1. Introduction
The landscape of today's relationships is evolving rapidly. With the increase in globalization and shift in the social standards, the traditional wedlock is not the sole definition of love between a couple. New category of relationship has emerged which is termed as ‘Live-in Relationship.’ It can be defined as a connection between two individuals who live together like a married couple without formally recognizing their union through marriage. Such relationships are very prevalent in younger generations because of various reasons, including:
- A desire to know each other before marriage
- Fear of commitment or divorce
- Desire for independence
Despite growing acceptance of such relationships, it is often viewed as a social taboo and against the social order and also does not have any backup or relevant recognition in the eyes of law.
2 Live-In Relationships In India: Social Advancement
In early days, intimate relations without marriage were considered a sin in a lot of societies, especially in those where people had strong faith in religious or social norms. This consideration stems from a belief that sexual relationships and family formation can only be accepted through marriage. Alot of people with strong cultural belief viewed marriage as a sacred act performed with the divine blessings for the continuation of the family lineage and the proper regulations of sexual activity.
With the changing time, Indians are getting exposed to the Western cultures and values that has led to an increasing acceptance of non-traditional relationships. People living in cities are getting more attracted towards the idea of independence and anonymity allowing them to make choices without the fear of traditional pressure from the society. The younger generations nowadays prioritize their personal liberty and self-expression, leading to greater acceptance of live-in relationships.
There is a significant contrast between the perceptions of people in the metropolitan and in the rural:
2.1 People in the metropolitan areas, especially the educated middle and upper classes, consider live-in relationships a matter of personal choice and part of changing societal norms, whereas people in the rural areas consider it a hostile to familial honour and traditional values.
2.2 People in cities are aware of the legal protections surrounding live-in relationship; however, people in villages have no idea of such protection and view such relationships as criminal or illicit in nature.
2.3 The urban youth are more familiar with media and globalization normalizing live-in relationships, whereas the rural youth generally are brought up in conservative environment with little or no exposure to non-traditional relationships.
2.4 If a woman in a city is in a live-in relationship, she still faces societal judgement but is more likely to find support networks and progressive circles but if the same woman lives in a live-in relationship in a rural area, she is more likely to be labelled as having loose morals and finds it difficult to fetch support network, which can severely impact her safety and social standing.
Despite growing acceptance, couples in live-in relationship often face several problems, including:
2.5 Social taboo: Living together like a married couple without proper solemnization of marriage is often considered taboo, and they may face opposition from their family and society.
2.6 Lack of commitment: It is often seen that couples in live-in relationship tend to avoid commitment which leads to lack of communication, trust, and overall stability in the relationship.
2.7 Finding shelter is a major issue: This is one of the major problems faced by unmarried couples. It is very difficult for them to find a landlord who is ready to rent their house to such couples, and the neighbours around such houses are of non-judgmental and non-discriminating personality.
2.8 Financial Problems: It gets difficult for people in live-in relationship to manage their finances in a way that equally benefits them.
2.9 Conflicts related to career choices: In a live-in relationship, decisions regarding career choices could be tricky due to lack of legal commitment. One may prefer their career over the relationship if they get a job at some different location which can lead to feelings of frustration, conflict, stress, and resentment.
3 Judicial Recognition: Key Judgements Of Supreme Court And High Court
Considering the absence of proper legislation regarding live-in relationships in India, judiciary has played a very crucial role in interpreting the existing laws to fill the legislative vacuum through cases like:
Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1978): It was the first case to initiate the journey of live-in relationship in India. The Supreme Court upheld that if two people are staying together as a couple for more than 50-years, it will be presumed that they are married and no eyewitness testimony would be necessary to prove their marriage ceremony.
S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal (2010): The Supreme Court of India gave a very landmark judgement in this case. The court referring to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution held that if two adults are voluntarily living together as a couple without a formal marriage, they are neither doing anything illegal nor immoral.
