LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA: TO WHAT EXTENT CAN STATE REGISTRATION LAWS EFFECTIVELY CODIFY LIVE-IN RIGHTS WITHOUT FORCING COHABITATION INTO THE FRAMEWORK OF MARRIAGE?

INTRODUCTION

India, a country filled with rich history and culture which has been in existence for thousands of years, regards marriage as a sacred contract between individuals. Till now, marriage has been a life long commitment that people choose to be a part of, celebrating a milestone of life with families and close friends, and it is all governed by personal law no matter what religion you are, the idea of marriage and its sentiments are all protected.

However, as globalization enhances, the western influences and perceptions are bound to spread with time. Nowadays, not only in our daily lifestyles, also our conservative sentiments of Asia as a whole, have changed especially for this generation, "Gen Z"and the "millennial". Our social perceptions have liberalised with gender equality, feminism and capitalization, and of course, marriage is no exception either. Some people have chosen to refuse the social norms and custom of marriage and have started to accept live-in relationships.

Then, what is a live-in relationship?^¹ It is simply living together without tying the knot, without doing any marriage rituals or even signing a marriage contract in front of the magistrate, just acting as a married couple, regardless of the sentiments of the social circle that they live in. It has been seen as an offense as per the Indian culture. There has not been bar of this union in any legislation of India, even the Apex court of the country has concluded that live-in relations are protected by Article 21 of Constitution of India^².

However, the main question is does a live-in relationship have any legal protections and legal rights as a married couple does? And with states enacting mandatory registration laws, can this new transition of laws successfully protect the live-in couples rights or is it just placing the special nature of live-in relationship into the box of a "pseudo- marriage"?

THE NEW MANDATORY STATE REGISTRATION

In India, individuals are protected and regulated by the personal laws^³ according to their own religion such as Hindu Marriage Act, Mohammadan Law, Indian Christian Marriage Act, Indian Divorce Act, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, and Special Marriage Act when it comes to cohabitation and matrimonial issues. But no laws have mentioned or barred the live-in relationships in detail, as these laws have been legislated long ago, unable to catch up with the new lifestyles and ideologies of people nowadays. The Judiciary looks at the cases relating to cohabitation in a special way, as it varies case by case.

In January 27th of 2025, Uttrakhand's Uniform Civil Code^⁴ has passed a bill that couples in live-in relationships must register their status online through the Official UCC Uttarakhand Portal within 30 days of commencement which evidently changes live-in relationship from a private arrangement into a regulated contract. Before this, the judiciary only interfered when certain disputes come up such as domestic violence or maintenance applications in landmark cases^⁵. This regulation set a precedent that other Indian states are considering adopting.

The regulation has four steps, 1st one is to Joint Registration Statement within a month, Registrar Inquiry & Police Background check, if the individuals are less than 21 years old, Parental notice is needed, and approval or rejection of the registration. Termination of the registration can be done too to end the live-in relationship. The price of Non-compliance can be jail time of three months or a financial fine typically up to Rs. 10000 or both. The unregistered cohabitants can lose rights like summary maintenance or shelter. This can make individuals vulnerable in cases of abuse or abandonment. This makes it different from personal law because of the penalization with jail time and it marks as a special law for how cohabitation is treated under common law worldwide.

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR REGULATION

In a country like India where women are vulnerable and more prone to be mistreated by their partners, this regulation protects them from financial desertion, fraud, and domestic abuse. It is the first justification made by the supporters of state registration law. As we have seen in many cases, even if the partners are married, it is very hard to come to the conclusion and the final road to justice is filled with thorns. So, what would happen to them when the live-in relationship get broken, female counterparts usually struggles to get justice through the judiciary system just because she cannot prove that this relationship was in existence in the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010)^⁶ which sets 4 specific tests to claim maintenance under PWDVA, 2005^⁷. Thus, this registration is needed and creates a clear, undeniable record of cohabitation and in the process, it also eliminates the partners from lying about the nature of the relationship.

