1.ABSTRACT
The diaspora of intimate relationships in India is witnessing a noticeable worthy change , with a growing number of individuals opting for live-in relationships, particularly within urban centres. The way Indian family law is changing, Marriage is still very important to our society but more and more people are living together without getting married especially in urban areas. This is making us look again at how the law works. This paper is about how the law protects women from violence in relationships where people live together but are not married.
In the absence of specific legislation, Indian courts have modernly shaped the legal framework for cohabitation in the nature of marriage through key judgements such as Badri Prasad (1978)[1], LataSingh (2006)[2], Khushboo (2010),[3] Velusamy (2010)[4] and Indra Sarma (2013). These above mentioned rulings have affirmed the autonomy of adults to choose non-marital partnerships and companions, extended protections under the PWDVA and Section 144 BNSS (Section 125 of the CrPC), and recognized rights to maintenance and shared property as well.[5]
We think that the law needs to be changed so that it’s fairer to women who are being hurt. The law should be clear. Should protect all women no matter what type of relationship they are cohabitating . The government should change the law so that it matches what the Constitution says about dignity, equality and safety for all women. Indian family law and the PWDVA, 2005 or PWDVA need to be updated to help women in, in relationships.
2.KEY WORDS
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ,2005;in the nature of marriage;Live-in Relationships;domestic relationship;legislature of India;Article 21, i.e. Right to Life and Personal Liberty
3.INTRODUCTION
The women in India are playing multiple roles for the betterment and well being of the family and its members. The toil of women in India is often going unrecognized in the male dominated society. Marriage is a formal union, traditionally regarded as the foundation of family life but the increasing prevalence of live-in relationships in India has challenged traditional legal notions of family and marriage. Live-in relationships in India have emerged as a significant social phenomenon, prompting legal and societal debates over their status and implications.
Given the risk of exploitation women might face in a relatively unregulated relationship like living in, do they have any legal protection from the same, similar to those provided in marriages or otherwise? Do they have any specific rights by virtue of being in the relationship?
No statute in India defines or regulates “live-in relationships” as a discrete legal category. However, it was only in 2005 through the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which was enacted to give effect to India’s obligations under Article 15(3) of the Constitution and to remedy the inadequacy of the Indian Penal Code in addressing civil and non-physical forms of abuse within domestic settings.
The legislature of India recognized live-in relationships and ascribed rights and protection to those females who are not legally married, but are living with an unmarried male individual in a relationship like that of marriage through Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The objective was not limited to the protection of single women from the abuse of fraudulent marriage and bigamous relationships but also from abusive partners of the live-in relationship.
4.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research is based on secondary sources such as research papers, journal articles, websites,reports, and online legal sources. Relevant statutes, policy documents, and academic literature have also been used to understand the legal issues related to recent developments related to Recognition of Domestic Violence in Live-in Relationships .Cases have been selected for their significance and recency, with emphasis on developments from 2024 through the first half of 2026.
5.REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The existing piece of literature has substantially examined and have attracted significant scholar attention towards the legal recognition of live-in relationships and the applicability of the PWDVA, 2005.
Flavia Agnes, a prominent scholar of family law and women’s rights, has exclusively discussed the impact of the PWDVA on Indian family law. Agnes argues that the Act marks modernization from traditional marriage-centric legal frameworks by recognizing that domestic violence can occur in various living domestic arrangements rather than majorly formal valid marriages or the legalized bonds of a couple sharing a household. According to her, the inclusion of relationships “in the nature of marriage” reflects a progressive legislative attempt to protect vulnerable women who would otherwise remain outside the scope of legal remedies in not-so-legalized cohabitation.
Paras Diwan, in his legal writings on family law, discusses the evolution of family relationships and the changing dimensions of personal laws unbiased by religion in India. His analysis majorly emphasized on the role of judicial interpretation in extending legal protection to vulnerable women, who are not recognized in a well-addressed long-term cohabiting marital status. His work provides valuable insights into the transcript in which Indian family law responds to changing social realities and evolving notions of modern family.
Brototi Dutta’s critical comment Supreme Court’s Judgment in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal provides that the Court has Unduly Restricted the Scope of Protection under the PWDVA, 2005. Dutta said the court’s interpretation of the statutory phrase “relationship in the nature of marriage” was wrong, as it equated it with the concept of “common-law marriage” and excluded many women in stable cohabiting relationships from the protection of the act. She finds it difficult to understand how an interpretation of this nature defeats the purpose of the PWDVA which is to promote the welfare of women and to provide effective legal remedies to women who are victims of domestic violence including women in de facto marriages and women in long term cohabitation relationships.
