1

WOMEN AND LAW PSDA : RESEARCH PAPER ON

RIGHTS AND STATUS OF

FEMALE PARTNERS IN
LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS: A
JUDICIAL ANALYSIS

COMPILED BY :
MANYAA CHANDOK
08310303814
4-B
 2

ABSTRACT:

The “live- in-relationship” is a living arrangement in which a un-married couple lives together in a
long-term relationship that resembles a marriage. Live-in-relationship is neither recognized by The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 nor by The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, nor by The Indian
Succession Act 1925. The expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” which is included
within the definition of “domestic relationship” has not clearly been defined in the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA). However, a child born out of “relationship
in the nature of marriage” is not entitled to claim its share in ancestral coparcener property but is
entitled only to claim its share in self acquired property of its parents. This Article is divided into
six parts: Introduction, Legal Recognition, Maintenance, Rights of children born, Status of live in
relationship‘ in other countries, Suggestions/Remedial measures to alleviate sufferings of women
living in live- in-relationship‘ in India.
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4

INTRODUCTION 5

LEGAL RECOGNITION 7

MAINTENANCE RIGHTS 11

RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN 14

STATUS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN OTHER COUNTRIES 16

SUGGESTIONS/REMEDIAL MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE SUFFERINGS OF WOMEN 19

LIVING IN LIVE- IN-RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA

BIBLIOGRAPHY 21
 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God, the Almighty, for His showers of blessings
throughout my research work to complete the research successfully.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ms. Oly Roy, professor for Women and Law, for
giving me an opportunity to constructively use my time and learn from the Professional Skill
Development Activity for this subject. As my teacher and mentor, she has taught me more than I
could ever give her credit for here. She has shown and taught me the evolution of women’s rights
and how important it is for us law students to recognise and alleviate the position of women, not
just in India but globally.

Writing a research paper on such a topic of live-in relationships having manifold issues blended in
one and a diverse judicial response was difficult but definitely a learning experience.

Lastly, it is important to mention that nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this
project than the members of my family. I would like to thank my parents, whose love and guidance
are with me in whatever I pursue.
 5

INTRODUCTION

“Law takes its own time to articulate such social changes through a process of amendment. That is
why in a changing society law cannot afford to remain static. If one looks at the history of
development of Hindu Law, it will be clear that it was never static and has changed from time to
time to meet the challenges of the changing social pattern in different time.”1

India is a country of culture, religions and traditions and at the same time a country which is
developing fast and embracing the global changes faster. A country which is still enveloped in its
century old beliefs, but at the same time the country which is ever evolving and ever accepting
towards the new trends and culture. These strikingly different aspects of the nation have
successfully divided the country in two parts.While one part is running ahead in time ready to
embrace the change, the other part is still indulged in their century old beliefs and the differentiation
of ideologies between these two divisions has created a myriad of conflicts which ought to be
resolved sooner than later for the betterment of society.

One of the most brewing influence of the Western world is the much debated concept of live-in
relationships in India. Live in relationship to be understood in simple terms is an arrangement
between an unmarried couple to live together without the duties and obligations of a marital
relationship. It is similar to the concept of Cohabitation, as some people may call it. The main idea,
according to some, of cohabiting or conducting a live-in-relationship is that the interested couple
wanted to test their compatibility for each other before going for some commitment. Live-in-
relationship is a de facto union in which couple shares common bed-room without solemnizing
marriage. It is non-marital relationship prevailing in West with the different name like, common law
marriages, informal marriages or marriage by habit, deemed marriages etc. It is a form of
interpersonal status which is legally recognized in some jurisdictions as a marriage even though no
legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed or civil marriage contract is entered into or the
marriage registered in a civil registry. An increasing number of couples choose a live-in
relationship, over marriage. In such situations, various economic, social and legal issues have arisen
and continue to do so.

