1. Introduction
In India, the term "live-in relationship" usually refers to an unmarried couple living together under one roof. Despite not having a valid marriage license, they live "like husband and wife." The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) even defines a "domestic relationship" as two persons who have "lived together in a shared household through a relationship in the nature of marriage." In essence, a live-in relationship is an adulterous cohabitation that resembles a marriage, but it is not legally recognized.
2. Historical and Cultural Context
Even though it is often considered a contemporary phenomena, informal cohabitation is not wholly new in India. In the past, traditional practices such as Rajasthan's nata pratha and Gujarat's maitri-karar, or "friendship contracts," permitted couples to cohabitate without a legal marriage. As a result of Westernization, "a portion of India appears to have adopted a modern lifestyle, namely, the live-in relationship," causing "deep anguish on the diminishing regard for the institution of marriage and deteriorating standard of sexual ethics," says a judge quoted in a 2024 editorial in the Hindustan Times. However, the Supreme Court has recognized that women's financial independence "has led to proliferation of such live-in relationships," indicating that urban youth and increasingly independent women are more receptive to cohabitation, reflecting changing norms.
3. Legal Recognition under Indian Law
Framework of Statutes Although there isn't a specific law in India that explicitly permits or registers live-in partnerships, some sections of the country's current laws have been interpreted to do so. According to the DV Act of 2005, a couple who live together in "a relationship in the nature of marriage" may be deemed to be in a "domestic relationship". This implies that, just like a wife, a woman who feels wronged in a live-in relationship may request protection orders, maintenance, child custody orders, and other Act-provided reliefs. In a similar vein, courts have interpreted Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which covers maintenance for a "wife," to cover women in cohabitation. A Supreme Court committee led by Justice Malimath supported the National Commission for Women's 2008 recommendation to expand Section 125 to include live-in partners. Courts currently maintain that a woman does not have to establish a lawful marriage in order to obtain maintenance under Section 125; a live-in partner may also be eligible for alimony support.
4. Key Judicial Precedents
● Legality and Art. 21: In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Singh, Khushboo v. Kanniammal and similar cases (2010), the Supreme Court affirmed that consensual sex and cohabitation are not illegal, and invoked the right to life and personal liberty (Art. 21) to protect adult couples’ choice of relationship .
● Limitations:Supreme Court in Indra Sarmav.VKV Sarma (2013) cautioned that not all cohabiting relationships fall under the DV Act. In particular, if one partner is legally married to someone else, the live-in union will not be treated as a “marriage-like” relationship; in fact, it may be treated as adultery by law. The Court stressed that couples in live-in relationships must be otherwise eligible to marry each other , and noted that legislative action would be needed for any further regulation of such unions.
● Consent and Marriage Promise : A recent Supreme Court case, Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) , illustrates how courts view long-term live-in unions. Because the couple had lived together for more than two years, the court dismissed a rape case against a man who was accused of leaving a woman after making a false promise to marry her. The justices ruled that "a presumption would arise that two able-minded adults voluntarily chose that kind of relationship when they cohabitated with each other for more than a couple of years."
● Adultery and Married Partners: Notably, after adultery was decriminalized in Joseph Shine, (2018) Some courts have addressed live-in cases involving married persons. In Simranjeet Kaur (2021), the Supreme Court refused protection to a couple in a live-in arrangement because one partner was already married – emphasizing that the law still does not sanction a married person forsaking a spouse to cohabit with another. Thus, while live-in unions between unmarried adults are permitted, courts have upheld that someone already in a valid marriage cannot enter into a live-in relationship with a third party .
● Children and Inheritance: Children born in live-in partnerships now have rights thanks to a number of rulings. Even an "illegitimate" child of such a union is entitled to maintenance as a minor and, if incapable of supporting themselves, even after they reach maturity, according to a ruling by the Supreme Court. Importantly, these kids have the same rights as kids from a legal marriage and are considered legitimate for inheritance purposes.
5. Rights of Live-In Partners
● Domestic Violence Remedies: If the live-in union meets the “in the nature of marriage” test, the woman can avail herself of all remedies under the DV Act – protection orders (against abuse or harassment), residence orders (right to live in the shared household), monetary relief (compensation for medical/legal costs) and custody orders for any children . In short, a live-in partner can invoke the DV Act just like a wife to stop domestic violence or secure a roof and funds. Courts have explicitly held that the absence of marriage does not bar a claim: “a live-in relationship…like a relationship of marriage…is pretty much sufficient to base the claim of reliefs under the said Act” .
● Children's Rights: Every child born to a cohabiting spouse is entitled to all legal protections. In terms of inheritance or maintenance, the child is not regarded as illegitimate. The Supreme Court affirmed that these children have the same rights as children born into marriage and are "to be considered legitimate." As legal heirs, they are able to inherit property from either parent and demand support from the father.
● Property and Inheritance: The partners themselves, however, do not enjoy automatic marital property rights. If they acquire property jointly (e.g. buy a house together), each owns their share. But unless title is in one partner’s name or a joint agreement exists, an unmarried partner generally has no right to claim ownership of the other’s assets. In practice, a live-in partner must rely on common contracts or equitable principles (for example, proving contributions to household assets) to claim a share. (By contrast, marriage laws like the Hindu Succession Act do not treat an unmarried partner as a spouse or heir.) The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (2024) attempted to address this by requiring registration of live-in couples to secure inheritance rights, but that approach has been fiercely criticized as undermining personal liberty .
