Live-in relationships(cohabitation) is when consenting adults make a mutual decision to live together without formally marrying. This has become prevalent in today’s social sphere since couples like to ‘test their compatibility’ before marriage. Traditionally marriage has been viewed as a ‘sacrament’, a social institution and a prerequisite for leading a life together. However due to urbanisation, higher education, women’s financial independence live in relationships are becoming quite popular resulting in changing outlook .Historically the Indian society has not approved or created any provisions for live in relationships and has not been progressive about the idea but slowly live in relationship has been intensifying its presence in the society consequently opening doors to legal interpretation.
Legal analysis with sections-
Live-in relationships are legally permissible but not legally institutionalized (binding ). The law does not confer a marital status, yet it does not prohibit them. The recognition of live in relationships exist functionally not formally that means it responds to problems arising from this but does not have a system to formulate it (there have been developments)
The Article 21 of the Indian constitution that says ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law’. Live in relationships, at a constitutional level fall under this purview. The state cannot interfere in consensual cohabitation between adults unless public order or morality is involved, thus it is treated under the private sphere preventing it from being criminalised.
The Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 is the central welfare statute that protects women in qualifying to live in relationships within a formal legal net.
Section 2(f) defines- ‘domestic relationship to include not only marriage, consanguinity, adoption etc but also a relationship in the nature of marriage which is the doorway for women to live in relationships.
This means that if two adults live together and have lived together in a shared household that resembles marriage in stability and public presence then it is treated as a domestic relationship. Once covered in 2(f) the women are considered as ‘aggrieved party’ under section 2(a) eligible to file a complaint section 12 of the act.
Women who face abuse in relationships can seek prohibition orders under section 18 restraining contact and violence. Section 17 of the act grants every woman in a domestic relationship a right to reside in the shared household despite the ownership. Section 19 empowers courts to pass residence orders, preventing evictions, directing the respondent to provide alternative accommodation or pay rent, restraining him to enter certain parts of the home, ( in live in relationships where the domestic relationship is proved)
Under section 20, courts can order monetary reliefs including maintenance, loss of earnings, medical expenses and expenses for children etc. Section 22 allows damages for physical and mental injury.
Protection of women from domestic violence act 2005 is the only central statute that protects women in a live-in relationship.
The laws governing children born out of a live in relationship are criminal procedure code section 125 (mirrored in the BNSS-section 144) and the Hindu act 1955.
• Section 125 CrPC permitted “wife” (including divorced wife unable to maintain herself), legitimate/illegitimate minor children, and parents to claim maintenance.
• BNSS 2023 largely re enacts this scheme in Section 144, with the term “dependent spouse,” but without explicit reference to live in partners
In the Hindu act 1955 section 16 legitimises children of void and voidable marriages, giving them inheritance rights.
The recent code developments in the state UCC code of historically of Goa, recently developed by Uttarakhand and reportedly Gujrat and Assam are working on a code. The UCC of Goa does not specifically talk about live in relationships whereas in Uttarakhand’s UCC Live in relationships are legally recognised.
The definition of a live in Relationship according to Uttarakhand's UCC is -
• The UCC defines a live in relationship as a relationship between a man and a woman “in the nature of marriage” who cohabit in a shared household.
• Only unmarried, heterosexual couples can enter such a relationship; a person already married or already in another live in relationship cannot validly register a new one.
• Relationships within prohibited degrees (e.g. close blood relatives akin to marriage prohibitions) are barred; the Schedule lists multiple such prohibited relationships.
The mandatory registration process includes-
• Part 3 of the Uttarakhand UCC requires partners to file a “statement of live in relationship” within one month of commencing cohabitation, and a separate statement on termination.
• Registration can be done online (using Aadhaar OTP) or offline before the local registrar; the registrar must verify and decide on the application within 30 days, and rejection is appealable.
• A detailed, roughly 16 page form must be filled with identity, address, shared household details, and emergency contacts, and couples already cohabiting must show proof of common residence such as electricity or water bills.
Interaction with Indian Law-
• Even outside the UCC, Supreme Court jurisprudence holds that live in relationships between consenting adults are not a crime and attract protections like domestic violence remedies for women.
