV Act for action against her 'erring' partner, the court said.

After giving this interpretation to live-in relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman, a bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose said if the married man walked out of such a relationship, the woman was not entitled to seek maintenance under DV Act from him.
On the contrary, it warned, the deserted woman ran a risk of being sued for damages by the man's wife and children for alienating them from the love and care of their husband/father.

But the bench was aware of the social reality of married men walking out of live-in relationships. Finding that in such situations, poor and illiterate women suffered the most, the apex court appealed to Parliament to take remedial measures through appropriate legislation.

One Indra Sarma had a live-in relationship with V K V Sarma, already married with two children. The man moved in with her, started a business enterprise with her and after several years, went back to his family.

After the live-in relationship ended, Indra moved a Bangalore court demanding from him a house, a monthly maintenance of Rs 25,000, reimbursement of her medical bills and Rs 3.50 lakh in damages.

The trial court found that the two lived together for 18 years. Finding the woman aggrieved, the magistrate directed the man to pay Rs 18,000 per month towards her maintenance under DV Act. The sessions court upheld the trial court decision.

But the Karnataka High Court set aside the trial court order saying the live-in relationship did not fall within the ambit of "relationship in the nature of marriage", a cardinal principle for one to invoke DV Act.

Upholding the HC order, Justices Radhakrishnan and Ghose said, "We are of the view that the appellant (Indra Sarma) having been fully aware of the fact that respondent (V K V Sarma) was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage.

"Appellant's and respondent's relationship is, therefore, not a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a relationship other than 'in the nature of marriage' and the appellant's status is lower than the status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. Consequently, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of relationship, would not amount to 'domestic violence' under Section 3 of the DV Act."

But the bench noticed the deficiency in law to address such relationships in which women, especially poor and illiterate, suffer the most when their partners -already married men - just walk out. The court said it was for Parliament to take remedial legislative steps to plug this loophole in law.

The bench said, "We have, on facts, found that the appellant's status was that of a mistress, who is in distress, a survivor of a live-in relationship which is of serious concern, especially when such persons are poor and illiterate, in the event of which vulnerability is more pronounced, which is a social reality. Children born out of such relationship also suffer most which calls for bringing in remedial measures by Parliament through proper legislation."

Despite the concern, the bench decided to go by the law and said, "If any direction is given to the respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to the appellant, that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and have a cause of action against the appellant (the woman) for alienating the companionship and affection of the husband/parent which an intentional tort."

Live-in relationship neither a crime nor a sin: Supreme Court
Last Updated: Thursday, November 28, 2013 - 21:20
78
SHARES Share on Facebook Share on Twitter New Delhi: Live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, the Supreme Court has held while asking Parliament to frame law for protection of women in such relationship and children born out of it.
The apex court said unfortunately, there is no express statutory provision to regulate live-in relationships upon termination as these relationships are not in the nature of marriage and not recognised in law.
In the landmark judgement, a bench headed by Justice K S Radhakrishnan framed guidelines for bringing live-in relationship within the expression `relationship in the nature of marriage` for protection of women from Domestic Violence Act.
"Parliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that women and the children, born out of such kinds of relationships be protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage," the bench said.
"Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal," the bench said, adding that various countries have started recognising such relationship.
The apex court said legislation is required as it is the woman who invariably suffer because of breakdown of such relationship.
"We cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that inequities do exist in such relationships and on breaking down such relationship, the woman invariably is the sufferer," it said, noting "Live-in relationship is a relationship which has not been socially accepted in India, unlike many other countries".
The bench, however, said that legislature cannot promote pre-marital sex and people may express their opinion, for and against.
"Such relationship, it may be noted, may endure for a long time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such relationships, calls for adequate and effective protection, especially to the woman and children born out of that live-in-relationship. Legislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital sex, though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may express their opinion, for and against," it said.
The bench, however, said that maintaining an adulterous relation would not come within the ambit of live-in relationship which is to be protected by law.
"Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and or maintaining an adulterous relationship that is having voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person who is not ones husband or wife, cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage," it said.