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010): Certain points were laid down by court to determine if a specific non-traditional relationship falls under the ambit of section 2(f) of PWDVA (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) or not. The points were:
- That the couple must be legally eligible to marry
- That they must be living together under the same roof
- That there must be a voluntary cohabitation for a significant period of time
- That they are seen as spouse in the eyes of public.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): The case dealt with a situation wherein a woman in a live-in relationship with a man who is already married is entitled to protection under the definition of “relationship in the nature of marriage” as per section 2(f) of PWDVA or not. The court established few categories of live-in relationships and determined which among those qualified for the safeguard under PWDVA. The categories were:
- Both man and woman in non-traditional relationship are unmarried.
- An extramarital live-in relationship.
- Both man and woman in a live-in relationship are already married.
- Two people of same gender in a live-in relationship.
Only the first category qualified for protection under section 2(f) of PWDVA provided other criteria are also fulfilled.
These judgements prove that courts have always upheld the liberty and autonomy of individuals in choosing their partner and living arrangements, despite the absence of statutory law governing live-in relationships in India, though protection vary on the basis of judicial discretion.
4 Legitimate Rights Emerging From Live-In Relationships
Although, there is no particular statute overseeing live-in connections in India but legal elucidation has driven to the slow development of certain lawful rights and specific statutory applications, such as:
4.1 “As per section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), ‘domestic relationship’ is a relationship wherein two individuals are living or have lived together under the same roof, and are connected by:
Marriage
Consanguinity
Relationship in the nature of marriage”
There are several cases in which court has established that every live-in relationship cannot be protected under the ambit of section 2(f). The relationship entered merely for sexual and financial convenience are excluded.
4.2 “As per the ‘maintenance rights’ which is defined under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), wives, including divorced women who have not remarried and are unable to maintain themselves are entitled to maintenance.” The female in a live-in relationship can claim maintenance if she is treated similarly like a wife. However, male partner and the same-sex partners are excluded from the scope of this section.
4.3 There is no automatic inheritance over the property in live-in relationships unless the property is of a nature of joint ownership. Personal laws like- Hindu Succession Act does not give succession rights to partners in live-in relationship therefore they cannot inherit each other’s property.
4.4 The Indian Courts consider the children born out of live-in relationships legitimate. However, they can only inherit the self-acquired property of their parents.
5 Need For Reform
Different judges have different perspectives regarding live-in partnerships, and these perspectives reveals the ambiguity and inconsistency revolving live-in relationships in India. While some consider it a personal choice which must be respected and safeguarded by law, others worry that it might destroy the traditional norms and values, like in a recent judgement, the judge gave a remark that live-in relationship goes against the value of middle-class people in India, this shows just how mixed judicial attitudes can be.
Decision solely on the basis of judge’s discretion, with no clear legislation, can reduce the significance of rule of law and the equal protection it offers to every citizen.
Therefore, there must be a proper legislative definition of live-in relationship in India, defining their boundaries and liberties. We also suggest some additional reforms like the registries of such relationships and guidelines regarding maintenance and property division which are gender neutral.
6 Conclusion
Live-in relationships in India are not a new concept. They have marked the beginning of new concept of love, and the way people wish to live together in this 21st century. Although, judges have tried to resolve the issues concerning live-in relationship in India, yet there is a room for constructive and efficient legislation that shields the liberty while also protection the partners from domestic abuse and exploitation. While more Indians are accepting this concept, there must be a legislation to respect and uphold the dignity of non-traditional relationships as well.
List Of Footnotes
1. Saarthi Counselling Services, Problems in Live-in Relationships in India, https://www.saarthicounsellingservices.com/blog/problems-livein-relationship-in-india/ (last visited July 1, 2025).
2. IBID.
3. IBID.
4. IBID.
5. IBID.
6. Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, (1978) 3 SCC 527.
7. S. Khusboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.
8. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.
9. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
10. Supra n.8.
11. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
12. Bharat Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, (2010) 11 SCC 483.
13. S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, (1991) 2 SCC 224.
14. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1.
15. Shane Alam v. State of U.P. and Others, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19278 of 2025, decided on 24 June 2025 (All HC).