Live-In Relationship

Hello and welcome back to My Version Of You. I hope you all are safe, healthy, and going extremely well. So today I will be posting about the live-in relationship in India where it’s still considered taboo.

In my opinion, a live-in relationship not only allows the couple to know the partner without having to engage in a lawfully binding relationship but moreover avoids the chaos of family drama and long court procedures in case the couple decides to break up. It involves continuous cohabitation between the partners without any responsibilities or commitments towards one another. There’s no law tying them together, and consequently, either of the partners can walk out of the relationship, as and when they want.

So, let’s see what this article has to say….

“There would be no society if living together depended upon understanding each other.”

                                                                                                   –Eric Hoffer

Introduction:

It is being truly said that the sole thing which is constant during this world is change. Indian society has watched an exceptional altar in its living design inside the past few years. People are gradually and slowly opening their minds towards the concept of pre-marital sex and live-in connections. However, this variation has been continuously under criticism and highly discussed per se concepts lack legality and acceptance by society. Unlike marriage, in live-in relationships, couples don’t seem to be married to every other but live together under the identical roof that resembles a relationship like marriage. In other words, we can say it is cohabitation. In India, only those relations between a person and a girl are taken into account to be legitimate where marriage has taken place between the supported existing marriage laws otherwise all other varieties of relationships are deemed to be illegitimate.

The reason behind people choosing to own a live-in relationship is to test the compatibility between couples before getting legally married. It also exempts partners from the chaos of family drama and lengthy court procedures just in case the couple decides to break-up. Regardless of the reason, it’s very evident that in a very conventional society like ours, where the institution of marriage is taken into account to be “sacred” an increasing number of couples opt to have a live-in relationship, as a perpetual plan, over marriage. In such circumstances, many legal and social issues have arisen which became the subject of debate. With time many incidents are reported and seen where partners in live-in relationships or a toddler born out of such relationships have remained vulnerable for the very simple reason that such relationships are kept outside the realm of law. There has been evident misuse by the partners in live-in relationships since they don’t have many duties and responsibilities to perform. It too talks around the rights accessible to live-in accomplices in India additionally, what’s the status of adolescents born out of such relationships.

Live-in Relationship and Law in India:

There is no specific law concerning the matter of live-in relationship in India. There’s no enactment to put down the rights and commitments for the parties in a very live-in relationship, and the status of youngsters born to such couples. There’s no legal definition of live-in relationship and amid this way, the legitimate status of such a combination of affiliations is additionally unsubstantiated. The Indian law doesn’t allow any rights or commitments to the parties of live-in relationships. However, the court has clarified the concept of live-in relationships through different judgments.

Though law continues to be unclear about the status of such a relationship yet few rights are granted by interpreting and amending the present legislation so that misuse of such relationships is prevented by the partners. Various legislations are discussed below-

Domestic Violence Act, 2005

For the very first time in Protection of girls from Violence Act, 2005 the legislature has acknowledged live-in relationships by giving rights and protection to those females who don’t seem to be legally married, but rather live with a male individual in a very relationship, which is within the idea of marriage, additionally resembling wife, however not akin to wife.

Section 2(f) of the domestic violence act, 2005 defines:

Residential relationship implies a relationship between two people who live or have a relationship, at any point of your time, lived together in a shared family, once they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship within the nature of marriage, adoption or are members of the family habitation as a joint family.

Though the live-in relationship isn’t categorically defined within the Act is left to the court’s discretion for interpretation. By the aforementioned provision, the court interpreted the expression “relationship within the nature of marriage”. The provisions presently made applicable to the individuals who are in live-in relationships. Courts presume live-in relationships to be covered under the ambit of the expression because the words nature of marriage and live-in relationship stand on the identical line and meaning. This offers women some basic rights to guard themselves against the abuse of fraudulent marriage, bigamous relationships.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 125 CrPC was incorporated to avoid vagrancy and destitution for a wife/minor child/old age parents, and therefore the same has now been extended by judicial interpretation to partners of a live-in relationship.

