One of the biggest challenges that our Indian couples have is dealing with relatives about their relationship. This is a wonder that most Indian couples who are in committed relationships keep this information a secret from their families.
The structure of marriage appears to have developed with a goal of regulating sexual encounters, assuring the legitimacy of children and fostering of their intellectual and psychological growth in a friendly environment. Human values, particularly those related to husband-wife relationships, have experienced a fundamental upheaval as a result of the industrial revolution and the expansion of education, which gave women new opportunities for economic independence.Non-marital heterosexual relationships, or “live-in” relationships as they are more generally known, are the result of fast shifting social standards. Urban, well-educated middle-class, and elite young individuals have formed these partnerships in an effort to maintain their freedom by maintaining them out of the “shackles” that institutionalised marriage.
Live-in relationships, also referred to as common-law marriages, informal marriages or marriages of convenience, considered marriages, and other names, are de facto non-marital heterosexual relationships that are widespread in the West. It is a deliberate repudiation of the structure of matriarchy, the prejudices it fosters, and the limitations and injustices it is known to represent.Even if no legally recognised marriage ceremony is conducted, no civil marriage contract is signed, and the marriage is not recorded in a civil registry, it is nevertheless a type of inter-persona status that is legally recognised in some jurisdictions as a marriage.
Analysing the term Live-in-relationship
A live-in relationship is a combination in which two people of any gender live under the same roof or in a shared residence, with or without the intention of creating a contract The jurisprudence of live-in relationships roots back to 1929, when in the Mohammed Ibrahim Khan judgment, the Bombay High Court ruled that a couple’s prolonged cohabitation is sufficient ground for presuming marriage. Courts have frequently invoked this defence to uphold the rights of women who have been abandoned by their male partners.
The Supreme Court of India however, acknowledged live-in relationships as ‘domestic relationships’ covered under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the case of S. Khushboo versus Kanniammal ;The court also ruled that live-in relationships are acceptable and that it is never wrong or illegal for two adults to live together.
In 2013, a domestic cohabitation between an adult man and an adult female who are not married is how the Supreme Court described live-in relationships in Indra Sarma versus V.K.V. Sarma. According to the Indian Penal Code, it is also unlawful for a married man to get into a domestic relationship with an unmarried adult female.
The legality of a live-in relationship arises from Article 19 of the Constitution, which protects the right to free speech and expression, and Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. Live-in relationships involving same-sex partners are also legal.Living together not only allows a couple to get to know one another without entering into a legally binding commitment, but it also spares them the complexity of family expectations and stretched legal proceedings if they decide to get a divorce later.
Conflicting Views of different high court
The High Courts of Bombay, Allahabad and Rajasthan have repeatedly refused to grant protection to such live-in couples, citing reasons that a live-in relationship between a married and an unmarried person is illegal. The Punjab and Haryana High Court went a step further and referred to these relationships as unacceptable, claiming that they destroy the country’s ‘social fabric’. However, the Delhi High Court, taking a contrarian stand, adopted a wider approach, upholding the rights of a female live-in partner, irrespective of the marital status of both individuals. Madhya Pardesh high court has opined that India is a conservative society where girls usually do not indulge in carnal activities without the prospect of marriage visible at the horizon
In such circumstances, divergent views of High Courts are bound to be frowned upon by the public as an encroachment upon their right to cohabit with individuals of their own choice without forging a formal relationship in consonance with archaic notion of marriage.This state of abeyance emanating from conflicting judgments has led to anarchy not just amongst the common population, but between the practitioners of law as well. Moreover, it has led to a state of turmoil where the citizens who are unaware about legal nuances are uncertain whether live-in relationships are even recognized under law or not.
Property right in live-in-relationship
Many additional problems, such as succession or property inheritance, have emerged since the legalisation of live-in relationships. One of a person’s most fundamental rights is the right to their own property. Women had to struggle for their due portion of the property because of traditional Patriarchal transmission, and they continue to do so now. In the case of live-in relationships, which our culture has not yet embraced, it gets much more problematic.
The Supreme Court ruled in Parayankandiyal Ammo v. K. Devi that children born outside of officially recognised marriages ought to be accepted as genuine in the instance. While their relationship ought not to resemble a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship, this is a must for the kid to be considered genuine. According to the ruling in the case of Jinia Keotin v. Kumar Sitaram Manhji, only stuff that was obtained independently by the parents may be transmitted, but not ancestoral assets..