The second justification by the supporters is the legitimization of children born from these live-in relationships and how the successions or the property rights would be passed. Even though there is a case related to the topic of this in the Supreme court^⁸, claiming that the children are not illegitimate, but no personal laws have explicitly said so and it remained complex. Thus, the registration law makes the legitimacy of children born during a registered live-in relationship.

The third justification by the supporters of the framework is that it prevents fraud and public order such crime prevention which is bigamy (section 82 of BNS^⁹, section 495 of IPC^¹⁰) , and fraudulently going into a second cohabitation by a married person without divorce, and prevent people from concealing their identities. The regulation calls for background checks that prevent exploitation from happening and protections and rights are in full display when matrimonial disputes arise from the live- in relationships such as maintenance, custody, legitimacy and property rights.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CLASH

However, there is one thing clashing with the registration regulations and it is constantly in friction with this, it is no other than section 21 of Constitution of India, Right to life and personal liberty of individuals. Of course, while the state says that registration as a welfare mechanism, it also creates friction with "decisional autonomy" that personal liberty encompasses. It feels as if the state is interfering in the freedom of consenting adults to make their own decisions about their private life. In the case of K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India^¹¹, there is a proportionality test set by the constitutional bench, it is also known as the article 21 Framework. The state legislation must satisfy the four rules of doctrine of proportionality such as having legitimate aim, Rational Nexus, Necessity and Proportionality.

The state seems to fail in one of the four rules because criminalizing non-compliance can seriously question if the state is doing it out of necessity or not.

Moreover, mandatory registration can expose a couple's private life in the watchful eyes of the society that they live in along with the police verifications and publicly recorded registers, especially when the non-traditional relationships face intense social stigma, family harassment and moral policing. Rather than protecting the individuals, the registration can cause more harm than good for them, including undermining the Article 21 of Constitution of India.

PRACTICAL CHALLENGES AND THE "PSEUDO-MARRIAGE" DILEMMA

Then, registering the live-in relationship, wouldn't it make the choice of staying completely silent on the topic of marriage and rejecting the state contracts, social obligations, doesn't matter at all? The cohabitation between couples offers a flexible, autonomous arrangement to live together without any attachments to each other financially and legally, if there is nothing fulfilled, why make a decision to not marry at all. The compulsory registration, termination creates a "pseudo-marriage" and traps partners in formalities that they choose to avoid and destroy the essence of choice that individuals have. Not only that, there can be administrative overreach and Bureaucratic misuse such as extortion and rent-seeking, delaying on important things and subjected to moral judgement.

CONCLUSION & THE WAY FORWARD

In conclusion, the mandatory registration of live-in relationships take a lot of efforts and there is a friction between state protection and individual liberty nonetheless provided by the Constitution of India. The state registration has a good intention to protect partners and legalise them by compulsory registration, however, it violates one of the most important fundamental rights under article 21 and fails the proportionality test.

To fix this imbalance, the main thing we have to do is to change registration from mandatory to voluntary one, as partners can choose based on what their motives are and can be also protected from the social stigma from the society. Rather than a compliance, registration should be an accessible framework for partners seeking joint civil benefits. Afterall, it is the fact that the cohabitation exists between the couple should be the sole evidence when the disputes arises for financial remedies under domestic violence law and child legitimacy and their rights.

References

Legislation

• Constitution of India, 1950
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Hindu Marriage Act. 1955
• Hindu Succession Act, 1956
• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
• Special Marriage Act, 1954
• Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
• Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
• Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005

Cases

• Lata Singh v State of UP (2006) 5 SCC 475
• S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600
• Tulsa v Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520
• Lalita Toppo v State of Jharkhand (2019) 13 SCC 796
• Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755
• D Velusamy v D Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469
• KS Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

Government Reports

• Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System. (2003). Report of the Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (Vol. 1). Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
• Expert Committee on Uniform Civil Code. (2024). Report of the Expert Committee on Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand. Government of Uttarakhand.
• Law Commission of India. (2009). Preventing bigamy via conversion to Islam: A proposal for giving statutory effect to Supreme Court rulings (Report No. 227). Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
• National Commission for Women. (2008). Annual report 2008–2009. Government of India
• Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development. (2005). One hundred fifty-fourth report on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Bill, 2005 (Report No. 154). Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliament of India.