In November 2000 the Mali math Committee i.e. the Committee on Changes of Criminal Equity Framework, was set in 2003 when the Malimath Committee submitted its report, it made several recommendations under the pinnacle “offenses against women”.one amongst its recommendations was to amend Section 125 CrPC to alter the meaning of “wife”. As a result of this alteration, a revision was made and now the expression “wife” incorporates the women who were previously in a very live-in relationship and now her accomplice has abandoned her at his will so a woman in a live-in relationship can now get the status of a wife. It expresses that if a female has been in a very live-in relationship for a smart period of your time, she must have the legitimate privileges as that of a spouse and might claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. Where accomplices live together as spouse and spouse, an assumption would emerge in favor of wedlock. However, in a very debate it was recently observed that it’s a divorced wife who is treated as the wife under Section 125 CrPC and might claim maintenance and as for partners once they don’t seem to be legally married, they cannot give divorce to each other and hence cannot claim maintenance under this section.

Evidence Act, 1872

The court may assume the presence of any truth which it considers likely to possess happened, respect being given to the common course of common occasions, human conduct, public and personal business, in a way very related to the facts of the actual case. Therefore, where a person and a woman live respectively for an extended spell of your time as a pair then there would be an assumption of marriage.

Judicial Response to Live-in Relationships:

“With changing social standards of authenticity in each society, counting our own, what was illegitimate within the past is additionally genuine today.”- Noteworthy Equity A.K. Ganguly in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun.

Indian judiciary has taken a result to fill the gap that was created in the absence of any specific statute referring to live-in relationships. It should be considered immoral within the eyes of society but it’s not the least bit “illegal” within the eye of the law. Indian judiciary intends to render justice to the partners of live-in relationships who were earlier not protected by any statute when subjected to any abuse arising out of such relationships. Judiciary is neither expressly promoting such a concept nor prohibiting such a variety of relationships. It is, however, just concerned that there mustn’t be any miscarriage of justice. In this manner, whereas choosing different cases, the judiciary has kept in intellect different variables counting both societal standards and sacred values.

Since the time of the council, a presumption for couples’ habitation without getting legally married had begun. This fact is seen in Andrahennadi Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendi geBla amy here the board took a stand that, “where an individual and a lady are demonstrated to claim lived separately as a life partner, the law will assume, unless the other be demonstrated that they were living respectively in results of a legitimate marriage, and not in a very condition of concubinage”. This same was taken in Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Md. Ibrahim Khan wherein the court held the wedding to be legitimate as both the partners have lived together as a spouse.

Later the Supreme Court’s judgment in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation has legal validity to a 50-year live-in relationship. But within the same case, the Supreme Court observed that “The presumption was rebuttable, but an important burden lies on the one that seeks to deprive the connection of legal origin to prove that no marriage transpires. Law inclines in support of authenticity and scowls upon a bastard.” Whereas it ought to entice to assume the association inside the nature of marriage, certainly impossible to miss circumstances do happen which can force the Supreme Court to rebut such a presumption.

The Allahabad judicature again recognized the concept of live-in relationship in Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan, wherein the Bench consisting of Justice M. Katju and Justice R.B.Misra watched that “In our opinion, an individual and a young lady, indeed without getting married, can live together if they need to. This might be thought to be immoral by society, but it’s not illegal there’s a contrast between law and morality.

Thereafter, in Ramdev Food Items (P) Ltd.v. ArvindbhaiRambhai Patel, the Court observed that two of those that are in a very live-in relationship without a proper marriage don’t seem to be criminal offenders. This judgment then was made applicable to varied other cases.

In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, the Court held that the live-in relationship if continued for a while, cannot be termed as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship in which there’s a presumption of marriage between the parties. By this approach of the Court, it is inferred that the Court is in favor of treating long-term living relationships as marriage instead of making it a brand-new concept like a live-in relationship.

In the landmark case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, the Supreme Court held that a living relationship comes within the ambit of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that live-in relationships are permissible and therefore the act of two major habitations cannot be considered illegal or unlawful.