Home
Live-in Relationship : Legal Status
Submitted by admin on 26 April 2013 - 4:37pm Marriage is a sacred or contractual relationship in India. Marriage, as its legal consequences, entitles both the persons to cohabit; the children born out of a legal wedlock have legitimacy as legal heir; the wife is entitled to maintenance during and after the dissolution of marriage. To avoid these obligations and to enjoy the benefit of living together, the concept of live-in relations has come into picture. Live in relationship provides for a life free from responsibility and commitment unlike as in a marriage.
Live-in relationship defined
It is a living arrangement. It is “an arrangement of living under which the couples which are unmarried live together to conduct a long-going relationship similarly as in marriage". In this relationship an unmarried couple lives together under the same roof in a way it resembles a marriage, but without getting married legally. This form of relationship does not thrust the typical responsibilities of a married life on the individuals living together. The foundation of live in relationship is individual freedom.
No specific law recognizes a live in relationships in India. No legislation is there to define the rights and obligations of the parties and the status of children born to such couples. A live–in relationship is not recognized by Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or any other statute. In the absence of any law to define the status of live in relationships the Courts have taken the view that where a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for a long term, the law will presume that they were legally married unless proved contrary. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 provides for the protection,maintenance and right of palimony to a live-in partner, if she complains.
Judicial Pronouncements
The earliest case in which the Supreme Court of India recognized the live in relationship as a valid marriage was that of Badri Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, in which the Court gave legal validity to the a 50 year live in relationship of a couple.
In Payal Katara v. Superintendent Nari Niketan Kandri Vihar Agra and Others the Allahabad High Court ruled out that “a lady of about 21 years of age being a major, has right to go anywhere and that anyone –man and woman even without getting married can live together if they wish”.
Again in the case of Patel and Others, the Supreme Court has held that live in relationship between two adults without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.InLata Singh v State of UP & Anr. the Apex Court held that live-in relationship was permissible only between unmarried major persons of heterogeneous sex. If a spouse is married, the man could be guilty of adultery punishable under section 497 of the IPC. Since the husband survives, Rangammal cannot invoke presumption of live-in. If so the children became illegitimate and disqualified to inherit u/s 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, live-in relationship could be ‘a dangerous thing’ between a wife and a non-husband as it could lead to an offense of adultery, but not to ‘marriage’.
In the case of S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr., the Supreme Court has held that living together is a right to life. The Court held that how can it be illegal if two adults live together cannot be illegal.
But in Alok Kumar vs. State of Delhi, the Delhi High Court has held that live in relation is walk in and walk out relationship and no strings are attached to it. This kind of relationship does not create any legal bond between the partners. It further held that in case of live in relationships, the partners cannot complain of infidelity or immorality.
The Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal has held that, a relationship in the nature of marriage under the 2005 Act must also fulfill some basic criteria. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a domestic relationship. It also held that if a man has a ˜keep” whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in their opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Supreme Court's Conditions
The Supreme court in the D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal case made it clear that if the man has a live-in arrangement with a woman only for sexual reasons, neither partner can claim benefits of a legal marriage. In order to be eligible for palimony, a relationship must comply with certain conditions.
The conditions laid down are that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses; they must be of legal age to marry; they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried; they must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time.
Considering that the judgment would exclude many women in live-in relationships from the benefit of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the apex court said it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. The parliament has used the expression relationship in the nature of marriage and not ˜live-in relationship”. The court cannot change the language of the statute.
Right to Maintenance in Live-in Relationship
The need to include live in female partners for the right of maintenance under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 wa supported by the judgment in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and Others. The Malimath Committee and the Law Commission of India also suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time, she ought to enjoy the legal status as given to wife. However, recently it was observed that a divorced wife is treated as a wife in the context of Section 125 of CrPC but the live in partners cannot get divorced, and hence cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 considers females who are not formally married, but are living with a male person in a relationship, which is in the nature of marriage, also akin to wife, though not equivalent to wife. Section 2(f) of the Act defines domestic relationship which 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. Thus, the definition of domestic relationship includes not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship `in the nature of marriage.
In the case of Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the nomenclature “dowry” has no magical charm. It refers to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship. The Court rejected the contention of the defendant that since he was not married to the complainant, Section 498A did not apply to him in a step ahead in protecting the woman from harassment for dowry in a live in relationship.
Recent SC Judgment
The Supreme Court on 29th Novemeber 2013 said: “Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. Long-standing relationship as a concubine, though not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, of course, may at times, deserves protection because that woman might not be financially independent, but we are afraid that DV Act does not take care of such relationships which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which is restrictive and Exhaustive.” The court as well asked Parliament to bring in proper amendments to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, or enact a suitable legislation so that women and children born out of live-in relationships are protected, though those types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
Conclusion
The live in relationship may be immoral, but not illegal. The judiciary has accorded legality to the concept of live in relationship and has protected the rights of the parties and the children of live in couples which makes it unnecessary to formulate a law to clarify the concept so urgently. There is no law which makes a live in relationship illegal. Subjects: Live-in-Relationships: The Indian Perspective
Many people imagine that living together before marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive - Saakshi O. Juneja. Bhumika Sharma talks about live-in-relationships which has recently trigerred an imense debate in the Parliament. | India is still looked by the world as a country where marriage occupies a sacramental position both philosophically and practically. The phrase ‘common law wife’ was used to signify legal rights as that of a wife enjoyed by a woman living with a man without marriage. The transformation in the life styles towards western style has definitely brought the need of ‘common law wife’ in India as well. By recognizing a woman who has not entered into the wedlock with rights of wife, whether we would do some harm to society?Live-in-relationships are not new in our society. The only difference is that now people have become open about it. Formally they were known as “maitray karars” in which people of two opposite sex would enter into a written agreement to be friends, live together and look after each other. A change is visible in our society from arranged marriages to love marriages and now to ‘live-in-relationships’. If an analysis is made of need of such relationships, avoiding responsibility would emerge as the prime reason. The lack of commitment, the disrespect of social bonds and the lack of tolerance in relationships have given rise to alternative to marriages. Joel D Block, a leading Psychologist at New York has differentiated between three kinds of relationships on the basis of assumed obligations. “Going together implies sexual exclusivity; living together adds to this an agreement to combine living routines and marriage the implication of permanence. Living arrangements are the midpointbetween the least restrictive (going with someone) and the most complex (the marriage). The very nature of the closeness allows a couple to provide with feedback so that they may recognize and modify relationship-defeating behaviours. It contains an element of convenience.”