6. Social and Ethical Perspectives
● Women’s Autonomy: Proponents argue live-in relationships empower women to make independent choices. As observed by the Supreme Court, the growing financial independence of women has led many to “chart their life on their own terms,” including choosing live-in partnerships . This autonomy, they say, helps partners assess compatibility without the legal bind of marriage.
● Criticisms and Stigma: Opponents counter that live-in unions erode traditional family values and can leave women vulnerable. There is a persistent stigma: many view such relationships as a form of “walk-in, walk-out” friendship lacking commitment . Social critics worry about exploitation or abandonment. Religious and political voices sometimes condemn live-ins as an import of Western immorality. The recent Uttarakhand law (Uniform Civil Code 2024) exemplified this backlash: it criminalized unregistered live-in cohabitation, penalizing couples (up to 3 months jail) for failing to formally record their status . Activists decried this as “stepping into bedrooms,” warning it infringes privacy and defeats the very purpose of a consensual union .
● Rural Customs vs. Modernity: Ironically, informal cohabitation has older roots in some rural customs (nata pratha, as noted). But today’s tribal and village practices are often markedly different: the NHRC has likened nata pratha to a form of prostitution, underscoring that these customs can be exploitative rather than liberating . Thus, even practices that superficially resemble live-in relationships may carry serious ethical and human rights concerns in certain contexts.
7. Comparative Perspective
● USA: In the United States, there is no nationwide recognition of unmarried cohabitation akin to marriage. A few states (e.g. Colorado, Iowa, and some others) have limited provisions for “common law marriage,” which can retroactively treat a long-term cohabiting couple as married if they meet strict criteria.
● Australia: Australia, on the other hand, openly acknowledges de facto relationships, both same-sex and heterosexual ones. Under the federal Family Law Act 1975, cohabiting couples who live together on a “genuine domestic basis” for over 2 years (or less, if they have children or contributed significantly to property) are deemed de facto spouses. Such partners have similar rights to married couples: they can seek a division of assets (property settlement) and spousal maintenance after separation . In practice, Australian courts examine factors like joint purchases, contributions and shared life to confirm a de facto status (for example, living together for 2+ years, having a child, or entering joint mortgages). State laws also reinforce these rights.
8. Challenges and Criticisms
● Lack of Uniform Law: There is no comprehensive statute for live-in couples. Rights must be pieced together from diverse laws and court rulings, leading to uncertainty. Judges have themselves noted that many live-in cases highlight gaps that only legislation can resolve . Until a clear law is enacted, couples often must prove the nature of their relationship in each dispute.
● Gender Vulnerability: Women in live-in relationships can be vulnerable if the partnership ends. Unlike a legally married wife, a live-in partner has no guaranteed right to alimony or residence unless she meets the DV Act criteria and convinces a court. If a man refuses to cooperate or disappears, the woman must file legal cases and may face delays. Moreover, extramarital cohabitation can attract moral policing; reports indicate couples have been threatened or even detained by authorities acting on non-registered unions.
● Inconsistent Judgments: Courts have sometimes reached different conclusions on seemingly similar facts. For example, a Rajasthan High Court refused to protect a live-in couple simply because both parties were still married to others , whereas other courts have shown more leniency. This judicial unpredictability can make live-in partners hesitant to seek legal recourse.
9. Future Outlook and Reforms
● Uniform Cohabitation Law: Legislators might consider a statute defining “live-in relationships,” setting eligibility criteria similar to Velusamy factors and specifying rights. This could cover maintenance, alimony, property sharing, and registration optionality. Some experts note that while registration could secure women’s rights, mandatory registration was seen as intrusive. A balanced approach might be to allow couples to voluntarily register their relationship as some Western jurisdictions allow, providing legal status if needed, without compulsion.
● Amendments to Existing Laws: Parliament could amend the DV Act or Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act to explicitly mention live-in partners, removing judicial guesswork. For example, defining a “wife” for maintenance purposes to include a live-in partner as was recommended in 2008 would clarify entitlement. Similarly, property and inheritance laws could be tweaked to grant some succession rights to unmarried partners.
● Safeguards Against Abuse: Given concerns about tribal customs (like nata pratha) and honour crimes against couples, laws may need anti-harassment provisions. Experts argue that children and women in live-in unions deserve protection, and any reform should focus on empowering them rather than penalizing consensual adults.
● Legislative Debates: The issue may come up in broader discussions on a Uniform Civil Code. Uttarakhand’s new law – which for the first time made live-in registration a legal requirement – could inspire similar moves in other BJP-led states. However, it has also generated backlash, suggesting that any uniform code will face political challenges.
● Judicial Role Continues: In the absence of new legislation, courts will continue to shape this area. Expect more litigation on live-in rights, which may nudge lawmakers. Recent rulings (like the 2025 SC presumption of consent) show courts are largely tolerant of live-in couples, but also underline that marriage eligibility is still a key line. Future Supreme Court benches may be asked to clarify matters like property entitlements or same-sex live-in unions (the Delhi High Court has already addressed same-sex cohabitation in Alok Kumar 2010).
10. Conclusion
Overall, live-in relationships in India today exist in a transitional legal space. Social practices have outpaced statutory law, and Indian jurisprudence has increasingly adapted to protect partners – but only on a piecemeal basis. Whether this happens through piecemeal amendments or a comprehensive cohabitation law remains to be seen. What is clear is that live-in couples in India will need continued judicial protection and legislative clarity to ensure their rights are not left to whim and social prejudice.