• Children born from long term, marriage like live in relationships are treated as legitimate for many purposes, including inheritance in self acquired property of parents
Case laws-
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)-
S. Khushboo V Kanniammal (2010) directly advanced legal recognition of a live-in relationship in India by declaring them neither illegal nor criminal offenses. The Supreme court emphasises that consensual cohabitation between adults falls under the right to life (Article 21). The judgement explicitly stated that a ‘live in relationship' is not an illegal act, even if it offends the traditional norms and morality and criminality are not co-extensive Justices K.G. Balakrishnan and Deepak Verma clarified no law prohibits adults from living together without marriage, protecting such arrangements from criminal prosecution under IPC sections for obscenity or public mischief.
D.Veluswamy V D.Patchaiammal (2010)-
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) established criteria for "relationships in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, granting limited rights to qualifying live-in partners while excluding casual relationships.
The Supreme Court laid down a four-fold test: (1) parties must be eligible to marry (unmarried, divorced, adult); (2) mutual consent to long-term cohabitation; (3) holding out as husband/wife publicly; (4) significant duration in a shared household.
Legal implication of the case-
This ruling extended maintenance under Section 125 CrPC and DV Act protections (e.g., residence, no eviction) to qualifying live-in women, building on Khushboo by clarifying non-casual relationships merit safeguards akin to marriage.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)-
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) addressed live-in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Indra Sarma, an unmarried woman, lived with married colleague V.K.V. Sarma for about 18 years, investing in a joint business and enduring alleged economic deprivation, forced abortions, and eventual abandonment without support after family intervention. She filed for residence rights, ₹25,000 monthly maintenance, medical compensation, and ₹3.5 lakhs relief; Magistrate/Sessions Court awarded ₹18,000/month, but Karnataka High Court quashed it per Velusamy tests.
They established categories of live in relationships-
• Type I: Casual/short-term – No rights.
• Type II: Marriage-like (eligible parties).
• Type III: Gandharva-style (consensual, eligible).
• Type IV: Concubine/keep.
• Type V: Adulterous (knowing married partner) – Limited, case-specific relief
Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018)-
Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) affirmed the right of adult couples to cohabit consensually, even if the marriage is voidable due to the husband's underage status. Nandakumar (under 21) married 20-year-old Thushara in 2017; her parents filed a habeas corpus petition claiming kidnapping, leading Kerala High Court to declare no valid marriage (lacking proof beyond photos) and entrust her custody to them despite her majority.
The Supreme court overturned the High courts holding that Thushara (major) had liberty to live with Nandakumar as per article 21. The marriage was not considered void under the Hindu Marriage act section 11. They emphasized that no guardian approval was needed for major’s choices, protecting against parental interference in consensual adult relationships akin to live in relationships.
Critical Analysis-
1. Social reality and legal hesitation
Live in relationships signal a clear social shift from the traditional beliefs of society without a legal framework. The court acknowledges the issue but hesitates to legitimise it.
2. Protection oriented, does not confer rights-
The major criticism is that this is reactive rather than preactive. Legal intervention usually occurs after a dispute has taken place etc.
3. Absence of property and inheritance rules-
There is no statutory rules, no presumption of shared ownership, no automatic succession rights. This disproportionately affects the weaker partner.
4. The marriage like test is conceptual issue-
A key analytical weakness is the insistence that a live-in relationship must resemble marriage to be a live-in relationship. It imposes marital norms on non-marital couples.
Personal Insights-
I believe that live in relationships is a very progressive concept especially for couples that do not want to enter the institution of marriage for various reasons such as fear of the failure of the institution of marriage, testing compatibility etc . On a breakup the couple can part ways quite easily . The best part I found about this concept was that the couples could pace their own relationship.
Live in relationships in India reflect an evolving social sphere driven by individual choices, changing gender roles and shifting attitudes towards marriage. The legal system has responded hesitantly and cautiously by protecting them and giving them lawful expression but not giving a full institutional status. Protection is extended mainly through welfare oriented to prevent exploitation, particularly of women and children. The selective recognition, while preserving flexibility and privacy, has also resulted in legal uncertainty, property rights and financial security etc.
Recommendations-
1. Clear legislative guidelines- Introducing a limited statutory framework defining rights and obligations from a long term cohabitation.
2. Strengthen economic protection- Provide clearer civil remedies for the weaker partner.
3. Public awareness and sensitisation- Promote awareness among law enforcement and society to reduce moral policing and ensure respectful handling of consensual adult relationships.