Live-in-relationships and the common man
When we apply living relationships to an average class of people, we find it less prevalent as this class is scrutinised more in the society. On the contrary both the high income group and the lower income group are in a position to readily accept newer kinds of relationships. A girl from a poor family that is in need of shelter without much hesitation can consider no harm in living with a man of a slightly higher financial status without marrying him. Now-a-days even parents have slowly started giving sanctions to living arrangements for the sake of happiness of their children. The busy lives do not permit us to look into background of couple if they decide to live in a new place or city. The cities in India are examples of continuance of faith in marriages on one hand and attraction towards living arrangements on the other.

In most of the cases, people agree to live together so that at a later stage it may take shape of marital relationship. Still inspite of bonafide intentions of the couples taking “out way decision”, most of living arrangements do not take the shape of eternal bonding.Live-in-relations equal to right relationships or not?
Someone has rightly opined that the world as God created was a kingdom of right relationships. There was right relationship between God and people. There was right relationship between people. There was right relationship between people and the rest of creation. Now relationships that lack any sanctity are even being termed as right by the policy makers, what more we can expect in God’s beautiful and pure kingdom. No relationship can ever be equated with a relationship as eternal as marriage. Hence the option of live-in-relationships may seem attractive but the real side may not be that fancy. They may be practically possible but their success in life which some day requires a life-long companion is definitely dull.Studies done by experts
From analyzing the relationships, it becomes evident that live-in couples are still largely from professions like entertainment, advertising, modeling and media.Samindara Sawant, clinical psychologist, Disha Counselling Clinic, Mumbai has found that the trend of live-in relationships has not really caught on in India, especially in the middle and upper middle classes, where marriage is still very much the norm. Ashis Nandy, fellow with the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi is of the opinion that if relationships are becoming more cross-cultural, they are also more contractual now, probably leading to more clear-cut expectations from each other.According to a survey by The Journal of Marriage and the Family, live in’ relationships are weak commitments. Social geographer Soma Das says that people who opt for live-in relationships do so because they do not believe in marriage. Similarly Priya Florence Shah, Internet entrepreneur and blogger has observed being against such relationships – living-in would be equivalent of lowering standards and settling for less than what one deserves. For most, living together is not an end, it’s just a fun thing to do - perhaps a rebellion here and now notesDamayanti Datta, Deputy Editor with India Today. Living in helps you get a better idea about your partner before marriage.Provisions with regard to live-in-relationships
Outside India
The law introduced in 1999 in France makes provisions for “civil solidarity pacts” allowing couples (even of same sex) to enter into a union and be entitled to the same rights as married couples in such areas as income tax, inheritance, housing and social welfare. Couples, who want to enter into such a relationship may sign up before a court clerk and can revoke the contract unilaterally or by bilaterally with a simple declaration, made in writing, which gives the partner three months’ notice.Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.In India
No law at present deal with the concept of live-in-relationships and their legality. Still even in the absence of a specific legislation on the subject, it is praise-worthy that under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, all benefits are bestowed on woman living in such kind of arrangement by reason of being covered within the term “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f). If we propose to enact a law to regulate live-in-relationships, though it would grant rights to parties to it but at the same time it would also impose obligations on them.Couples prefer to choose it only to have no responsibility of any sort, but if it is guided by some law, then it would not be so readily preferred. To consider of enacting a law on the lines of provisions in other countries may not be successful as their relationships are granted sanction mainly to legalize gay relationship. In India, since it would not be socially permissible to have relationship between persons of same sex, the law enacted for them by the countries cannot act as guiding force.Rights of a child born out of a live-in-relationship
Need for a legal provision is felt to secure the future of a child born from a relationship which has not taken the shape of marriage. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the status of a legitimate child to every child whether result of void, voidable or valid marriage. So, we don’t require a legal provision to grant legitimacy to the child, but to grant property and maintenance rights.In case the parties to live-in-relationship decide to move out of it, to secure rights of child whom none of the parents want to keep, there must be a provision that any of them would be responsible to look after the child. To ensure that his rights are actually given, Court may appoint a guardian. The child is entitled to get a share in the property of both the father as well as the mother.Evaluation of the decision of the Maharashtra government
Justice Malimath Committee as well as the Law Commission of India states that if a woman has been in a ‘live in’ relationship for a reasonable period, she should enjoy the legal rights of the wife. On 8th October, this recommendation was accepted by the Maharashtra government. Though the government accepted recommendations of Malimath Committee, but have we thought that the same government some time ago prohibited bar dancers. It looks that government has adopted double standards and taken contradictory stands on women’s rights. According to few though live-in relationships are expressions of love but they also deserve legal protection.Any decision to bring change in Section 125, CrPC with regard to live - in - relationship invites amendments in other laws as well including law of evidence, succession, adoption, bigamy, marriage etc. We must not forget that one enters into living arrangements to effectively deal with a career without any sort of personal obligations of family.Therefore, if even inspite of no relationship in the eyes of law (marriage), one has to be made liable to pay maintenance after a reasonable time period, aren’t we disturbing the concept of virtual arrangements (existing without tension about other)? It may appear that the decision of Maharashtra Government favours women’s rights, but the consequences may be harsh. We may find a decline in marriages as both would require monetary responsibility, so why not prefer live in relationships. An increase in child abandonment is a possibility when both parents deny any responsibility.With the weakening of marriage as an institution, there are possibilities that not only would social offences increase but also independence of people would get manifested by indulging in live-in-relationships.

Courts and grant of validity to the live-in-relationships
In a petition between Payal Katara and Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Agra, the Allahabad High Court on 4th March 2002 came up with a bold judgment by stating that anyone, man or woman, could live together even without getting married if they wished. A similar step was taken by the Apex Court on 15th January, 2008 when a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and P.Sathasivam leaned in favour of legitimising a live-in couple as they had lived together for 30 years.

Debate in the Lok Sabha
On 15th December, 2008 in the question hour, Mr.H.R.Bhardwaj , Hon’ble Union Law Minister while answering to the question related to live-in-relationships said that if live-in- relationships are acceptable by society, then the government can make laws. Laws are made keeping in view societal trends. It is hypothetical to ask a question whether we are contemplating a law to govern live-in relationships. Less than one percent of the people are in such relationships. If a law is enacted, it will only be misused.