In the later part of 2010, the Delhi judiciary decided Alok Kumar v. State which also was associated with live-in relationships. The complainant was in a very live-in relationship with the petitioner, who had not even divorced his previous wife and had a toddler of his own. The complainant also had a toddler of her own. The Delhi judicature, therefore, tagged the character of such a relationship as a walk-in and walk-out relationship with no legal strings attached. it’s a contract of habitation “which is renewed every day by the parties and might be terminated by either of the parties without the consent of the opposite party”. those that don’t want to enter into such relationships enter into a relationship of marriage which creates a legal bond that can’t be broken by either party at will. Thus, those that opt to have “live-in relationships” cannot later complain of infidelity or immorality.

In another leading case of Koppisetti Subbarao v. The State of A.P.

The Supreme Court said that the classification “dowry” has no magical charm. It alludes to the letter of invitation of money in connection to a nuptial. The court has not accepted the contention of the defendant that since he wasn’t legally married to the complainant, ‘Section 498’ failed to make a difference to him in a very stage ahead in shielding the girl from badgering for dowry in a live-in relationship.

In Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Kumar Singh Kushwaha where judicature declared that appellant wife isn’t entitled to maintenance on the bottom that only legally married person can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. But the Supreme Court turned down the judgment delivered by the judiciary and awarded maintenance to the wife (appellant) saying that provisions of Section 125 CrPC must be considered within the light of Section 26 of the protection of women from domestic violence (pwdv) act, 2005. The Supreme Court said that the ladies who are in the live-in relationships are equally entitled to any or all the claims and reliefs that are available for a legally wedded wife.

A relationship like marriage under the 2005 domestic violence act must have consented to some basic criteria. It provides that the couple must be of legal status to marry or should be qualified to enter into a legal marriage. It was also stated that the couple must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves resolutely on the planet as resembling spouses for a major period of your time. All types of live-in relationships mustn’t be covered under the Act of 2005. Simply spending every week together or a 1-night stand wouldn’t make it a household relationship. It additionally held that if a person includes a “keep” whom he maintains financially and uses principally for sexual reasons or potentially as a slave then it’d not be considered, as a relationship within the nature of marriage.

Lately, in a very landmark case, the Supreme Court handled the difficulty of live-in relationships thoroughly and also laid down the conditions for a live-in relationship that will lean the status of marriage. On 26-11-2013, a two-Judge bench of the permanent court constituting K.S.P. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ. in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V.Sarma held that “when the women are cognizant of the exceptionally reality that the individual with whom she is in a live-in relationship and who as of now incorporates a legitimately married spouse and two children, isn’t entitled to varied reliefs available to a legally wedded wife and also to those that enter into a relationship within the nature of marriage” as per provisions of Pwdv act, 2005. But during this case, the Supreme Court felt that denial of any protection would amount to a good injustice to victims of illegal relationships.

 Therefore, the Supreme Court emphasized that there’s a good have to extend Section 2(f) which defines “domestic relationships” in Pwdv act, 2005 so on include victims of illegal relationships who are poor, illiterate together with their children who are born out of such relationships and who don’t have any source of income. Further, the Supreme Court requested Parliament to enact brand new legislation supporting certain guidelines given by it so that the victims are given protection from any societal wrong caused by such relationships.

Following are the rules given by the Supreme Court:

Duration of Period of Relationship

Section 2(f) of the Violence (DV) Act has used the expression ‘at any point of time’, which implies an inexpensive period of your time to keep up and continue a relationship which can vary from case to case, depending upon the very factual situation.

Shared Household

The expression is defined under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act and, hence, there’s no need for further elaboration.

The pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements

Supporting one another, or anybody of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or within the name of the lady, long-term investments in the business, shares in separate and joint names, so, on having a long-standing relationship, is also a guiding factor.

Domestic Arrangements

Forcing the duty, particularly on the woman to run the house, do the family household work like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up keeping the house, etc.

Relationship

Marriage like relationship refers to a relationship, not only for pleasure, except for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of youngsters, so, to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring, etc.

Children

Having children could be a strong indication of a relationship within the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, shall have a long-standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is additionally a robust indication.

