Live-in Relationships in India: Does Every Couple Need to Be in a 'Relationship in the Nature of Marriage' in Order to Have Legal Protection in India?

Introduction

Although the phrase 'Live-in Relationships' has not been completely accepted by the society in India, it is rising many concerning factors regarding many legal aspects as society is evolving day by day and gradually accepting the modern ways of thinking. The phrase 'Live-in Relationship' means a relationship in which two consenting adults start to live together without actually getting married with each other. From here the question arises whether the couple who are merely living together can get the same legal protection as a married couple in India. This article dives into the issue whether a couple in Live-in Relationship needs to depend on 'Relationship in the Nature of Marriage' in order to obtain legal protection in India and this article also investigates the relevant law and cases to analyse this issue.

What is the Legal Position Of Live-In Relationships In India?

According to the Section 2(f) of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, two persons who are living together or have lived together in a shared household are said to be in a 'Domestic Relationship' and both of them should be connected with each other by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or joint family members. From this perspective, some Live-in Relationships may fall under the category of 'relationship in the nature of marriage', keeping in mind that there are some criterias to be fulfilled to fall under this above mentioned category. The phrase 'relationship in the nature of marriage' is a crucial key to understanding whether Live-in Relationships can have the legal protection under this section.

When can a Live-in Relationship be regarded as a 'relationship in the nature of marriage'?

In the case "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)"¹, it was seen that a petition was filed before the court by the appellant, stating that he was married to Lakshmi on 25.6.1980 according to the Hindu Customary Rites and had one child. Later, in 2001, the respondent filed a petition, stating she was married to the appellant on 14.9.1986 and after 2-3 yrs of living together in her father's house, the appellant left her. Now, the respondent wanted to claim maintenance of Rs.500 per month as she was unable to maintain her livelihood. The Supreme Court observed that the marriage with the respondent could not be treated as the valid one as the respondent can be treated as a 'wife' only if the appellant was not already married to Lakshmi. However, the court also recognized the perspective of 'Domestic relationship' which falls under Section 2(f) of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005². This section also includes 'relationship in the nature of marriage', which requires certain criteria to be fulfilled. Thus, this case helps to set the foundation of the answer to the question whether Live-in relationships can be considered as the 'relationship in the nature of marriage' or not.

The case "Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma, (2013)"³, was built upon the foundations set by "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010)" case. In this case, the appellant and the respondent worked together in the same company. After some contacts with each other, they developed some intimacy and in 1992, the appellant started to live with the respondent, a married man in a shared household inspite of her family's and the respondent's wife's objections. They started a business together but later on the respondent shifted the business to his resident. The appellant stated that the respondent took several loans from her, saying he would repay her and also got her pregnant on three occasions but all of them resulted into abortion due to the respondent's coercion and abusive behavior. The appellant also stated that the respondent prohibited her from displaying any kind of couple interactions in public. However, all these claims of the appellant were denied by the respondent, saying he only took pity on her due to mistreatments caused to her by her family members and he never took loans from her and the pregnancy was also terminated with her and her brother's consent. The court faced difficulty as it observed that granting maintenance to the appellant would create impacts on the rights of the respondent's wife and children as it would give rise to another factor for trying to alienate the respondent's marriage with his wife. This case clearly recognizes the criteria which are required to be fulfilled to fall under the category of 'relationship in the nature of marriage', particularly stated under the 'domestic relationship' in the Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The criteria includes 'duration of the relationship', 'shared household', 'financial arrangements', 'domestic arrangements', 'sexual relationship', 'children', 'public/social conduct' and 'intention and conduct of the parties'. Thus, this case helps to clarify when Live-in relationships can be considered as a 'relationship in the nature of marriage'.