Conclusion
The last two to three months have been influential in arousing response on the matter of live-in-relationships in India. It should not be denied that our culture does need a legislature to regulate relationships which are likely to grow in number with changes in the ideology of people. The right time has come that efforts should be made to enact a law having clear provisions with regard to the time span required to give status to the relationship, registration and rights of parties and children born out of it. |

Live In Relationship- Review and Analysis by Srishti Aishwarya | Jun 1, 2011 | Law | 4 comments 11 0 2 389
The article deals with the issue of live in relationship which is very common these days. However, law on this issue is not very clear either in India or abroad. While case by case basis court is adumbrating the law with regard to live in relationships, there are many questions that need to be answered. The rights guaranteed to female live in partners along with the rights of child born out of such relationships ought to be secured. However, it has to be kept in mind that when law is giving legal sanction to live in relationships, it does not impede upon the institution of marriage as many a times men who get into live in relationship is already married. If live in relationships are recognised prima facie then it may implicitly promote bigamy. Law should have a discernible stance with respect to live in relationships and the aftermath of such relations.
Introduction

Live in relationship form a characteristic feature and style of living of couples, especially those in metropolitan areas. However, the definition and ambit of live in relationship is very unclear, there is no specific legislation in India on this subject, and the laws are in the form of court verdicts which varies from case to case.
The right of woman in such relationship is also not very certain, though court has shown willingness in recognising their rights, law like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognises right of woman in such relationship, nonetheless various other laws such as law of marriage, succession etc. needs to be changed to give full protection to woman in live in relationship. As far as the right of child born under such relationship is concerned, under Hindu Marriage Act,1955 such child will be legal, nevertheless there is no such law apart from HMA, 1955 that endorses presumption of legality of child born out of live in relationship. Though at global level as well, laws are not very clear on live in relationship, showing a common theme of aloofness and hesitation amongst countries to recognise such relationships. Nevertheless, as far as Indian scenario is concerned, there is a dire need to recognise such relationship in form of a new legislation that will clearly dictate the ambit of live in relationship and the rights and obligation of partners in such relationship. Facets of Live In Relationships The whole notion of live in relationship is not as simple as it appears but is multi-dimensional bringing along with it many issues and complications. Legal Status of Live-in Relationships The legal status of such live in couples lacks a definition. The rights and obligation which such couples have towards each other and the status of children born out of such a tie exudes a blurred shadow. No law on the subject has been formulated; the law is adumbrated in the court rooms via myriad cases. When it comes to live in relationships, in earlier cases the court tended to presume marriage based on the number of years of cohabitation.
In the cases prior to independence like A Dinohamy v. WL Blahamy[1], the Privy Council laid down a broad rule postulating that, “Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.” The same principle was reiterated in the case of Mohabhat Ali v. Mohammad Ibrahim Khan[2].