1 On 31st March 31, 2011, Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12639/09, Para27
 6
Moreover, legal recognition has been playing vital role in social change. Society is constituted of
individuals. Law and society try to regulate the conduct of an individual. The institution of marriage
being foundation of the society, interest of the society is well protected by keeping the foundation of
institution of marriage strong. Since the matter relating to marriage falls within the purview of
personal law, each religion in India is having its own law relating to marriage along with other
family matters. As we are observing changing living patterns in the society, law has to respond
properly keeping in view the societal and constitutional values in its mind. In recent times the
Indian judiciary has taken a lead in showing a right path for the progress of the society

To analyse status and rights of Indian judiciary to live- in-relationships, the researcher has covered
the following aspects in the research paper: -
- LEGAL RECOGNITION
- MAINTENANCE
- RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN
- THE STATUS OF LIVE IN RELATIONSHIP IN OTHER COUNTRIES
- SUGGESTIONS/REMEDIAL MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE SUFFERINGS OF WOMEN
LIVING IN LIVE- IN-RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA.
 7

LEGAL RECOGNITION

The Fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants to all its citizens “right to
life and personal liberty” which means that one is free to live the way one wants. Live in
relationship may be immoral in the eyes of the conservative Indian society but it is not “illegal” in
the eyes of law.
It is necessary to trace the response of the Indian Judiciary in respect of live-in relationships right
from the earliest of times till the present day in order to understand the legal recognition given to
such relationships in India. There are some cases where the Courts have given limited recognition to
such relations and some where the Courts have been liberal towards them.
In A.Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy,2 the Privy Council held that where a man and a woman are proved
to have lived together as a man and wife, the law will presume, that they were living together in
consequence of a valid marriage, unless the contrary can be proved.
Again in Gokal Chand v. Pravin Kumari,3 the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle, though
it cautioned that the couple would not get legitimacy, if the evidence of them living together was
rebuttable.
Further, in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation4 where a man and a woman lived together
for about 50 years, the court presumed that they were a married couple. But in this case the
Supreme Court observed that, “The presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the
person who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place.
Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon a bastard.”
In Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari,5 it was observed that even though it may tempt it to presume the
relationship in the nature of marriage, certain peculiar circumstances do occur which may force the
court to rebut such a presumption.
In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan AndaliPadayachi6 the Supreme Court held that if man
and woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be a
presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act7 that they live as husband and wife and

2 AIR 1927PC 185

3 AIR 1952 SC 231
4 AIR 1978 SC 1557

5 AIR 1952 SC 231

6 AIR 1992 SC 756

7 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , S.114 -Court may presume existence of certain facts. —The Court may presume the

existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events,
human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
 8
the children born to them will not be illegitimate. The court has formed a presumption of marriage
on the basis of Section 114 of the Evidence Act; the said section signifies the person upon whom the
burden of proof regarding the sustainability of a fact that that is being asserted is to be drawn.
Before 2000, no courts in the country ever uttered the word ‘live-in relationship’, but not thereafter.
The Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of UP,8 held that live-in relationship is permissible only
in unmarried major persons of heterosexual sex. The live-in relationship if continued for such a long
time, cannot be termed in as “walk in and walk out‟ relationship and there is a presumption of
marriage between them.
Again in Tulsa v. Durghatiya,9 the Supreme Court held that when a man and woman live together
for a long spell there would be a presumption in favor of their having been married, unless rebutted
by convincing evidence. In Patel and others Case,10 the Supreme Court observed that the two adults
are not criminal offenders who are bound in a live-in-relationship without a formal marriage. No
legislation has ever been enacted by Indian Parliament which denounces any live-in-Relationship as
illegal. The above judgment was made applicable to Tulsa v. Durghatiya by the Supreme Court and
re-recognized the rule that there would be a presumption of marriage u/S.114 when there has been
long cohabitation.
In the 2001 case of Payal Sharma vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Agra, C.M. Hab. Corp.,11 it was
observed that “… A man and a woman, even without getting married, can live together if they wish
to. This may be regarded as immoral by society, but is not illegal. There is a difference between Law
and Morality.”
In Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P.,12 the Supreme Court provided the protection
cover against dowry under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by including a person who
enters into marital relationship under the colour of feigned status of husband.
In Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. Vs Rajni Kant & Anr,13 the court held that the live-in-relationship if
continued for long time, it cannot be termed in as “walk in and walk out” relationship and there is a
presumption of marriage between the parties. This attitude of the court could clearly be inferred that
it is in favour of treating the long term living relationship as marriage rather than branding it as new
concept like live-in-relationship.