Socialization publicly

Holding resolute the general public and socializing with friends, relations, as if they’re husband and wife could be a strong circumstance to carry the connection is within the nature of marriage.

Intention and Conduct of the Parties:

The common purposeful of parties on what their relationship is to be and to include, and on their respective parts and duties essentially decide the character of that relationship.”

 Lately, a point of interest judgment on 8-4-2015 by the situation comprising Justice M.Y. Eqbal and Justice Amitava Roy, the Supreme Court has chosen out that couples living in a live-in relationship are assumed legitimately married. The Seat too included that the woman inside the relationship would be qualified to acquire the property after the passing of her partner.

 Legal Status of the Child Born Out of Live-in Relationship:

The first time when the Supreme Court said the authenticity of adolescents born out of the live-in relationship was in S.P.S. Suruttayan, the Supreme Court had said, “If an individual and lady live under the indistinguishable roof and cohabiting for some a long time, there’ll be an assumption beneath Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and therefore the children born to them won’t be illegitimate.” Further, the court interpreted the status and legislation to an extent that it shows conformity from Article 39(f) of the Constitution of India which sets out the requirement of the State to grant the youngsters adequate opportunity so that they develop properly and further safeguard their interest.

Dealing with the recent case on the legitimacy of youngsters of such relationships, the Supreme Court in Tulsa v. Durghatana Has held that a toddler born out of such a relationship will now not be considered as an offspring. The important precondition for the identical should be that the oldsters must have lived under one roof and cohabited for a significant while for the society to recognize them as husband and wife and it mustn’t be a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship.

In another case Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, the Supreme Court held that a toddler born out of a live-in relationship is also allowed to inherit the property of the oldsters (if any) and so lean legitimacy within the eyes of the law. We’ve seen that the Indian judiciary within the absence of specific legislation is protecting the rights of the youngsters by giving the law a broader interpretation so that no child is “bastardized” for not faulting his/her own.

On 31-3-2011 a Special Bench of judges in the Supreme Court of India consisting of G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun remarked that regardless of the connection between parents, the birth of a toddler out of such a relationship has got to be viewed independently of the connection of the oldsters. it’s as plain and clear as sunshine that a toddler born out of such a relationship is innocent and is entitled to any or all the rights and privileges available to children born out of valid marriages. This is often the crux of Section 16(3) of the amended Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Conclusion:

The live-in relationship has always been the main target of debates because it possesses threats to our basic societal framework. it’s not considered as an offense as there’s no law until the date that prohibits this type of relationship. To bring justice to that female who is the victim of live-in relationships Indian judiciary took a step, brought interpretations, and made such arrangements valid. Still, India has not legalized live-in-relationship, legalizing means having the special laws for it.

As of now, no legislation or statute specifically governs matters associated with succession, maintenance, guardianship about live-in relationships. However, for a cover of girls from the Domestic Act 2005, the legislature has acknowledged the property of partners living in a very live-in relationship to induce protection. it’s recognized live-in relationships through various judgments so that individuals of the relationships are protected against abuse. At the same time, courts frequently declined to create any reasonably positive steps towards legalizing such practice by allowing any compulsory agreements between unmarried couples as this might conflict with the final society strategy. It lands up obvious that the Indian judiciary isn’t prepared to treat all reasonably living relations as resembling marriage. 

An only stable and a fairly long period of relations between the couples are given the advantage of the 2005 Act. The judiciary must make sure that the law has got to accommodate the changing scenario of the society. Though courts through various judgments and case laws attempted to induce a transparent picture regarding the status of live-in relationships, yet it remains unclear on various aspects, where there’s an urgent need for having different sets of rules and regulation and codification with regards to such reasonable relationships.

There must be a separate statute managing this current issue so that the rights of living partners, children born out of such relationships and everyone likely to be littered with such relationships should be protected. Not all live-in relationships should lean legitimate status, but only those which satisfy certain basic requirements. At the identical time, there should even be awareness among live-in partners regarding the legal consequences arising out of such an organization.

Share this post: on Twitter on Facebook on LinkedIn