After independence the first case that can be reviewed is Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation [3], wherein the Supreme Court recognised live in relationships as valid marriage, putting a stop to questions raised by authorities on the 50 years of life in relationship of a couple.
Moving on from the initial time when the court recognised live in relationship which were of considerably long period, court in recent cases have postulated that live in relationship are not illegal per se. The Allahabad High Court, in 2001, inPayal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, and others[4], stated that a live-in relationship is not illegal. Sharma had approached the Allahabad High Court when she was forced to live in Nari Niketan at Agra, following her arrest, along with Ramendra Singh, with whom she had a live-in relationship. The Agra police arrested her and Singh on the basis of an FIR lodged by her father, accusing Singh, an already married man, of kidnapping Sharma. Payal Sharma produced documentary evidence evincing the fact that she was 21 years old. On the basis of this evidence, the court directed the authorities to set her free. Justice M Katju and Justice R.B. Mishra stated, “In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without getting married, can live together if they wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by society, but is not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality.“
In Patel and others case,[5] the Supreme Court observed that live- in –relation between two adults without a formal marriage cannot be construed as an offence. It also stated that there is no such statute which postulates that live in relationships are illegal. The same proposition was upheld in the case of Tulsa v. Durghatiya,[6] where the long term live in relationship was recognised as equivalent to marriage.
The further sanction to live in relationship was granted by judgement of Supreme Court on 23rd of March, 2010 in the Khushboo case[7]. The case of the prosecution was that the comment of the actress Khushboo allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex will adversely affect the moral fabric of society. The Court, while quashing the charges framed on Khushboo, commented that there is no law that prohibits pre-marital relationships. A three judge bench comprising of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B.S. Chauhan observed, “When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence“. The court further said “Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life“, thereby referring to the right to life guaranteed under Article 21. Though this was an obiter dictum, it provided a positive impetus to live in relationships.
However, this position is not all binding. The Delhi High Court, in a recent case, observed that a live in relationship is a walk in and walk out relationship. Justice S.N. Dhingra noted, “There are no legal strings attached to this relationship nor does this relationship create any legal-bond between the partners”. The court further added, “People who choose to have live-in relationship cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in relationships are also known to have been between a married man and unmarried woman or vice-versa”[8]
Hence, though more or less uniformity has been exuded in a positive direction by the court when it comes to live in relationships, the law does not cut a clear picture as can be observed from the recent Delhi High Court judgement.
Status of child born under a live in relationship
When it comes to the right of child born under live in relationship, we again find the law to be groping in the dark. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 gives the status of legitimacy to every child, irrespective of birth out of a void, voidable or valid marriage. However, they don’t have property and maintenance rights. However, there is no such presumption of legality of child in any other religion or law, in such cases, legality of the child born out of such relationship is doubtful.
Another important matter that needs to be taken note of is that, if the live in partners and the parents desire to get out of the relationship, the future of the child comes into question. There must be a provision to secure the right of the child, in case; none of the parent wants to keep the child with him. Court may appoint a guardian to look after the interest of child. The child ought to be entitled to have share, both in mother’s and father’s property.
Protection of Rights of Female Partner in Live in Relationships
The rights of female partner in live in relationship tend to be secure, credited to the recent statutes and recommendation by the committees. Courts also display alacrity to protect the right of female partner in such relationship as exhibited by judgements given in number of cases. The statutes like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects woman both in the categories of wife i.e. relationship by marriage and live-in partner i.e. relationship in nature of marriage[9], by reason of being embraced within the term “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Act. However as was discussed in D. Veluswami v. D. Patchaimmal[10], to get the benefits arising from “relationship like marriage”, it is necessary that, “couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, they must be of legal age to marry, they