8 (2006) 5SCC475
9 (2008) 4 SCC 520
10 (2006) 8 SCC 726

11 W.P. No. 16876/2001, MANU/UP/0288/2001 (All. H.C. May 17, 2001), 2001(3) AWS 1778

12 Crl. Appl. No. 867/2009 MANU/SC/0689/2009 (S.C. Sept. 24, 2009)

13 (2010) 9 SCC 209

 9
After 2010 various issues are discussed and clarified by the Supreme Court and High Courts by
delivering various guidelines in numerous judgments on validity of such live-in-relationships.
On 28 April, 2010 Special Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of K.G. Balakrishnan,
Deepak Verma, B.S. Chauhan in Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr.14 posed a question "If two
people, man and woman, want to live together, who can oppose them? What is the offence they
commit here? This happens because of the cultural exchange between people.” The court held that
Live-in-Relationship is permissible. The court also held that living together is a part of the right to
life u/Art.21 of the Indian Constitution38 and it is not a "criminal offence”. In this context the court
commented that there exists no law in the country which prohibits pre-marital sex.
In later part of the 2010 Delhi High Court decided a case Alok Kumar vs. State15 the Delhi High
Court, described the nature of such relationship as a walk-in and walk-out relationship with no legal
strings attached. It is a contract of living together “which is renewed every day by the parties and
can be terminated by either of the parties without consent of the other party.” Those who do not
want to enter into such relationship enter into such relationship of marriage which creates a legal
bond which cannot be broken by other party at will. Thus people who choose to have 'live-in
relationship' cannot later complain of infidelity or immorality.
Finally, the Apex Court in the 2013 case of Indira Sarma V. V.K.V. Sarma,16 declared that Live-in or
marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country.
In this landmark judgment, a bench headed by Justice K. S.Radhakrishnan framed guidelines to take
along the live in relationship within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” for the
protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The court held, “Parliament has to ponder
over these issues, bring in proper legislation or make a proper amendment of the Act, so that
women and the children, born out of such kinds of relationships should be protected, though those
types of relationship might not be a relationship in the nature of a marriage.”
The court gave the following guidelines based on which the Parliament may pass a new legislation:
1. Duration of relationship - Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression “at any point
of time”, which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship
which may vary from case to case, depending upon the factual situation.
2. Shared household - The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and,
hence, needs no further elaboration.

14 Crl. App. No. 913/2010, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4010 of 2008,
15 Cr.M.C.No. 299/2009, Decided on 9 August 2010
16 2013(14) SCALE448, Special Leave Petition (Crl) No 4895 of 2012
 10
3. Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements - supporting each other, or any one of
them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or
in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint
names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.
4. Domestic Arrangements - Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the
home, do household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or up keeping the house,
etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
5. Sexual Relationship - Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for
pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to
give emotional support, companionship and also marital affection, caring etc.
6. Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for
bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.
7. Socialization in Public - Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations
and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship
is in the nature of marriage.
8. Intention and conduct of the parties - Common intention of parties as to what their
relationship is and to involve and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily
determines the nature of that relationship.
 11