According to the current legal scenario, anyone can be nominated by a person for his/her w ill,but it is only possible in the case of self-acquired property.A succession certificate was granted by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadhari v. Sukharna Bai, to a Live-in partner,as the partner was nominated by the deceased partner.
Live-in-relationship Vs Bigamy
Section 2(f) of the DV Act defines a domestic relationship as a relationship. There are two main reasons for recognizing relationships
According to us, live-in relationships including married individuals fall beneath the purview of “domestic relationships” as defined within the DV Act. In the case of Malarkodi Malar v. The Chief Internal Audit Officer (2021), the Madras High Court supported this point of view and acknowledged that Section 2(f) was broad adequate in its application to cover relationships falling under the preceding latter type. It’s also important to remember that the definition of live-in relationships as it exists today in law was developed under the previous adultery regime, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), eliminating adultery as a crime.
Second, it is quite likely that a live-in relationship involving a married person with an unmarried person is not contrary to Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code’s prohibition on bigamy. The clause makes it very apparent that solely a second “marriage” within the husband or wife’s lifetime is subject to criminal prosecution. The clause makes no mention of whether a live-in relationship that has the “nature of marriage” will be regarded as an implicit marriage for purposes of personal law. The primary goal of the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) was to protect the wife or female live-in partner from abuse by the husband or male live-in spouse. The primary objective of the DV Act violation investigation whether a woman, married or not, is involved in a domestic relationship with a male is on the actual harm caused to the woman and the protection provided as a result. Any denial of protection would be a serious wrongdoing to the suffering ladies. On the moral grounds that such partnerships undermine the integrity of marriage and encourage bigamy, the Bombay, Allahabad, Rajasthan, and Punjab High Courts regrettably refused such victims protection.
We sincerely disagree, though, since we believe that the courts are wholly in error. It is neither an endorsement of bigamy nor a criticism of the concept of marriage that the previously mentioned group of live-in partnerships is recognised as being comparable to a domestic relationship for the purposes of Section 2(f) of the DV Act. It just recognises the true reality of our society as it is and cleverly advances the key objectives of the DV Act’s protection of women.
Live in relationship : A taboo
As modernity advances, the notion of live-in partnerships has expanded throughout urban India. Society needs to understand that having a relationship but not getting married won’t be harmful and will really assist young people figure out what they want. Women and their families may suffer if they are forced into partnerships they are not ready for.Premarital sex must first become normative in society. Even if the Indian judiciary has made an effort to legalise in-law relationships, much more has to be done. To address the issues with such partnerships and protect the partners’ dignity, regardless of gender, a suitable legal framework has to be created.
Parents ought to remain in continual connection with their adult children when they decide to live with someone else, rather than fearing or blaming them or their respective partner and cutting off all contact. Interpersonal relationships are a very personal and customised topic that may or may not work for everybody involved. It may be unsettling to be in a relationship with minimal security, especially for women who may be subject to intimidation and terror.
Many people have expressed disapproval of shradha’s activities. The investigating officers took things too far by attributing the heinous murder on the “liberalism” of live-in relationships in order to further their machismo towards schooled women whom enjoy autonomy. The main issue is that there are no areas that provide safe protection for women, and because of how they are taught, women are unable to notice warning signs when they are being violated in the name of love. Because Shradha Walker couldn’t manage to reach safety while still clinging to her faith in true love, her passing is tragic. Victim-blaming on social media and the “love jihad” component must end right away because they have terrible ramifications and show an imbalance of sympathy. Walker ought to have gotten a lot better in life
If you live with someone, always keep in mind that omitting to disclose any abuse—physical or psychological—out of concern that society will hold you accountable may commonly result in an offence that is more serious. Have the guts to leave and speak out against any abuse you may be experiencing.It is past time for society to stop judging a woman’s decisions and how she ought to have spent her life and start respecting everyone’s option, whatever their marital status or personal choices.
A way ahead
People may view live-in-relationship as a n untentichal issue but moral policing is not an important where the arrangement is sanctioned by the touchstone of the fundamental rights It is commendable that the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the first court to recently assemble a larger bench in order to address the difficult legal issue mentioned above given the conflicting conclusions reached by several courts on the subject. The conclusions of the Punjab-Haryana High Court will not, nevertheless, have the final word. In the end, this dispute can be resolved either by a national law that clarifies the situation or by the Supreme Court of India resolving the disparities among the individual
high courts.