While the above two cases recognized the perspective of "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005", this case "Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018)⁴" recognizes the fact that two consenting adults can live together without getting married with each other as they have the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India⁵. In this case, a father filed a petition, stating to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce his daughter before the court. According to him, his daughter was in illegal custody of the respondent. But it was later found that even though the daughter had attained the age of marriage, the respondent had not yet attained the age of marriage. From this perspective, the question arises even though their marriage could not be considered as valid, could they not still live with each other as two consenting adults. The court considered giving the custody of the daughter to his father but later the fact of her freedom to choose her life partner was taken into consideration. This case clearly resonates with this article as it recognizes the fact of freedom to choose life partner. Hence, the case supports the principle that two consenting adults can live together even though they are not legally married.

Can a Live-in Relationship Really Demand the Same Legal Protection as a Married Couple?

From the above mentioned cases, it can be concluded that certain live-in relationships can demand legal protection under "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" but they are required to fulfill the criteria to fall under the category of a 'relationship in the nature of marriage', included in the 'domestic relationship', stated in Section 2(f) of "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005". The case "D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)" recognizes the ' relationship in the nature of marriage' which falls under Section 2(f) of "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005". The second case "Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma (2013)" recognizes the criteria which are needed to be fulfilled to fall under the category of a 'relationship in the nature of marriage'. On the other hand, the third case "Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018)" recognizes the fundamental right of a person, stating a person has the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the "Constitution of India" and thereby, allowing two consenting adults to live together without being bound by marriage. However, it can not be expected that a live-in relationship can receive exactly the same legal rights and protections as a married couple. The law tries to provide certain protections and reliefs depending on the nature and circumstances of the relationship.

While Certain Live-in Relationships Acquire Legal Protection, What About Those Who Do Not Qualify Under This Category?

The law is evolving day by day in the same way as the society. Modern society thinks differently and want to do things differently. Thus, despite the fact that live-in relationships still have not given proper recognition, many people are entering into this unfamiliar field, mainly to explore whether two people are compatible with each other or not. Apart from these, there may be many reasons; one of them may also be the fact that they don't want any shackles to bind them but still want to be with each other. As from all the above mentioned cases, it can be concluded that certain live-in relationships fit into the category of a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' included in the 'domestic relationship' which falls under Section 2(f) of "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005". However, the question remains about those that do not fall under this category. Can't they demand legal protection even if they are not legally married or fall under this category? For instance, a man makes a promise to a woman with whom he was in a live-in relationship that he will buy her a house but he needs to sell her property to afford that and the woman agrees. Later, the man sells the property but unfortunately dies before doing anything. So, will the law able to protect the woman who lost her everything? A further question arises about the fact that "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" is based on protecting women then what about men in live-in relationships. Don't they get legal protection apart from Article 21 of the "Constitution of India" which states a person's fundamental right to choose?

Is the Law Providing Sufficient Protection to Live-in Relationships?

The law is trying to deliver fairness to all the areas even if those areas are somewhat harder to reach. Thus, the law has not yet provided a satisfactory solution to the gaps/conflicts mentioned above. The law is still lacking in providing proper legal recognition and protection to live in relationships. Till now live-in relationships have to be considered as a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' only if it fulfills all the criteria, falling under this category. Moreover, even if women are able to get protection to some extent under "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005", what about men in live-in relationships?

Way Forward

It is necessary to make live-in relationships more familiar in society. Hence, it is essential to make clear and distinct laws regarding this type of relationships to avoid further confusions. It is not a permanent and wise solution to always depend on the phrase 'relationship in the nature of marriage' as it has certain limitations beyond which the law can not provide relief to the victims. The protection regarding men in live-in relationships should also be taken account as harm and abuse do not distinguish between men and women.

Conclusion

To conclude, live-in relationships have gradually been gaining recognition in India although they have not obtained the same legal rights as marriage. Certain live-in relationships may fall under the category of 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and thus, can get protection under "Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005" but the concern about those that do not fall under this category remain unsolved. The law has further developed by protecting the freedom to choose one's partner and live together under article 21 of the "Constitution of India" but still requires a proper and distinct legal framework to continue developing.

References

Cases

• D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469.
• Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755.
• Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 602.

Legislation

• Constitution of India.
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Online Sources

• Indian Kanoon- https://indiankanoon.org/