Introduction
In the contemporary world, India as a nation, has gradually adopted aspects of western culture. In India now days live-in relationship are becoming increasingly prevalent. Live-in relationship means when two consenting adults of opposite sex have live together without marriage are considered live-relationship. In Indian Society Marriage as a institution is very idealistic and thoughtful matter for the Society. In Hindu religion marriage are considered to be ‘sacrament’ it is religious duty for Hindus. Live-in relationship are considered as a taboo for Indian society. Now days people have no hesitation in sustaining long cohabitation without marriage. In previous years people have hesitation in declaring their relationship because of the society fear and stigma.
Legal Status of Live-Relationship in India
As per the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 there is no provision regarding the live-in relationship and other personal law also does not have any provision regarding live-in relationship but under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Section 2(f) defines that “A relationship between two person who live or lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage”. In this phrase it also add ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ so I bring out live-in relationship under the Domestic Violence Act 2005. Although there is no proper legislation of law regarding live-in relationship but through judicial interpretation by courts live-in relationship has a significance in India.
In “Khushboo v. Kanaimmal and another” 2010 The supreme court held that as per the society norm the concept of live-in relationship are considered unethical and immoral but it is no definitely illegal according the law. In a live-in relationship both the person have the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. so live-in relationship is not a offence in the eyes of law.
In Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation 1978
The Supreme Court held that when a man and woman who are living together for a long time (50years) so it is strong presumption of a valid marriage according to the law but the legitimacy will be proven on the basis of clarity and continuity of the evidence of the relationship. The burden of proof is on the person who question the legitimacy of the relation. It protects the status of dignity and reputation of the couple.
Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act 2005
D Velusamy v/s D Patchaaima The petitioner claim maintenance under section 125 Crpc claiming that she is wife of the appellant but the appellant refuse it. The supreme court held that not every live-in relationship, causal relationship , one night stand does not include in the nature of the marriage so the court interpret some condition to fall down under the nature of the marriage.
The conditions are follow above-
The couple must represent themselves as husband and wife to the society.
They must eligible for marriage legally according o the law.
Neither of them should be married at the time of the relation because it will include in bigamy.
They must be voluntarily cohabitation for a long time and represent themselves as spouse to the society.
Rights of child born out from the live-in relationship
Under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 section 16 defines the legitimacy of child from the void and voidable Marriage are considered to be legitimate but they can only inherit parents property they cannot acquire ancestor property. So child born out from the live-in relationship has no provision in the Hindu Marriage Act and other personal law also does have any provision regarding legitimacy of the child born out from the live-in relationship but through judicial interpretation it recognized the legitimacy of the child from live-in relationship.
In Kattukandi Edathil krishnan and Another v/s Kattukandi Edathil Vaisan and others (2022) The Supreme Court held that when a man and woman have a cohabitation for a long time and share household and represent themselves as husband and wife to the society so it gave rise to the presumption of marriage. the question arise whether a child is legitimate or illegitimate but the court will considered the valid and clear evidence of the cohabitation of the relation. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the cohabitation has not take place but the defendant failed to prove so the child will be considered o be legitimate because the child is born out during the nature of marriage so the child have the right to inherit the property of the father.
Comparison with other countries on live-in relationship
While In India live-in relationship are considered taboo by society, they are increasingly common in metropolitan cities. In USA live-in relationship have a proper legal recognition and the couple have a proper rights and legal obligation like a married couple. In USA the term ‘palimony’ means grant relief for women in case of financial support from her partner it safeguard the rights of women. In France live-n relationship known as cohabitation also has a proper legal system and laws which regulate people and the couple have right and they are bound by the legal obligation.
Conclusion
Live-in Relationship as a concept is very controversial among people of India but it provide opportunity for people too know each other better for the betterment of their life but we should not forgot the importance of marriage as a institution it is a ritual for Indians they have a significance in marriage most of the women considered marriage is a important event for their life. Marriage not only give rights, legal obligation but it gives moral implication on us we should grow with modernization but we should never forgot our roots.
Reference
- https://scholar.google.com
- https:// home.heinonline.com
- Hindu Law –Dr. Paras Diwan
- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 - Universal Bare Act
- Constitutional law – Universal Bare Act
- Khushboo v/s Kanaimmal And Another (AIR 2010 5SCC 600) https://indiankanoon.org
- Badri Prasad v/s Deputy Director, Consolidation and other (AIR 1978 SC 1557) https://indiankanoon.org
- D. Velusamy v/s D.Patchaimmal ( AIR 2010 10SCC 469 ) https://indiankanoon.org
- Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another v/s Kattukandi Edathil valsan (AIR 2022 3SCC 412) ) https://indiankanoon.org