Introduction
Since the period of Vedic civilization, marriage has been revered in Indian culture as a sacred union. Marriage has become even more sophisticated throughout time. The idea of marriage and relationships has evolved along with society and human psychology’s ongoing advancements. The idea of cohabitation are more flexible and kind in today’s generation. The Apex Court in the case of “Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma” has defined Live-in-Relationship as “a domestic cohabitation between an unmarried adult male and an unmarried adult female.” It is no longer an offense in India, and several judgments of the Apex Court have given numerous recommendations regarding maintenance, property, and child legal status. In India, it is still a contentious subject. Numerous grey areas demand careful treatment, including official documents, cultural considerations, “property rights, will and gift rights, anti-religion status,” the LGBT community, and others.
Live-in-Relationship is no longer an offense.
The Apex court has ruled in several judgments that is a man and a woman have been living together for a long time and even have children, the judiciary will presume that they are married. The same rules apply to their relationship. In the case of “Payal Sharma v. Nari Niketan,” the Allahabad High Court recognized the idea of live-in -relationship. The bench stated that “In our opinion, a man and a woman can live together even without getting married if they wish to. Although society may view this as immoral, it is not against the law. There is a distinction between morality and the law.” After then, the Supreme Court noted that a live-in relationship between two adults without a legal marriage could not be considered a crime in the case of “S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & anr.” It is also mentioned that there was no law against premarital sex or live-in relationships. The right to life and personal freedom is guaranteed as a fundamental right by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In “Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel,” the court stated that a live-in relationship between two people who are not legally married is not a crime.
Legislative Framework on Live-in-relationship
Religion has a notable influence in Indian culture, not just on a spiritual level but in terms of law also. As a result, many personals and social issues are governed by laws with religious foundations. Personal laws in India place a lot of restrictions on the family as a unit. These rules of conduct are flexible and necessary; they are modified as they become necessary. It makes sense that personal religious laws initially did not acknowledge live-in relationships, given how religion feels about marriage and how new the idea of living in is.
The “Protection of Women from Domestic Abuse Violence of 2005” protects women who live in relationships like marriage’ against cruelty, abuse, or other types of atrocities, is the only law that even vaguely acknowledges live-in relationships. However, the absence of live-in partnerships from family law generally comes from two different directions. On the one hand, because these unions are not legally recognized, couples cannot derive statutorily born rights from these connections. When it comes to indoctrinated laws, they hold a more casual position. The second way to look at it is that because live-in relationships are not legally recognized, they are exempt from stringent regulation, which allows people to dictate their own terms.
Judicial Evolution of live-in relationship
Indian law has changed as much as through judicial intervention as it has through legislation. As a result, the judiciary has played a crucial role in Indian law, frequently influencing popular opinion. When necessary, or when a situation demanding such action is brought before it, it has done this by not only upholding the law as it is, but also by striking down or interpreting it in a particular way. The Indian courts currently take a nuanced approach to live-in partnerships. This position mostly results from the need for definitive regulation in this area.
The first judgment on recognizing the live-in-relationship came after the Allahabad High Court judgment (Payal Sharma supra). The Supreme court also reiterated the same stance by situating it within the framework of the right of life and liberty in the case of “S Khushboo v. Kanniammal”. in the case of “Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation”, the Supreme Court assumed that a couple who had been living together for 50 years was married. We can conclude from the aforementioned instances that a live-in relationship must last for a significant amount of time to be termed a marriage. What that time frame might be, though, is not yet apparent.
Considering the Malimath Committee recommendation, the Supreme Court eliminated the rigorous marriage requirement for women to make a maintenance claim, extending the laminate’s reach to cover women in live-in relationships. Further, the court ruled in “Tulsa v. Durghatiya” that a child born out of a live-in relationship would no longer be regarded as a illegitimate child. The important requirement is that the parents must have shared a home and cohabited for a considerable amount of time, demonstrating their sincerity in the relationship.
Conclusion
In a nation like ours, where marriage ties have a very high pedestal, live-in relationships have long been cause for concern. Live-in relationships have proliferated in importance. Family laws have yet to keep up with societal and law changes, though the stigma surrounding the subject still exists. Therefore, at this point, when these relationships have been ingrained in society and cannot be undone, we must adapt to them, embrace them, and work to create inclusive legislation to control them and safeguard the rights of individuals involved.
By Aaryan Dwivedi
~GNLU, Gandhinagar