MAINTENANCE RIGHTS

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code accords a legal right to maintenance to wives. Justice
Malimath Committee (2003)17 recommended to the Law Commission of India, that if a woman
has been in a live- in-relationship for a considerable period of time then she can claim maintenance
under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. The 8th Law Commission also recommended
inclusion of women in a live in relationships within the purview of this Section.
The Supreme Court and various High Courts have adjudged the maintenance rights of women in
such live-in relationships through various cases. Following are the most important:-
1. In the case of Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai 18, the apex court issued a Succession Certificate in
favour of the live-in partner, who was nominated by the deceased.
2. Virendra Chanmuniya vs.Chanmuniya Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr19. Facts of the case: the
appellant woman contended that she was re- married, as per the prevalent custom and usage, to
the younger brother (Respondent) of her deceased husband. They lived together as husband and
wife for a pretty long time. Thereafter, surprisingly and unfortunately the husband (respondent)
started harassing the appellant wife and also refused to provide her maintenance u/S.125 of
Cr.P.C. In this case, the High Court held that the appellant wife was not entitled to maintenance
on the ground that only legally married woman can claim maintenance u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. But
the Supreme Court turned down the judgment delivered by the High Court and awarded
maintenance to the wife (appellant) saying that provisions of Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C must be
considered in the light of Sec. 26 of the PWDVA, 2005.49 In brief, the S.C. held that women in
live-in-Relationship are equally entitled to all the reliefs which are available to legally wedded
wife.
3. The Supreme Court in Yamunabai v. Anant Rao 20 held that where a man married the second
time, his second “wife” had no claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, even though she might be unaware of his earlier marriage. The Court refused
to give any recognition to the fact that they had lived together even if their marriage was void.
The man was allowed to take advantage of this, although he had failed to disclose his earlier

17 Justice Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (2003)

18 AIR 2008 SC 1420
19 (2011) 1 SCC 141

20 (1988) 1SCC 530

 12
marriage. The Supreme Court held that it would not grant any rights to the woman in such a
live- in relationship “of circumstance”.
4. D Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, 21(Decided by: Markandey Katju and T.S. Thakur, JJ). In this
case, the Supreme Court examined the definition of aggrieved person and domestic relationship
taken together and opined that the expression ‘Relationship in the nature of marriage’ which is
included within the definition of ‘domestic relationship’ has not clearly been defined in the Act.
Hence the Supreme Court said that an authoritative decision is required to be taken to elucidate
what is and what is not a relationship in the ‘nature of marriage’. The Apex Court commented
in the course of its judgment that the Indian Parliament while establishing the two distinct
categories viz. ‘relationship of marriage’ and ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ intended
that the enactment should protect and benefit women in both these relationships. Therefore the
S.C. held that “Relationship in the nature of marriage” is akin to a Common Law Marriage.
Common Law Marriages require that although not being formally married:-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to
spouses,
(b) They must be of legal age to marry,
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage,
including being unmarried,
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the
world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
The judgment further clarified the essentials of a ‘Common Law Marriage’ and stated that not all
“live- in relationships” will amount to “a relationship in the nature of marriage.” The judgement
notes by way of illustration that merely spending weekends together, “a one night stand” in a
case where the man has a keep whom he maintains financially but uses her merely for sexual
purposes and/or as a servant, would not qualify for protection under the Act within the definition
of `domestic relationship’.
5. A 2013 two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court constituting of K.S. Radhakrishnan and
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma22 held that when the woman is
aware of the fact that the man with whom she is having living-in-relationship and who
already has a legally-wedded wife and two children, is not entitled to various reliefs
available to a legally wedded wife and also to those who enter into ‘a relationship in the

