( AN ANALYSIS FROM LEGAL PERSPECTIVE )

Table of Contents

Title	1
Table of contents	2
Abstract	3
Key Words	3
Introduction	3
Research Methodology	4
Literature Review	4
Objectives	5
Analysis	5
Suggestions	9
Conclusion	10
Bibliography And References	11

Abstract

In India, live-in relationships are on the rise as a convenient alternative to marriage. Domestic cohabitationbetweenanadultcouplewhoarenotmarriediswhatitischaracterizedas.Itappears to be a stress-free relationship with no legal obligations; nonetheless, it comes with a slew of complexities, responsibilities, and legal liabilities. Attempts have recently been made to bring it inside the purview of several legislation. It is no longer a crime in India, and several recommendations on child support, property, and legal status have been provided by theSupreme Court in various cases. In India, it is still a contentiousissue.

Many ambiguous cases, such as official documents, cultural difficulties, property rights, willand gift rights, anti-religion status, LGBT community, and so on, require adequate care. The article’s main goal is to use secondary sources to better understand the concept of a live-in relationship. Following that, using descriptive and analytic methodology, an attempt was made to investigate the problems and challenges faced by the couples. Finally, it suggests that a separate, secular,and gender-sensitivelawshouldbeenactedforcoupleswhochoosetocohabitinalive-inrelationship.

Key Words

Legal aspects, sexuality, maintenance, time period, relationships, legality, common household, social acceptance, etc.

Introduction

In India, marriage is a sacred or contractual relationship that confers various rights on the parties involved, such as conjugal rights, presumption of children’s legitimacy, rights of succession,right to maintenance, rights against dowry demand, rights against domestic violence, rights against adultery,rightsagainstbigamy,andsoon.A”live-in”relationshipcanbecharacterizedasaliving arrangementinwhichunmarriedcoupleslivetogethertomaintainalong-termconnection,akinto amarriage.

In Indian culture, the concept of live-in relationships is not new. The most significant difference betweenpasterasandnowintermsoflive-inrelationshipsisthatpeoplehavecometoacceptthis statusinfrontofsociety,whichwasformerlyhiddenowingtosocialorotherworries.Thisconcept arose as a result of some people wanting to avoid the situations or responsibilities/liabilities that comewithmarriagewhilestillenjoyingthepleasuresofcohabitation(asacouple).Whenpersons choose a live-in relationship, they escape the liabilities and status that come with marriage as a result of the law. Individual freedom is provided by live-in relationships, but the insecurity they bring with them necessitates the passage of legislation to limit their negative impacts and downsides.

The status of a live-in relationship is unclear, and there is no standard definition for it. The definition of a live-in relationship is ambiguous. There is no particular legislation on this subject inIndia;thelawsareintheformofjudicialverdictsissuedbyprominentSupremeCourtandHigh Court judgments. Women’s rights are not clearly defined under the legislation. The courts do appear to be inclined to recognize their rights. The concept of live-in relationships has been legalized by the courts, and the parties’ and children’s rights have been protected. There is no law thatprohibitsalive-inrelationship.However,thereisnoparticularstatuteconferringlegalitytoit and defining the rights and obligations that come with it.

Research Methodology

Because there is limited data on this topic in literature, the data for the research methods was largely gathered through internet information resources. However, books were recommended when it came to the fundamentals of a legal marriage.

Observational technique is used in which different cases, articles and blogs were used to interpret the information and to on the basis of it the research paper is prepared.

Literature Review

India is a country that is gradually embracing western concepts and habits, one of which is the concept of live-in relationships. In legal terms, a connection between a man and a woman is

legitimate if it is based on a valid marriage and illegitimate if it is not. A live-in relationship is a living arrangement in which an unmarried couple lives together for an extended period of time in a relationship that mimics marriage. It’s known as living in everyday language. The primary conceptbehindalive-inrelationshipisthattheinterestedcouplewantstoseeiftheyarecompatible before making acommitment.

Considering how living is seen differently around the world, cohabitation research should go beyondprevalenceandcomparisonstomarriagerelationships.Cohabitationshouldbetreatedasa distinctandseparateentity.MoreresearchoncohabitationinnationslikeIndia,wherecohabitation isontheriseyetstillconsideredunacceptable,isneededforadeeperunderstanding.Cohabitation has become an accepted feature of the existing familystructure.

Example in the case of Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 19781 the Supreme Court of India recognized live in relationship and interpreted it as a valid marriage. In this case, the Court gave legal validity to a 50 year live in relationship of a couple. It was held by justice Krishna lyre that a strong presumption arises in favor of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long term as husband and wife.

Objectives of the research paper

Wherein the Apex Court has accepted the living relationships and what are the legal and judicial judgements and point of view on it?

Whetherthereisaneed,particularlyinIndia,toregulatelive-inrelationshipsinordertosafeguard female partners from harassment andexploitation?

