{"id":324135,"date":"2023-11-03T19:54:40","date_gmt":"2023-11-03T14:24:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=324135"},"modified":"2023-11-03T19:56:16","modified_gmt":"2023-11-03T14:26:16","slug":"live-in-relationships-allahabad-high-court-infatuation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/magazine\/live-in-relationships-allahabad-high-court-infatuation\/","title":{"rendered":"Young and Infatuated"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Dr Swati Jindal Garg<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While dismissing the plea of an inter-faith live-in couple seeking police protection, the Allahabad High Court said that live-in relationships are more of an \u201cinfatuation\u201d without any \u201cstability or sincerity\u201d. As expected, this has created a furore. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Supreme Court has already declared that the right to live together is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. But the law on cohabitation is still evolving and most people in live-in relationships are unaware of their legal rights. In India, female live-in partners have been accorded economic rights under Protections of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There may be several reasons why a couple might want to live together without getting married, including wanting to test compatibility or attaining financial security before marrying. In some cases, it can be because the couple can\u2019t legally marry as in same-sex couples. Some inter-racial or inter-religious marriages are also not legal or permitted under respective personal laws. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But even the Supreme Court verdict allowing the concept of live-in relationships had created furore among orthodox people who feared that it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. In fact, Maa Ghara Foundation Trustee Rutuparna Mohanty had reportedly said: \u201cWe hope the government shall take proper steps to safeguard Indian women\u2019s rights and dignity and save the society from chaos. It will start unraveling the fabric of Indian family life,\u201d she said, referring to live-in relationships. It would give rise to child pregnancy and have far reaching ramifications and could result in the spread of HIV\/AIDS, she added. \u201cChildren born out of living together relationships would not be properly brought up,\u201d Mohanty said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many social activists have identified grave social problems with live-in relationships such as teenage pregnancies, drug abuse and a loose social and moral structure of society in the wake of the apex court judgment. They also alleged that there was no provision for a second wife among Hindus. Hence, enabling the mistress to get the status of a legally married wife in all matters, including share in property, inheritance, and maintenance is contrary to the Act as well as Hindu customs, they claimed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problems that arise from live-in relationships are primarily due to the lack of a binding nature in the relationship. While in a marriage, the couple has certain rights and duties, live-in relationships lack legal status. The fact that such relationships support pre-marital sex means there is a high possibility of a child being born out of wedlock.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Due to the absence of a law addressing live-in relationships in India, courts have largely relied on legal precedents. According to the Supreme Court judgment in Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978), live-in relationships in India are legal but subject to caveats like age of marriage, consent and soundness of mind. In this case, the Court had ruled that a presumption of marriage arises if a man and a woman have lived as husband and wife for a long time. It said: \u201cA strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of its legal origin.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This trend continued, and in 2001, the Allahabad High Court in Payal Sharma vs Nari Niketan ruled that it was not illegal for a man and a woman to live together and drew a distinction between law and morality. It said: \u201cHence, she is a major [adult] and she has the right to go anywhere and live with anyone. In our opinion, a man and a woman, even without getting married can live together if they wish. This may be considered immoral by society but it is not illegal.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Lata Singh vs State of UP (2006), the apex court ruled that two persons of opposite sex living together are not doing anything illegal. Thereafter, in 2010 too, the Court in S Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Another reiterated the 2006 verdict. It said: \u201cA live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offense even though it may be percieved as immoral.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2013, the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma vs VKV Sarma ruled that the woman partner in a live-in relationship is protected under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005, and gave a wide net of legal protection to the women who were being abused and devoid of any legal protection due to their unmarried status. In this landmark judgment, the Court ruled that women are protected under the PWDV Act, 2005, as live-in relationships fall under Section 2(f) of the law which defines a domestic relationship. The Court also ruled that live-in relationships fall under \u201ca relationship in the nature of marriage\u201d mentioned in the sub-section.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The apex court has also laid down the criteria for live-in relationships to be legal, which is the closest to a \u201ccodification\u201d in the absence of any specific law. The criteria includes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n