21 (2010) 10 SCC 469

22 2013(14) SCALE448, Special Leave Petition (Crl) No 4895 of 2012
 13
nature of marriage’ as per provisions of PWDVA, 2005. But in this case, the Supreme Court
felt that denial of any protection would amount to a great injustice to victims of illegal
relationship who are poor, illiterate and also to their children who are born out of such
relationship and has no source of income of her own. Therefore, the S.C. remarked that there
is a burning need to expand the connotation of Sec. 2 (f) which defines ‘domestic
relationship’ in PWDVA, 2005 with a view to include there in victims of illegal relationship
who are poor, illiterate along with their children who are born out of such relationship and
who do not have any source of income. If the above suggestion made by the Apex Court,
purely out of humanitarian consideration, is converted into legislation, it would prove to be
an effective remedy to a societal wrong caused by such illegal relationships.
6. In Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v.State Of Maharashtra and Others23, the apex court also observed
that it is not necessary for woman to strictly establish the marriage to claim maintenance
under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. A woman living in live-in-relationship may also claim maintenance
under Sec.125 Cr.PC. Right of maintenance is granted to wives under all personal laws- be it
Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or Zoroastrianism. However, none of these religions recognize
live-in relationships. Instead, an unmarried woman living with a man is considered unchaste.
In absence of any remedy available to women engaged in a live-in relationship, Courts have
extended the scope of application of remedy available under Criminal Procedure Code.

23 2009 CriLJ 889

 14
RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN SUCH RELATIONSHIPS

Personal laws differ on their position on the right of children out of wedlock to maintenance. Hindu
Law mandates the father to maintain the child, whereas Muslim Law has absolved the father of such
obligation. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides remedy to children who are
unable to claim maintenance under personal laws. Section 125 provides a legal right to children,
wives and parents to claim maintenance.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers the legitimacy on child born out of ‘void’ and ‘voidable’
marriages and establishes their succession and property rights. The void marriage is not a marriage
in the eye of law. The moot question is whether the relation existing in void and voidable marriage
is equated with live-in-relationship as understood in its popular sense.
Child out of a prolonged relationship is deemed legitimate (S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs
Suruttayan,24 ). Moreover, in Radhika v. State of M.P25. the apex court observed that a man and
woman are involved in live-in-relationship for a long period, they will be treated as a married
couple and their child would be called legitimate. Courts have not pronounced a uniform judgment
with respect to shorter relationships. As noted above, Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
accords a legal status of legitimacy even to illegitimate children (those born out of wedlock) for the
purpose of inheritance. Thus inheritance rights have been granted to children out of a live-in
relationship, with respect to both ancestral and self-acquired property. [Parayankandiyal Eravath
Kanapravan Kalliani Amma vs K.Devi26 ]
In Chellamma v Tillamma, the Supreme Court gave the status of wife to the partner of live-in-
relationship. Katju J. and Mishra J. stated that, in their opinion, a man and a woman, even without
getting married, can live together if they wish to. This may be regarded as immoral by society, but is
not illegal. There is a difference between law and morality. The bench went one step ahead and
observed that the children born to such a parent would be called legitimate. They have the rights in
their parent’s property. One advantage of the ruling is that it would not only deter the couple to take
hasty decision of splitting each other but also would encourage the couple to produce their
offspring, who were earlier afraid of regarding their future in case of their break-up.

24(1994) 1 SCC 460

25 AIR 2008 SC 126
26 (1996) 4 SCC 76
 15
On 17th May 2010 a Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Hon‘ble Justice B.S.
Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar (JJ) in Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan &
Ors27 held that
“20. Thus, it is evident that Section 16 of the (Hindu Marriage) Act intends to
bring about social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a group of
children, otherwise treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.”
“27. Thus, it is evident that in such a fact-situation, a child born of void or
voidable marriage is not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral coparcener
property but is entitled only to claim share in self acquired properties, if any.”

On 31 March, 2011 a special Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of G.S. Singhvi, Asok
Kumar Ganguly in Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs Mallikarjun & Ors.28 remarked that irrespective of
the relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such relationship has to be viewed
independently of the relationship of the parents. It is as plain and clear as sunshine that a child born
out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights and privileges available to
children born out of valid marriages. This is the crux of Section 16(3) of the amended Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, courts, in recent decisions have held that children out of wedlock will be
legitimate (for example, Uday Gupta vs Aysha and Anr29).