6. SCOPE OF STUDY: CORE ANALYSIS
The increasing prevalence of live-in relationships in contemporary India has exposed gaps within the traditional legal framework governing family relationships. Although the PWDVA, 2005 extends protection to women in relationships “in the nature of marriage,” the lack of a clear statutory definition has resulted in varying judicial interpretations.
6.1 : Statutory Framework: The PWDVA, 2005 and Live-in Relationships
The PWDVA, 2005 is different from the provisions of the IPC , that it provides a broader and clearer definition of domestic violence.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (PWDVA)[6] is a landmark legislation that works protection not only to legally married women of a constitutionally legalized marriage but also to women in certain live-in cohabitation. The Act was among the first Indian laws to recognize and protect women in relationships outside formal marriage.
Section 2(f) of the PWDVA defines a “domestic relationship” as a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related by marriage, blood, adoption, or a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” This phrase forms the legal basis for extending protection to women in live-in relationships and basis of rights for vulnerable women of live-in cohabitation.
Of these categories, “relationship in the nature of marriage” is the gateway through which live-in partners access the Act. Because the term is undefined, its content has been built almost entirely through case law.
6.1.1 : Section 2(s): Shared Household
Section 2(s) defines “shared household” as a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, whether owned or rented, jointly or singly, or in which either party has a right, title, or interest. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of this provision, including in the 2025 decision discussed in Section 4 below has confirmed that residence rights under the Act do not depend on legal ownership, which is particularly significant for live-in partners who rarely hold formal title to shared property.
6.1.2 : Reliefs Available
Once a domestic relationship is established, an aggrieved woman may seek protection orders (Section 18), residence orders (Section 19), monetary relief (Section 20), custody orders (Section 21), and compensation (Section 22) through an application under Section 12, ordinarily filed before a Judicial Magistrate.
6.2 : DOCTRINAL FOUNDATIONAL CASE INTERPRETATIONS
Before turning to recent developments, it is necessary to set out the doctrinal foundations that continues to govern the field. The Constitution of India does not explicitly recognize live-in relationships.
Though the judiciary is progressively positive in this regard and is delivering judgments supporting the rights and privileges of the women in a live-in relationship to the extent of bringing live-in relationships under the ambit of Article 21, i.e. Right to Life and Personal Liberty of a Person under the Indian Constitution and also held that two consenting majors living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful thereby categorizing such relationships as domestic relationships” protected under the PWDVA, 2005. However, they have become a developing area of controversy with respect to the types of live-in relationships that are recognized.
Before turning to recent developments, it is necessary to set out the Two Supreme Court decisions that remain the controlling authorities.
6.2.1 : D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)
[7]In this case the Supreme Court, Justice Markandey Katju, held that not every live-in arrangement qualifies for protection under the Act. The Court laid down a set of conjunctive conditions: the couple must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses; both parties must be of legal age to marry; both must otherwise be qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried; and the parties must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time.
6.2.2 : Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)[8]
Departing from the marriage-not marriage dichotomy came the landmark case of Indra Sarma. This case drew notice to the PWDVA of 2005 and the wording used in the statute, specifically to refer to the category of relationship termed there as one ‘in nature of marriage’. The Court held that a woman who knowingly enters into a relationship with a married man cannot generally claim the protections of the Act, because such a relationship does not meet the essential characteristics of a relationship in the nature of marriage. The court stepped in and laid down certain characteristics for a relationship to be ‘in the nature of marriage’. It said that the time spent in the relationship, the domestic living arrangements, pooled resources and finances, cohabitation, sexual relations, offspring, social behaviour, and intention of the partners, are all factors that must be considered.
6.2.3 : Subsequent Reinforcements
In Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand[9], the Supreme Court examined whether a woman in a live-in relationship could claim maintenance and relief under the PWDVA. The absence of a legally valid marriage was central to the dispute. The Court held that women in relationships “in the nature of marriage” are entitled to protection and maintenance under the Act. The judgment aligned statutory interpretation with social reality. It clarified that vulnerability to abuse does not depend on formal marital status. This decision reinforced that the PWDVA is remedial legislation and must be interpreted liberally to advance its protective purpose. By extending relief to women in non-traditional domestic arrangements, the Court closed a significant protection gap.