must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried, they must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.” In June, 2008, The National Commission for Women recommended to Ministry of Women and Child Development made suggestion to include live in female partners for the right of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. This view was supported by the judgement in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State Of Maharashtra and Others[11]. The positive opinion in favour of live in relationship was also seconded by Maharashtra Government in October, 2008 when it accepted the proposal made by Malimath Committee and Law Commission of India which suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time, she ought to enjoy the legal status as given to wife. However, recently it was observed that it is divorced wife who is treated as a wife in context of Section 125 of CrPC and if a person has not even been married i.e. the case of live in partners, they cannot be divorced, and hence cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.[12]
The Apex Court even went on to protect the live in female partner from harassment for dowry. In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P[13], the defendant used to harass his live in partner for dowry. In the Supreme Court, Justice Arjit Pasyat and A.K. Ganguly while denying the contention of defendant that section 498A does not apply to him since he was not married to his live in partner held that, “the nomenclature ‘dowry’ does not have any magical charm written over it. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationship”. Drawing parallels with the law which recognises the legitimacy of children born of void and voidable marriages, it explained its stand asking: “Can a person who enters into a marital agreement be allowed to take shelter behind a smokescreen to contend that since there was no valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise?” An important observation to be noted here is that to recognise the right of female partners in live in relationship and consequently the protection granted via some statutes will have to be accompanied by changes in laws of succession, adoption, marriage as well if we move in the direction of legalisation of such relationship. Another point to be taken note of is that recourse to such relationship was taken to circumvent the obligations, bondage and legality attached with marriage. Bringing in such limitations and obligations even without the formal shroud of marriage will run contrary to the whole idea of freedom and liberty associated with live in relation.
Laws in Other Countries
Live in relationships in various countries are either recognised as it exists or it’s finding recognition via implied provisions of different statutes that protect property rights, housing rights. Many countries provide for live in relationship contracts in which partners can determine their legal rights. However, when it comes to the right of child born under such relationship, law of various countries exudes a uniform tenor of protecting their rights.
In France, there is the provision of “Civil Solidarity Pacts” known as “pacte civil de solidarite” or PaCS, passed by the French National Assembly in October 1999 that allows couples to enter into a union by signing before a court clerk. The contract binds “two adults of different sexes or of the same sex, in order to organise their common life” and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded to married couples in the areas of income tax, housing and social welfare. The contract can be revoked unilaterally or bilaterally after giving the partner, three month’s notice in writing.
In Philippines, live in relationship couple’s right to each other’s property is governed by co- ownership rule. Article 147, of the Family Code, Philippines provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership[14].
In the UK, live in couples does not enjoy legal sanction and status as granted to married couple. There is no obligation on the partners to maintain each other. Partners do not have inheritance right over each other’s property unless named in their partner’s will. As per a 2010 note from the Home Affairs Section to the House of Commons, unmarried couples have no guaranteed rights to ownership of each other’s property on breakdown of relationship. However, the law seek to protect the right of child born under such relationship. Both parents have the onus of bringing up their children irrespective of the fact that whether they are married or cohabiting [15].
The live in relation were conferred legal sanctity in Scotland in the year 2006 by Family Law (Scotland) Act. Section 25 (2) of the Act postulates that a court of law can consider a person as a co-habitant of another by checking on three factors; the length of the period during which they lived together, the nature of the relationship during that period and the nature and extent of any financial arrangements, in case of breakdown of such relationship, Section 28 of the Act gives a cohabitant the right to apply in court for financial support. This is in case of separation and not death of either partner. If a partner dies intestate, the survivor can move the court for financial support from his estate within 6 months[16].
Laws in the U.S. as well do not provide the live in relationship couple with the rights as enjoyed by married couple. Nonetheless, couple can enter into Cohabitation Agreement containing stipulation with regards to their rights and liabilities.