27 AIR 2010 SC 2685

28 Civil Appeal No. of 2011, Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12639/09 , 2011(2)UJ 1342(S.C.)
29 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3390 OF 201 4 (Crl M.P. No.6817 of 2014)
 16
STATUS OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

1. In France, a Civil Solidarity Pact known as “pacte civil de solidarite” passed by the French
Parliament in November 1999 that allows couples to enter into a union by signing before a
court clerk. It is a contractual form which binds “two adults of different sexes or of the same
sex, in order to organise their joint life” and allows them to enjoy the rights accorded to married
couples in the areas of income tax, housing and social welfare. The contract can be revoked
unilaterally or bilaterally after giving the partner three months‘ notice in writing. As of 2013,
PACS remains available to both- same and opposite sex couples after marriage and adoption
rights were made legal for same-sex couples. 30
2. In Philippines, live in relationship is recognized, and it governs the property relations by the
rules on equal co-ownership, under Chapter- 4 “Conjugal Partnership of Gains”, Article 147
(family Code). Philippines provides that where a man and a woman who are capacitated to
marry each other, live exclusively with each other just like a husband and wife, but without the
benefit of marriage (or when the marriage is void). In such a situation, property acquired by
both the spouses through their work, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal
shares which shall be governed by equal co-ownership rule.31
3. In the UK, live-in-couples do not enjoy legal benefits and status which are granted to married
couples. People in such a relationship are literally free from all legal bindings. Partners do not
have inheritance right over each other‘s property unless named in their partner‘s will. State
pension is available to the wives and civil partners (for same-sex couples who have legalized
their status) of those who have retired after April 2010 is not similarly applicable to partners
who live-in. Bereavement Allowance that is available to widowed spouses is also not available
to live-in partners who have lost their mate. However, the law seeks to protect the rights of a
child born under such relationship. Both parents have the onus of bringing up their children
irrespective whether they are married or cohabiting.
4. Scotland: The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced new rights and an obligation
concerning cohabiting couples (The live in relation). Section 25 (2) of the Act postulates that a
court of law can consider a person as a co-habitant of another by checking on three parameters;
(a) the length of the period during which they lived together, (b) the nature of the relationship

30 A parliamentary"Report on the Family and the Rights of Children" was released on 25th January 2006
31Atty. Fred "COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE (LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS) IN THE PHILIPPINES” November 4th,
2006 in Family and Property Law.
 17
during that period and (c) the nature and extent of any financial arrangements, subsisting or
which subsisted during that period. In case of breakdown of such relationship, under Section 28
of the Act, a cohabitant has the right to apply in court for financial provision on the termination
of the cohabitation ―otherwise by reason of death i.e. separation. If a partner dies intestate, the
survivor can move the court for financial support from his estate within 6 months. 32
5. Canada recognizes live in relationship as ―Common Law Marriage. 33 A recent ruling in B.C.
that grants common-law partners the same fundamental rights as married couples after two
years of cohabitation has cast a light on how common-law couples are treated. The presence of
children can significantly affect the way a common-law relationship is viewed in the eyes of the
law in other provinces.
6. In China, a couple can sign a contract for live in relationship. The rights of a child are secured
as a child born outside the wedlock has the same benefits as enjoyed by the child born under a
marriage. 34
7. The laws of Ireland and Australia also recognizes live in relationship. The family law of
Australia recognizes ―de facto relationshipǁ between couples, while in Ireland the impetus is
towards greater recognition to live in relationship as there has been demand for right to
maintenance by separated live in couples. In Ireland Cohabiting couples do not possess the
same legal rights and obligations as married couples or civil partnerships in Irish law. This has
important implications for a number of areas in your life - including inheritance rights, property
ownership, custody and guardianship of children, adoption and fostering. There is a redress
scheme for cohabiting couples who have been in a long-term cohabiting relationship. 35
8. In USA concept of Palimony (maintenance to woman who having live-in-relationship) in a state
of flux which arose out of the famous cases of Marvin v. Marvin 36 and Taylor vs. Fields 37 in
California Supreme Court. Supreme Court in India noted the in the case of Velusamy vs. D.
Patchaiammal:-
“24. In USA the expression `palimony' was coined which means grant of maintenance to a
woman who has lived for a substantial period of time with a man without marrying him,

