Skip to main content

Legal Status of Live in relationships in India by mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq

 Legal Status of Live in relationships in India

Introduction

With changing times and modernisation, the social dynamics in India have undergone a few positive changes. And a series of progressive judgements over the last decade is a testament to that. For instance, in 2017, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right in KS. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. In 2014, the SC affirmed the rights of transgender persons in NALSA v. Union of India. And in 2018, it decriminalised S. 377 of the Indian Penal Code in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India. 

Several judgments have contested the archaic notions of Indian society.  However, certain social truths still await acceptance and are seen through the lens of patriarchal morality; a classic example is live-in relationships.

While a fraction of the Indian population has accepted it, a sizeable chunk is still hostile towards the idea. Even though now it is pretty normalised in Bollywood and regional cinema through movies like ‘Luka Chhuppi’, there still is hesitance.

Meaning And Legal Status Of Live-In Relationship In India 

Although the term ‘live-in relationship’ fails a precise definition, it refers to the domestic cohabitation between two unmarried individuals.  The concept of live-in relationships is becoming popular among couples. However, it may be said that the prevalence is more in metros and tier 1 cities, especially among the upwardly mobile youngsters. Individuals prefer live-in relationships over marriages for various reasons. 

Often couples tend to resort to live-in relationships to test their compatibility before binding themselves together in marriage. It provides a better opportunity for them to understand each other and make well-informed decisions in serious commitments like marriage.

Particularly in countries like India, where divorce is frowned upon and stigmatised, live-in relationships allow separation without the state’s interference.

Precarious Love: Forms Of Live-In Relationships In India 

Live-in relationships can be broadly categorised into three distinct categories for ease of understanding. This classification helps understand if these categories fall within the broad ambit of the term ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’.

Keeping with the term ‘relationship in nature of marriage’, three kinds of scenarios dispute this terminology. First, could be a domestic cohabitation between two unmarried heterosexual individuals. Second, adulterous live-in relationships. And finally, domestic relationships between same-sex partners.

The most common, pervasive and accepted form is the first type of live-in relationship where two unmarried heterosexual individuals willfully cohabit. However, most societal antipathy and legal issues arise against the second and third scenarios mentioned above.

For instance, in Kusum v. State of UP, a married woman had ‘eloped with another man’, continued to cohabit with him for five years. However, the Allahabad High Court disallowed the woman to seek protection under the garb of a live-in relationship since her marriage was not legally dissolved. Therefore, her new relationship could not be said to fall within the expression relationship ‘in the nature of marriage. Consequently, it was not covered under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the Act.

In Reshma Begum v. the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court underlined that to constitute a ‘domestic relationship’ under Section 2(f) of the Act, the possibility of a legal marriage is a sine qua non. In the case, the Court asserted that the impugned provision could not be interpreted excessively to promote adulterous relationships. Thus, the Court held that the relationship between the parties was not ‘in the nature of marriage’. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to any relief under the Act.


Legal Status of Children Born Out of Live-in Relationship

In Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, children born out of live-in relationships received the legal status of legitimacy for the first time. The Supreme Court said that if a man and woman live under the same roof and cohabit for considerable years, there will be a presumption of marriage under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the children born to them will be considered legitimate and rightfully entitled to receive a share in ancestral property.

 

Conclusion

Due to legislative ignorance, individuals’ in live-in relationships are not given protection under a prescribed set of rules or regulations. The current Indian legal framework surrounding live-in relationships is primarily a result of a series of relatively progressive judicial precedents. The Indian judiciary, on multiple instances, has delineated the difference between social morality and constitutional morality by legitimising live-in relationships and upholding their rights.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more