Analysis

The definition of a live-in relationship is ambiguous. There is no particular legislation on this subject in India; the laws are in the form of judicial verdicts issued by prominent Supreme Court and High Court justices. Women’s rights are not clearly defined under the legislation. The court

¹1978 AIR 1557, 1979 SCR (1) 1

appearstobeinclinedtorecognizetheirrights.Awoman’seconomicrightsarestatedinlawssuch as the Protection of Domestic Violence Act of 2005. The child or children born from such a connection have the same rights as those born from a legitimate marriage. As far as India is concerned, such connections are not acknowledged. . The status of a live-in relationship is ambiguous, and there is no standard definition.In India, legal development, respect for it, and an extraordinaryincreaseinthenumberofsuchrelationshipsareallhappeningatthesametime.The law must be accelerated andimplemented.

InthecaseofBadriPrasadv.DeputyDirectorofConsolidation²,theSupremeCourtgavelegal validity to a 50-year live-in relationship of a couple in1978.

In the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Others³, the Supreme Court held that a man and woman living together without marrying is not an offence. “What is the crime when two adults wishtolivetogether?Isitconsideredacrime?Itisnotillegaltolivetogether.Itcan’tbeconsidered a crime.” “Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma, and B S Chuhan sat on a three-judge panel. According to the court, even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together in mythology. Living together is also a Right To Life, according to thestatement.

InTulsa&ors.vDurghatiya&Ors⁴theApexCourtobservedthatamanandawomanwhoare involved in live-in relationship for a long period, will be treated as a marriedcouple.

The Supreme Court held in Madan Mohan Singh and others v. Rajni Kant ⁵that “if a man and womanlivetogetherashusbandandwifeforalongperiodashusbandandwife,eventhoughthey have never married, there would be a presumption of marriage and their children could not be calledillegitimate,”

In the case of Payal Katara vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan and others⁶ the Allahabad High Court once again accepted the notion of live-in relationships, ruling that they are not illegal. According to the Court, a man and a woman can live together as long as they choose without getting married.

²1978 AIR 1557, 1979 SCR (1) 1

³ (2010) 5 SCC 600

⁴AIR 2008 SC1193

⁵ AIR 2010 SC2933

⁶AIR 2001 All 254

Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma⁷, the Supreme Court outlined several principles for determining whether a live-in relationship falls under the definition of “in the nature of marriage” under Sec. 2

(f) of the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act, which may be stated as follows:-

A reasonable length of time for the connection to last (ii). Household that is shared

(iii) Resource pooling and financial arrangements (iv). Family Arrangements

(v) Connection Sexual (vi). Children

Publicsocialization

Parties’ Intentions andActions

The Supreme Court has defined five categories in which the concept of live-in partnerships can be evaluated and proven in a legal setting.

The categories are as follows:

An unmarried adult male and adult female have a domestic relationship. It’s the simplest kind of relationship there is.

A intentionally entered domestic connection between a married man and an adult unmarried woman.

A intentionally entered domestic connection between an adult unmarried man and a married lady. Adultery can be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code if such a relationship exists.

Unintentionally engaged into a domestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married male.

Same-sex partners in a domestic relationship ( gay or lesbian).

⁷(2013) 15 SCC 755

For the first time, the legislator has accepted live-in relationships by designating those females whoarenotformallymarriedbutarelivingwithamalepersoninarelationshipthatisinthenature of marriage as akin to wife, though not equivalent to wife, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. As a result, this proviso applies to a wife or a female in a live-in relationship.AnewIndianlegislationondomesticabusenowconsiderslive-inrelationshipstobe on par with marriage. Domestic Violence Act of 2005 restrictions have now been extended to persons who are in live-inrelationships.

Domestic abuse victims in live-in relationships will be protected by the reforms. A domestic relationship is defined as a relationship between two people who live together or have lived togetherinthepast,accordingtoSection2(g)oftheaforementionedAct.Intheeventofabuseor harassment, a woman in a live-in relationship can file a lawsuit against her boyfriend. Inaddition, the new rule protects Indian women who are stuck in illegitimate or fraudulentmarriages.

Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, female live-in partners have economic rights, subject to the following circumstances, as given out by the Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal⁸–

(a) The pair must present themselves to society as husband and wife.

Theymustmeetallotherrequirementsforenteringintoalegalmarriage,includingbeingsingle.

They must have cohabited freely for a significant period of time and presented themselves to the world asspouses.

The National Commission for Women suggested to the Ministry of Women and Child Development in June 2008 that live-in female partners be included in Section 125 of the Code of CriminalProcedurefortherighttomaintenance.ThedecisioninAbhijitBhikasethAutiv.State Of Maharashtra and Others⁹ validated this approach.