32 Lesley Gordon, Jenny Nobbs, “COHABITATION: THE NEW LEGAL LANDSCAPE” 15 May 06 , Journal of the
Law Society of the Scotland
33 Alexandra Kazia ,4 myths about common-law relationships, CBC News Posted: Mar 20, 2013

34 www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html, (Accessed on 22nd November 2011) 74 Chetan

Tripathy, Live in Relationship- Review and Analysis

35 http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/relationships_life_event.html

36 1976) 18 C3d660

37 (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186

 18
and is then deserted by him (see `palimony' on Google). The first decision on palimony was
the well known decision of the California Superior Court in Marvin vs. Marvin. This case
related to the famous film actor Lee Marvin, with whom a lady Michelle lived for many
years without marrying him, and was then deserted by him and she claimed palimony.
Subsequently in many decisions of the Courts in USA, the concept of palimony has been
considered and developed. The US Supreme Court has not given any decision on whether
there is a legal right to palimony, but there are several decisions of the Courts in various
States in USA. These Courts in USA have taken divergent views, some granting palimony,
some denying it altogether, and some granting it on certain conditions. Hence in USA the
law is still in a state of evolution on the right to palimony.”
“25. Although there is no statutory basis for grant of palimony in USA, the Courts there
have granted it have granted it on a contractual basis. Some Courts in USA have held
that there must be a written or oral agreement between the man and woman that if they
separate, the man will give palimony to the woman; while other Courts have held that if
a man and woman have lived together for a substantially long period without getting
married, there would be deemed to be an implied or constructive contract that palimony
will be given on their separation.”
“26. In Taylor vs. Fields (1986) 224 Cal. Rpr. 186 the facts were that the plaintiff Taylor
had a relationship with a married man Leo. After Leo died Taylor sued his widow
alleging breach of an implied agreement to take care of Taylor financially and she
claimed maintenance from the estate of Leo. The Court of Appeals in California held
that the relationship alleged by Taylor was nothing more than that of a married man
and his mistress. It was held that the alleged contract rested on meretricious
consideration and hence was invalid and unenforceable. The Court of Appeals relied on
the fact that Taylor did not live together with Leo but only occasionally spent weekends
with him. There was no sign of a stable and significant cohabitation between the two.”
 19
SUGGESTIONS/REMEDIAL MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE
SUFFERINGS OF WOMEN LIVING IN LIVE- IN-RELATIONSHIPS IN
INDIA.

1. Lack of a special legislation governing live-in relationships is most felt with respect to custodial
rights. The issue of custodial rights emerges when a couple decides to split. As there are no
specific laws with respect to live-in relationships, it lies with the courts’ discretion to award
reliefs to the female partner. Apart from lacking legal sanction the social existence of such
relationships is only confined to the metros, however, when we look at the masses that define
India, there exists no co-relation between live- in relationships and its acceptance by the Indian
society. It receives no legal assistance and at the same time the society also evicts such
relationships. It is thus felt that a special Act must be introduced to cater to live-in relationships.
2. The definition of the term ‘wife’ contained in Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should be amended so as to
include a woman having ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ for a reasonably long period of
time.
3. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that legitimacy of a child is proved only
if any person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage between his mother and any
man. Muslim law also recognizes only those children as legitimate, who are the offspring of a
man and his wife. Thus children born out of live-in relationship were illegitimate in the eye of
the then existing law. However the Supreme Court in Revanasiddappa & Anr. vs Mallikarjun &
Ors,38 remarked that irrespective of the relationship between parents, birth of a child out of such
relationship has to be viewed independently of the relationship of the parents. It is clear that a
child born out of such relationship is innocent and is entitled to all the rights and privileges
available to children born out of valid marriages. This is the crux of Section 16 of the amended
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This section must be amended in accordance with the above judicial
precedent.
4. On 17th May 2010 a Bench of the Supreme Court of India consisting of Hon‘ble Justice B.S.
Chauhan and Justice Swatanter Kumar (JJ) in Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan
& Ors 39 held that;

