Indian society has witnessed a remarkable shift in the last two decades: the growing acceptance of live-in relationships. What was once considered socially unacceptable and legally unclear has now become a topic of modern constitutional discourse. Today, courts in India recognize live-in relationships as a legitimate form of companionship protected under the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This blog explores how India reached this stage — why live-ins emerged, how society is responding, and how the judiciary has shaped the legal framework around these relationships. While statutory laws remain silent, Indian courts have played a crucial role in ensuring dignity, protection, and rights to couples choosing this form of partnership.
Why Live-in Relationships Are Rising in India
1. Urbanisation and Modern Lifestyles
Metropolitan cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, and Pune have seen growing cohabitation among young professionals. Long working hours, shifting careers, financial independence, and exposure to global culture have changed how younger Indians perceive relationships.
2. Delayed Marriages
People are marrying at a later age due to:
- Career priorities
- Higher education
- Economic pressures
- Desire for personal space
Live-in relationships offer companionship without the immediate legal responsibilities of marriage.
3. Fear of Marital Breakdown
India’s rising divorce rates have made many cautious about marriage. Live-ins provide an opportunity to understand compatibility before making lifelong commitments.
4. Assertion of Personal Freedom
Younger generations increasingly view relationships as a matter of personal choice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that consenting adults have the right to live together, even without marriage.
Landmark Case:
Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) – SC held that two adults have the fundamental right to live together, even if not married.
Social Acceptance: Changing but Uneven
Despite legal recognition, live-ins continue to face stigma, especially in rural India and conservative families.
Western v. Traditional Values
Critics see live-ins as:
- A threat to Indian culture
- A breakdown of family structure
- A path to moral degradation
However, courts emphasize that morality cannot overrule constitutional freedoms.
Landmark Statement:
In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court observed:
“Living together is a part of the right to life and cannot be construed as illegal.”
This judgment marked a major social and legal milestone.
Legal Status of Live-in Relationships in India
India has no specific statute governing live-in relationships.
No law directly defines:
- “Live-in relationship”
- Rights of partners
- Duration required for legal protection
Most protections come from judicial interpretation.
1. Protection Under Article 21
Courts consistently hold that live-ins fall within the scope of right to life, dignity, and personal liberty.
Key Case: Nandakumar & Another v. State of Kerala (2018)
The Kerala High Court initially separated a couple stating the man was not of legal marriageable age.
The Supreme Court reversed this and held:
“Even if they are not competent to marry, they have the right to live together.”
This cemented the principle that marriage is not a prerequisite to cohabitation.
2. Legitimacy of Children Born From Live-In Relationships
Indian courts protect children from social and legal stigma.
Leading Case: Tulsa & Ors. v. Durghatiya (2008)
The Supreme Court held that children born from long-term live-in relationships are legitimate and have inheritance rights in ancestral property.
This judgement ensures such children do not suffer discrimination due to their parents’ relationship choice.
3. Protection from Abuse: Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005
The Domestic Violence Act defines “relationship in the nature of marriage,” allowing women in live-in relationships to seek protection, maintenance, and compensation.
Case: D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)
The Supreme Court issued guidelines to determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies under the Act. Conditions include:
- Partners must be adults
- Must live together voluntarily
- Must behave like a married couple
- Long-term or stable relationship
This case drew the line between a genuine live-in relationship and casual or one-night arrangement.
4. Maintenance Rights
While live-ins do not automatically grant maintenance rights like marriage, courts have allowed maintenance in genuine cases under the DV Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Notable Case: Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma (2013)
The Supreme Court provided a detailed analysis of what constitutes a “relationship in the nature of marriage” and recognized the vulnerability of women in such relationships.
The judgment emphasized the need to protect women from exploitation.
5. Police Protection to Live-In Couples
Many couples approach courts due to threats from families or society.
Courts repeatedly order police to grant protection to consenting adult couples.
Examples include:
- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018)
- Multiple Punjab & Haryana High Court cases affirming protection for couples regardless of marital status.
Challenges and Criticisms
1. No Comprehensive Legal Framework
Absence of codified law leads to inconsistent interpretations.
2. Social Backlash
Families often refuse to accept such unions; couples face harassment, eviction, or threats.
3. Misuse Concerns
Some fear that live-ins may be misused to claim false domestic violence cases or to escape marital obligations.
Conclusion
Live-in relationships represent a significant shift in India’s social and legal landscape. While statutory law is silent, courts have stepped in to protect the dignity, liberty, and rights of individuals choosing this lifestyle. As society evolves, lawmakers may eventually formalize rights and responsibilities associated with live-ins.
Today, one thing is clear:
Live-in relationships are not illegal, not immoral, and are protected under the Constitution.
They are a reflection of modern India balancing tradition with individual autonomy.
References
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.
- Lata Singh v. State of UP, (2006) 5 SCC 475.
- Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602.
- Tulsa & Ors. v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520.
- D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.
- Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan, (2018) 16 SCC 368.
#LiveInRelationshipLaw #FamilyLawIndia #Article21Rights #DomesticViolenceAct #LiveInRights #LegalBlogIndia #ConstitutionalLaw #SupremeCourtJudgments #CohabitationLawIndia
Discover more from Dr. Ganesh Visavale
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Ganesh Visavale 