This 21st Century demands more progressive laws and a social acceptance that Law cannot be constant and has to evolve with the demands of the society. As also rightly observed by Hon’ble Justice A. K. Ganguly in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun “With changing social norms of legitimacy in every society, including ours, what was illegitimate in the past may be legitimate today”.
6.3 : RECENT DEVELPOMENTS
The period since 2024 has seen a cluster of of key rulings that refine, and in some cases complicate, the application of the PWDVA to live-in partnerships.
6.3.1 : Gulza Kumari v. State of Punjab[10]
In the recent Judgement of Gulza Kumari v. State of Punjab, The Punjab and Haryana High Court while denying protection to a couple in live-in relationship reasoned that live-in relationships are “socially and morally unacceptable” once again setting a debate between what is “immoral in the eyes of society” vs. “illegal” in the eye of the law. Indian society is aligning itself with the changing time where more number of women are now making choices with respect to their life and on one hand there is a patriarchal society which still regards women as their property, opposes the choices of women, and is against love marriage, inter-caste marriage, live in relationship etc.The concept of live-in relationship may be socially unacceptable, but it has been made clear by the Apex Court in a plethora of judgements that the adult unmarried couples with mutual consent have right to live together even without marriage and is no more a crime.
6.3.2 : Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal
[11]The Supreme Court on 19 May 2025 held, this case wasn’t specifically about a live-in relationship, but this ruling would impact every PWDVA case, including those about live-in relationships. As per Justice Abhay S. Oka, the issue for the Court was the following: can a High Court exercise its prerogative under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (currently Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), to terminate proceedings that have been instituted under Section 12 of the PWDVA.
In making this argument, the respondent was relying on the Court’s earlier description of DV Act’s proceedings in Kunapareddy v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (2016), as having a ‘predominantly civil’ character, which meant that these proceedings could not be terminated through a remedy available in criminal procedure. The Court clarified that this power should be exercised sparingly, reserved for cases of manifest and egregious abuse of the DV Act’s machinery, so as not to undermine the protective architecture Parliament built for victims of domestic violence.
For women in live-in relationships, this ruling is double-edged. On one hand, it does not dilute the substantive scope of Section 2(f) or weaken the availability of relief for genuine claimants. On the other, it creates a clearer procedural avenue for respondents to seek early termination of proceedings, which may be invoked more frequently in live-in relationship cases where the threshold question of whether a “domestic relationship” exists at all ; precisely the kind of dispute that respondents may now argue is suitable for quashing if the petition appears, on its face, to disclose no relationship in the nature of marriage.
6.3.3 : X v. Y, Bombay High Court [12]
In this 2026 decision, the Bombay High Court considered a claim brought by a student against a professor with whom she had been in a live-in relationship while he remained married to another woman. Justice Manjusha Deshpande, applying the Indra Sarma framework, undertook a detailed examination of the eight-point test ,including whether the couple held themselves out as spouses in public and concluded that the relationship did not meet the essential characteristics of a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
The Court reinstituted the Supreme Court’s observation in Indra Sarma that a long-standing relationship of this nature, while it may merit some form of social or legal protection, is not one that the PWDVA, in its current form, was designed to cover. The judgment described Section 2(f) as restrictive rather than exhaustive in its present construction and noted that any extension of protection to such relationships would require legislative amendment rather than judicial reinterpretation. The Bombay High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition and upheld the denial of relief by the Sessions Court.
6.3.4 : We The Women of India v. Union of India
On 20 May 2025, a Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma directed all States and Union Territories to identify and designate Protection Officers to ensure proper implementation of the PWDVA, responding to a petition highlighting the uneven and inconsistent rollout of the Act’s institutional machinery across the country. While not specific to live-in relationships, this directive is material because women in live-in relationships who often face greater social stigma and family resistance in approaching formal legal channels are disproportionately affected when Protection Officers, shelter homes, and counselling services mandated under the Act are unavailable or poorly functioning at the district level.
6.3.5 : Nidhi v. State of Rajasthan
In January 2025 Rajasthan High Court decided and reaffirmed that once a relationship in the nature of marriage is established, its termination by one party does not retroactively erase the protections available. Under the Act for the period during which it subsisted, and reiterated the relationships between same-sex couples, in certain contexts, and are considered within the evolving understanding of “domestic relationship”.