38 Civil Appeal No. of 2011, Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12639/09 , 2011(2)UJ 1342(S.C.)
39 AIR 2010 SC 2685
 20
“20. Thus, it is evident that Section 16 of the (Hindu Marriage) Act intends
to bring about social reforms, conferment of social status of legitimacy on a
group of children, otherwise treated as illegitimate, as its prime object.”
27. Thus, it is evident that in such a fact-situation, a child born of void or
voidable marriage is not entitled to claim inheritance in ancestral
coparcener property but is entitled only to claim share in self acquired
properties, if any.”
In this context it is recommended that children born out of such relationships in the nature of
marriage or live-in relationships should also be entitled to claim its share in ancestral coparcenary
property of its parents in addition to their self acquired property.
 21
BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. STATUTES AND CONSTITUTION

1. The Constitution of India
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
5. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
6. Indian Succession Act, 1925
7. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
8. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
9. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
10. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
11. The Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939
12. The Muslim Personal law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

B. BOOKS
1. Dinshah Fardunji Mulla, Satyajeet Atul Desai, Principles of Hindu Law, Volume 1(20th ed.),
New Delhi, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2007
2. Dalbir Bharati, Women and Law, (2008), New Delhi, S.B. Nangia-APH Publishing
Corporation,
3. Dr. Kailash Rai, The Constitutional Law of India, (7th ed.), Allahabad: Central law
publications, 2008
4. Dr. Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II(3rd ed.), Nagpur: Wadhwa
LexisNexis Butterworths
5. Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (20th ed.), Allahabad,Allahabad Law Agency, 2009.
6. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal ,The Indian penal Code, (30th ed.), Nagpur: Wadhwa and Co., reprint
2008.
 22

C. ARTICLES
1. Amartya Bag, ―Succession Rights In Case Of Live-In Relationships: An Analysis In The
Indian Context , at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2011751
2. Chetan Tripathy, ―Live in Relationship- Review and Analysisǁ
3. Deepali Sharma and Shikha Rajpurohit ―Legal & Social Aspects of Live In Relationshipǁ
International Referred Research Journal, January, 2012, ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI: RAJBIL
2009/30097, Vol- III, Issue 2
4. Shobharam Sharma, ―Live-In-Relationship: An Individualistic Approachǁ, Naya Deep,Pg.69
5. Live-in Relationship in India : Legal Status, Indian Laws & Jurisprudenceǁ A Layman's Guide,
available at http://www.gangothri.org/?q=node/33, (Last accessed on April 26, 2013)
6. www.indialawjournal.com/volume2/issue_2/article_by_saakshi.html, (Accessed on 22nd
November 2011)
7. KU Kalpana Vithalrao Jawale, ―Live-In Relationship: Recent Developments and Challenges in
Indiaǁ National Summit on Law & Legal Education ―NECTARǁ, Akola Law College
8. Nivedita Ghosh, ―The Emerging Marital Trends in Indian Scenarioǁ New Delhi, India
International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, Research Chronicler ISSN 2347–503X,
available at www.research-chronicler.com
9. Padma Rao Sahib and Xinhua Gu ―Living in Sinǁ and Marriage: a Matching Modelǁ,journal of
population Economics 15, No.2(2002): 261
10. Prof. Vijender Kumar, ―Live-In Relationship: Impact on Marriage and Family Institutionsǁ,
SCC J-19 , 2012 Vol.4.