⁸ 2010 10 SCC 469

⁹3 Cri.LJ, 889, 892(Bom.2009)

A bench of Justices Vikramajit Sen and A.M. Sapre dismissed a petition by a man who claimed that since he was already married before entering into the live-in relationship; his partner could not claim the status of a wife to be legally entitled to maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act.¹⁰

The Supreme Court ruled in Lata Singh v State of UP & Anr¹¹ that live-in relationships were onlypermittedbetweenunmarriedadultindividualsofdiversesex.Ifaspouseismarried,theguy could be charged with adultery under section 497 of the Indian PenalCode.

InBhaasthamatha&Ors.v.R.VijayaRenganathan&Ors¹².,theSupremeCourtdeclaredthat achildbornoutofalive-inrelationshipmayinheritinthepropertyoftheparents,buthasnoclaim to the Hindu ancestral Coparceneryproperty.

The Supreme Court provided protection against dowry demand to a live-in female partner in the case of Kopisetti S. Subramaniam v. State of Andhra Pradesh ¹³and held that “the appellation dowry has no magical charm.” It refers to a monetary demand made in the context of a marital relationship.” The Court dismissed the defendant’s argument that because he was not married to the complainant, Sec. 498 A did not apply to them and only protected women in live-in relationships from dowry harassment.

Suggestions

Despite the fact that the courts have recognised a few rights of female partners in these relationships,suchastherighttoprotectionfromdomesticviolence,whentheserelationshipsend orthecoupleoreitherofthepartners(particularlythemalepartner)decidestoendtherelationship, thefemalepartner’ssituationbecomesextremelyvulnerable,particularlyifshewasorhadbecome financially dependent on her malepartner.

Even in cases where the courts have recognised live-in relationships and granted the partners (female) a few rights, there are certain requisites that must be present for a relationship to be recognised as a live-in relationship, and if such requisites are not present, the relationship willnot

¹⁰http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-upholds-maintenance-for-live-

¹¹AIR 2006 SC2522

¹²AIR 2010 SC2685

¹³AIR 2009 SC2684

be considered a live-in relationship, and no rights will be available, again to the detriment of the female partner. As a result, the key issue here is the lack of rights available to female partners in live-inrelationshipsincomparisontomalepartners,aswellastheuncertaintycausedbynumerous court judgements regarding the status of live-in relationships and the rights that come fromthem.

So from my research and study there should be a law established by Parliament governing “live- in relationships,” which should address the following issues relating to the persons involved in such a relationship:

The Definition and Characteristics of a Live-In Relationship The Parties’ Maintenance Rights

Issues of Legitimacy and Inheritance by Children Children’s Custody Rights Protection from dowry demand and domestic violence

Inordertobesuccessfullyimplemented,sucharuleshouldalsorequiremandatoryregistrationof live-inrelationships,sothatthepartieshavetruedocumentationoftherelationship’sexistenceand can seek legalrecourse.

People should be educated. They are also conscious of the negative effects/consequences of their actions.Theyshouldbeinformedthat,atthistime,Inthecaseofalive-inrelationship,thereisno statuteprotectingtheirrights.Itisonlythecourtsystemthatisincharge.Precedentsthattheycan use to seek protection orredress.

There should be some National and Global level webinars on these topics to educate people.

There should be some committees which will be very helpful in solving and addressing these sensitive issues.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Apex Court of India has stated that, while the concept of “live-in”relationships assuchdoesnotguaranteeanylegalrights,oncethatrelationshipfallsunderthecategoryofbeing “inthenatureofmarriage,”itconfersseveralrightstothepartiesaswellastheiroffspring,similar

tothoseconferreduponmarriedcouples.Lawshavebeenenactedallovertheworldtoprotectthe rights of both parties in such relationships. Even in circumstances where the parties have no legal responsibilitiestoeachother,thepartieshavebeenfoundresponsibleandliablefortheirchildren, andthechildren’srightshaveunquestionablybeenprotected.Asaresult,itmaybeconcludedthat, while Indian society is not particularly welcoming of live-in relationships, they dooccur.

Individuals who are involved in such relationships should not be denied legal protection just becausenoparticularlegislationexists.Certainly,therightsatissuehereareprimarilythoseofthe femalepartner,buttheConstitutionitself,underArticle15(3),givesthestatetheauthoritytopass laws that favor women. But what is being demanded here is not preferential treatment, but rather equal and warranted legal protection for people in legally recognised relationships.

As it challenges our core socioeconomic order, live-in relationships have always been the subject of controversies and arguments. Many rights have been reserved for married persons by the government in order to encourage marriage. Although being in a live-in relationship is not considered a crime, there is no law prohibiting this type of connection as of yet. Courts have frequently declined to make any form of binding agreements between these unmarried couples, citingpublicpolicyconcerns.Thereiscurrentlynolawin Indiathatdefinesalive-inrelationship.