Canada recognises live in relationship as “Common Law Marriage”. The couple is accorded legal sanction if the couple has been living in conjugal relationship for a year or the couple is parents of a child born by birth or adoption[17].
In China, couple can sign a contract for live in relationship. The rights of the child are secured as the child born outside the wedlock has the same benefits as enjoyed by the child born under a marriage[18].
The laws of Ireland and Australia also recognises live in relationship. The family law of Australia recognises “de facto relationship” between couples, while in Ireland the impetus is towards greater recognition to live in relationship as there has been demand for right to maintenance by separated live in couples.
The position that emerges with respect to live in relationships is not very discernible and lacks a definition in majority of the countries. While some countries have passed legislation according legal status to live in couples, some countries are granting greater legality to such couples by the implied provision of their statutes as discussed. In India as well, via various decisions of the court, law is exhibiting a tendency of giving legal tinge to live in relationships.
Nevertheless, the fact remains; the legal progress of laws with respect to live in relationship and the sweeping increase in number of such live in relationships are not running parallel to each other. The law needs to whiz up to prescribe and proscribe speculation with respect to live in relations.
Live In Relationships in Indian Socio-Legal Context- Critical Analysis
The manifold augmentation in the number of live in relationship couples in India may exude the new metropolitan tenor and bondage free living but also has umpteen lacunae.
While it threatens the very notion of husband and wife and the cognition of marriage that enjoys high level of sanctity when it comes to India, it also tends to prop up adultery, as there is no such proscription that live in partners should be unmarried. Thus, a person might be married and be living with someone else under the garb of live in relationship.
Live-in relationships also endorse bigamy. For instance Payal Katara v. Superintendent Nari Niketan Kandri Vihar Agra and Others[19], here Rajendra Prasad, the person with whom plaintiff was living in was already married. While the court recognised the right of cohabitation of the plaintiff, what about the right of the wife of the person with whom plaintiff was cohabiting. The question that seeks an answer with the elevation of live in relationship is what will be the status of wife, if a person who is in live in relationship is already married as law also seek to protect the right of live in partner under statutes like Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The recommendations of Law Commission, Malimath Committee is to recognise live in partner as wife in case of live in relationship of reasonably long time. The attitude of Apex Court towards such relation also evinces their alacrity in recognising live in relationships. Along with these, the suggestions to include live in female partner under the provision given in Section 125 of CrPC ends up equating the status of live in female partner and wife.
This promotes bigamy, as the person who is getting into live in relationship might be already married. The position of the wife is disadvantageous in such situation as court on the one hand is giving all the rights of wife to live in female partner, while on the other hand it prohibits bigamy. Law is ambiguous and disadvantageous for the weaker sex and is not being beneficial to anyone. While the right of legally wedded wife remains at stake, the right of live in female partner too does not become secure.
Even if rights of maintenance etc are provided to the live in female partner, there is no guarantee that she can actually avail those rights. Marriages grant social recognition, but there is no proof of live in relationship; a person can easily deny the fact of live in relationship to evade liability. In sum and substance the rights of woman remains precarious.
When we talk about the after math of a live in relationship, the rights and liabilities of partners is deficient of delineation. What will be the rights and liabilities of such partners after separation or the death of one of the partner. There is no law of succession and maintenance that mentions the stipulation that protects the right of such live in couples.
The children born under such relationship, although are recognised under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; however, it is submitted that the couples who tend to disobey the socially recognised social tenor cannot be supposed to be people of only one religion or to be the one professing Hinduism. In fact, many a time, because of family’s opposition to inter-religion and inter-racial marriage, couple prefers to get into live in relationship and hence forth circumventing family objection.
Such relationships are fragile and can be dissolved any moment, there is no obligation and bondage, legal position with respect to live in relationship does not portray a discernible image. Live in relationship sponsor bigamy and adultery while posing a threat to the entire fabric weaved out of values and morals on which the Indian Society stands.

