This Blog is written By Miss. Shilvi Jhawar Student of Manipal University, Jaipur.
Introduction
The 21st Century
is the century of westernization. Indian society has observed drastic
changes in its lifestyle and cultural values. People are nowadays becoming
familiar with the idea of two adults living together without getting married
and pre-marital sex. However, this change has constantly been under criticism
and one of the most discussed topics of the decade.
Earlier in India, all sorts of relationships were considered illegitimate where marriage has not
taken place between a man and a woman but today couples live together under the same roof without getting married. This circumstance has aroused many social
and legal debates and ultimately led to some major legal reforms in India.
Meaning of Live-in Relationship
It is a living
arrangement in which two adults live together in a long term or permanent relationship without getting married. It handles the matter of premarital sex and
this relation builds up the harmony between the couples but spoils their social
influence.
Analyzing Live-in Relationship and Marriage
In India, a distinct set of laws govern a marriage between two individuals, and also
protects and safeguards their legal
rights and interests of both parties who are involved in this association.
Presently in India, there's no law defining the terms related to live-in
relationship. The Highest Court authority i.e. the Supreme Court has observed in
its a current ruling that a lady who has been in a live-in relationship for an extended period should have equivalent rights that a married woman is entitled
to.
Live-in
relationships guarantee financial freedom for both the involved
parties. However, in a marriage, it is usually accepted that the husband and
wife share their earnings and expenditures and also enter into many financial
endeavors together.
Despite the very
fact that there are many couples who are choosing live-in relationships, the
society still forbids such relationships. Generally a large number of
people look at live-in relationships against their cultural and moral values
even though there is an alarming increase in the number of divorces in India
still, marriage remains the most socially accepted association between two
parties.
Judicial Response in Live-in Relationship
In the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. a three-judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma, and BS
Chuhan held that a live-in relationship comes within the limits of the right to life
under Art-21 of the constitution of India and the court further observed that the
act of two major cohabiting together without marriage cannot be considered as
an offense (illegal/unlawful). Hence making live relationships permissible.
In the case of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun the
Indian Judiciary has made it very clear that its intention is to provide
justice to both the parties of live-in relationships who were not protected by
any law and were subjected to many cases of abuse arising out of such relationships.
These relationships are not considered illegal in the eye of the law even
though it is looked down upon by society.
In the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, the
Court held that the live-in relationship for an extended period, cannot be termed
as a “walk-in and walk-out” relationship and it is assumed that man and the
woman are married. This judgment infers that long-term living relationships
are treated as marriage without making any new law for life –in relationships.
In the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan,
the Supreme Court held that there will be a presumption of marriage under
Section though it is objected by most people in society. Judiciary has
considered various societal and constitutional norms while deciding various
cases and has neither promoted or prohibited such sort of cohabitations.
Section 114 of the
Evidence Act and if there is a child born out of such a relationship then
he/she will be considered legitimate and would be rightfully entitled to
receive a share in ancestral property. Further, the court also interpreted Art
39(f) of Constitution of India which imposes a duty on the state to provide
every child ample opportunities for its growth and development, safeguarding
their interest.
In the case of Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of
Maharashtra and Others the Supreme Court observed that a woman is entitled
to maintenance under Sec 125 CrPC even if she is in a live-in relationship with
a man and she has to not establish that the marriage has taken place to claim
maintenance.
In the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, it was held by the Supreme Court that
if a woman without any knowledge is in a live-in relationship with a man who is
legally married to someone else will still be considered to be in a “domestic
relationship” under Protection from Domestic Violence of Women Act, 2005. Thus
a man’s failure to maintain her will be treated as “Domestic Violence” under
this act and she can claim compensation to safeguard her interest.
General guidelines
on live-in relationship given by Supreme Court:
- Duration of Period of
Relationship
Section 2(f) of
the Domestic Violence Act has used the expression ‘at any point of time’, which
means a reasonable period of time to maintain a relationship which may vary from
case to case.
The expression has
been defined under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act.
- The pooling of Resources and
Financial Arrangements
It means share
their earnings and expenditures and also enter into many financial endeavors
together.
Assigning the
responsibility, particularly on the lady, to run the house,
do family activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or
up keeping the house, etc. is a sign of a relationship within
the nature of the wedding.
Marriage like
relationship handles a matter of intimate and emotional relation that builds up
harmony between the couples.
If there is a child born out of such a relationship then he/she will be considered legitimate
and would be rightfully entitled to receive a share in ancestral property.
Further, the court also interpreted Art 39(f) of Constitution of India which
imposes a duty on the state to provide every child ample opportunities for its
growth and development, safeguarding their interest.
Socializing with the general public and friends
as if they're a husband and a married person could be
a sturdy circumstance to carry the link within
the nature of the wedding.
- Intention and conduct of
the Parties
The common intention
of parties regarding their relationship determining their respective roles and
responsibilities helps in building their relationship better.[1]
Live-in Relationship and Law in India
There is no
distinct law regarding live-in relationship in India therefore, the legal
status of these type relationships is indefinite. The previous Indian Law does
not provide any rights or duties to both the parties under live-in relationship
so the Indian judicial system has made certain changes in some enactments to
protect and maintain both the parties involved in a live-in relationship. The child born out of such a relationship is also taken care of through such
enactments.
Various
legislations are discussed below:
Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 2(f) of
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines:
Domestic
relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any
point of time, lived together in a shared household when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage,
adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
This act was
enforced to protect women from physical, mental, verbal and economical abuse in
a marital relationship, however, the Indian Judiciary has also made it very clear
its intention to provide justice to women in a live-in relationship who were
not protected by any law and were subjected to many cases of abuse arising out of such
relationships.
Criminal Procedure Code,
1973
There was a committee that was formed i.e. Malimath Committee that gave several
recommendations made by them under the head “offenses against women” and this the committee recommended amending Section 125 CrPC the term “wife”. Now the term the wife also includes a woman in a live-in relationship who was in a relationship
with a man for an extended period. It says that she will be entitled to get all
the privileges as that of a spouse and can also claim maintenance under this
section. The two parties in a live-in relationship for an extended period are
assumed to be married and hence eligible for maintenance under Cr.P.C.
Evidence Act, 1872
The court held
that there will be a presumption of marriage though it is objected by most
people in society. Judiciary has considered various societal and
constitutional norms while deciding various cases and has neither promoted or
prohibited such sort of cohabitations.
Section 114 of the
Evidence Act and if there is a child born out of such a relationship then
he/she will be considered legitimate and would be rightfully entitled to
receive a share in ancestral property. Further, the court also interpreted Art
39(f) of Constitution of India which imposes a duty on the state to provide
every child ample opportunities for its growth and development, safeguarding
their interest.
Comments
Post a Comment