7. SUGGESTIONS
The increasing recognition of live-in relationships in India reflects evolving social realities and the need for legal protections that extend beyond the institution of marriage. While the PWDVA, 2005 has significantly enhanced the rights of women in non-marital relationships, several challenges continue to hinder its effective implementation. The following recommendations may help strengthen the existing legal framework:
1. Statutory Definition of “Relationship in the Nature of Marriage”
One of the most significant shortcomings of the PWDVA is the absence of a clear statutory definition, specifically of the phrase “relationship in the nature of marriage.” Parliament should amend the Act to provide a comprehensive definition that identifies the essential characteristics of such relationships. This would reduce ambiguity. Also will ensure greater uniformity in judicial decision-making.
2. Adoption of a Victim-Centric Approach
Courts should prioritize the protective purpose of the PWDVA while interpreting its provisions. The focus majorly should be on the existence of domestic violence and the vulnerability of the victim rather than the formal status of the relationship .
3. Awareness of Legal Rights
Many women remain unaware of the remedies available. Government agencies, legal aid authorities, and civil society organizations should conduct awareness programmes to educate women about their rights and the legal mechanisms available for them like protection orders , residence orders, monetary relief ,child custody orders and compensation etc .
4. Strengthening Legal Aid and Support Services
Victims of domestic violence in live-in relationships often face economic dependence and social stigma. Access to free legal aid, counselling services, temporary shelters, and psychological support should be strengthened to ensure effective enforcement of legal rights.
5. Recognition of Evolving Family Structures of this modern world.
Lawmakers and courts should acknowledge modernization and make laws accordingly.. A progressive interpretation of family law would better align with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and personal liberty as mentioned in the constitution.
6. Strengthening Constitutional Protection
Courts should continue to interpret the PWDVA in light of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. A constitutional approach emphasizing equality, dignity, autonomy, and access to justice would ensure that women in live-in relationships are not denied protection merely because their relationships fall outside traditional notions of marriage.
8.CONCLUSION
Recognition of domestic violence in live-in relationships in the PWDVA, 2005 represents a noteworthy milestone in the domain of family law in India. By expanding the scope of protection beyond the boundary of a legally recognized marriage, the Act takes into consideration the changing dynamics of relationship and strives to provide adequate protection to women irrespective of whether they have legal proof of marriage. It recognizes a relationship “in the nature of marriage” as a progressive attempt at dealing with the problem of domestic violence in all forms and protecting women from the possibility of being abused and exploited by those with whom they share relationships without legal ties.
It can be inferred from the analysis above that while the PWDVA has been largely beneficial for the cause of gender justice, there still exist some shortcomings in the application and interpretation of the law. An open and rights-based approach, which is consistent with the constitutional provisions of equality, dignity and personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, is imperative for securing protection to women in live-in relationships.
Ensuring meaningful protection for women in live-in relationships requires a legal framework that prioritizes substance over form and recognizes that the right to live free from violence is a fundamental human right, irrespective of marital status.
9. REFERENCES
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, No. 43 of 2005, India.
Constitution of India, arts 14, 15(3) and 21.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s 144 (maintenance provisions replacing s 125 CrPC).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s 125.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s 482.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s 52
Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India (Oxford University Press 1999).
Flavia Agnes, Family Law Volume I: Family Laws and Constitutional Claims (Oxford University Press 2011).
Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (23rd edn, Allahabad Law Agency 2023
Brototi Dutta, ‘Of “Keeps” and “Concubines”: Rights of Cohabitees under Domestic Violence Act’ in Indira Jaising and Pinki Mathur Anurag (eds), Conflict in the Shared Household: Domestic Violence and the Law in India (Oxford University Press 2019) 97.
SIYA MAHAJAN
THE LAW SCHOOL , UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU
[1] Badri Prasad v Deputy Director of Consolidation (1978) 3 SCC 527
[2] Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) 5 SCC 475.
[3] S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
[4] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469.
[5] AN ANALYSIS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA: TRENDS AND TRAJECTORIES Dr. Rahul Yadav
[6] Statement of Objects and Reasons, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Bill, 2005.
[7] D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469.
[8] Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755
[9] Lalita Toppo v State of Jharkhand (2019) 13 SCC 796
[10] Gulza Kumari v. State of Punjab, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 896
[11] 2025 INSC 734; [2025] 6 SCR 545; Criminal Appeal Nos 2688–2689 of 2025
[12] (2016) 11 SCC 774