The Present Need
The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture keeping in mind the present social context along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that characterises Indian society.
While the court in few cases granted the status of married couple to live in couple, in some cases court held that live in relationship does not cast any obligation on the couple, as the whole idea of live in relationship is to evade such bondage, evincing a penchant towards an obligation less, free society.
Nonetheless, another thought that seek attention is that if the law lobs same kind of obligation with respect to maintenance and succession as exist in the institution of marriage, then why will a couple prefer to get into a live in relationship, when the basis of getting into live in relationship is to evade all bondages and entanglement. A different point to be observed is that, if the rights under live in relationships and marriage are equated, it will bring in conflict the rights of wife if the person who is in relationship is already married and the rights of live in partner, secondly this will make the circumventing of liability much easier and matters more complicated by shuffling between the rights and liability under marriage- live in relationship and will lead to entanglement in judicial meanders if judicial discourse is taken. Outside the legal arena, live in relationship also faces the social speculation; the tenor of live in relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area, however, when we look at the masses that define India, live in relationship does not find consensus of majority and is accused of tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality.
Hence, as we observed many questions with respect to live in relationship remains unanswered. On the one hand it faces speculation from society and secondly legal status of live in relationship evinces contingency. The more clear approach and attitude of law and the changing time and stance of society will determine the future of live in relationship. Laws should be made by the parliament, which should keep a check on the practice of evading bondages.
Live in relationships should be granted legal status after specific period of its existence, providing the partners as well as the child born out of such relationship with all the legal rights of maintenance, succession, inheritance as available to a married couple and their legitimate offspring, also securing their rights after the dissolution of such relationship due to break up or death of one of the partner. The guidelines given in D. Veluswami v. D. Patchaimmal[20] is worth noting in this context and should be followed. Since, proving de facto live in relationship is difficult, the burden of proof should be relaxed, so that the rights that are conferred upon partners, specifically female live in partner[21] can be availed. However, if the person in live in relationship is already married, then live in relationship should be considered as the second marriage, hence an offence of bigamy. This will ensure the rights and privileges in live in relationship without possessing any threat to the institution of marriage. A good legal system always tends to adapt to the gradual social changes. As such, the law cannot grope in dark, when the number of live in couples is increasing tremendously. The rights of live in couples should be legally recognised while ensuring that it does not impede upon the system of marriage.