Live in Relationship DIXIT SSIR

8/17/2019 Live in Relationship DIXIT SSIR

1/20

JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA :MR.VK DIXIT

LIVE IN RELATIONSHIPS:BLOT ON

YOUR MORALITY

for: COMPARATIVE

JURISPRIDENCE

MOHAMMAD AARIF

My moral!y V" S!a!#" Moral!y


2/20

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS

The Project deals with the issue of live in relationship with regard to the debate of morality

which is very common these days. However, law on this issue is not very clear either in India or

abroad. While case by case basis court is adumbrating the law with regard to live in

relationships, there are many questions that need to be answered. The rights guaranteed to

female live in partners along with the rights of child born out of such relationships ought to be

secured. However, it has to be ept in mind that when law is giving legal sanction to live in

relationships, it does not impede upon the institution of marriage as many a times men who get

into live in relationship is already married. If live in relationships are recogni!ed prima facie

then it may implicitly promote bigamy. "aw should have a discernible stance with respect to live

in relationships and the aftermath of such relations.


3/20

INTRODUCTION

Marriage in the Indian society has been considered as a sacred bond since the Vedic period. This

concept of matrimony has continuously evolved with time. With the ever-changing society and

human psychology, the concept of marriage and relationship has also evolved. The upcominggenerations are considering relationships ever more liberally. One such concept of live-in

relationships is being adopted by numerous couples around the world. The relationships where

two people cohabit outside marriage without any legal obligations towards each other are nown

as live-in relationships. This is a relationship in the nature of marriage but unlie a marriage.

This concept has slowly paved its way in the Indian scenario as well. !owever, such

relationships are considered a taboo in the Indian society. "lthough the legal status of live in

relationships in India is unclear, the #upreme $ourt has ruled that any couple living together for

a long term will be presumed as legally married unless proved otherwise. Thus, the aggrieved

live-in partner can tae shelter under the %omestic Violence "ct &''(, which provides protection

and maintenance and thereby grant the right of alimony.

Difference between live-in relationship and marriage

Marriage, also called as matrimony or wedloc, is a socially)ritually recogni*ed union or

contract between spouses that establishes certain rights and legal obligations towards each other.

"part from maintenance under personal laws, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal roced!re"

1#$% also provides for maintenance inter alia a wife is unable to maintain herself. Women can

see for additional maintenance apart from the maintenance received by her under any other law

as per Section 2&'1('d( of therotection of Women from Dome)tic Violence Act 'DV Act("

2&&5*

Live-in relationship in simple terms can be e+plained as a relationship in the nature of marriage

where both partners enoy individual freedom and live in a shared household without being

married to each other. It involves continuous cohabitation between the parties without any

responsibilities or obligations towards one another. There is no law tying them together and

conseuently either of the partners can wal out of the relationship, as and when, they will to do

so.

There is no legal definition of live in relationship and therefore the legal status of such type ofrelationships is also unsubstantiated. The Indian law does not provide any rights or obligations

on the parties in live relationship. The status of the children born during such relationship is also

unclear and therefore, the court has provided clarification to the concept of live in relationships

through various udgments. The court has liberally professed that any man and women

cohabiting for a long term will be presumed as legally married under the law unless proved

contrary.


4/20

The right to maintenance in live in relationship is decided by the court in accordance with

the Dome)tic Violence Act" 2&&5 and the individual facts of the case.

Though the common man is still hesitant in accepting this ind of relationship, the rotection of

Women from %omestic Violence "ct &''(, provides for the protection and maintenance thereby

granting the right of alimony to an aggrieved live-in partner.

/ive in relationship form a characteristic feature and style of living of couples, especially those

in metropolitan areas. !owever, the definition and ambit of live in relationship is very unclear,

there is no specific legislation in India on this subect, and the laws are in the form of court

verdicts which varies from case to case.

The right of woman in such relationship is also not very certain, though court has shown

willingness in recogni*ing their rights. /aw lie rotection of Women from %omestic Violence

"ct, &''( recogni*es right of woman in such relationship, nonetheless various other laws such as

law of marriage, succession etc. needs to be changed to give full protection to woman in live in

relationship. "s far as the right of child born under such relationship is concerned, under !indu

Marriage "ct, 01(( such child will be legal, nevertheless there is no such law apart from !M",

and 01(( that endorses presumption of legality of child born out of live in relationship.

Though at global level as well, laws are not very clear on live in relationship, showing a common

theme of aloofness and hesitation amongst countries to recogni*e such relationships.

2evertheless, as far as Indian scenario is concerned, there is a dire need to recogni*e such

relationship in form of a new legislation that will clearly dictate the ambit of live in relationship

and the rights and obligation of partners in such relationship.

+ACETS O+ LIVE IN RELATIONS,IS

The whole notion of live in relationship is not as simple as it appears but is multi-dimensional

bringing along with it many issues and complications.

Le-al Stat!) of Li.e/in Relation)0i)


5/20

The legal status of such live in couples lacs a definition. The rights and obligation which such

couples have towards each other and the status of children born out of such a tie e+udes a blurred

shadow. 2o law on the subect has been formulated3 the law is adumbrated in the court rooms via

myriad cases. When it comes to live in relationships, in earlier cases the court tended to presumemarriage based on the number of years of cohabitation.

In the cases prior to independence lie A Dinohamy v. WL Blahamy [1] ,0 the rivy $ouncil laid

down a broad rule postulating that.#Where a man and a woman are proved to have lived

together as a man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that

they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of

concubinage.$ The same principle was reiterated in the case of Mohabhat Ali v. Mohammad

Ibrahim Khan [] .

"fter independence the first case that can be reviewed is

Badri !rasad v. Dy. Dire"tor o# $onsolidation 456, wherein the #upreme $ourt for the first time

recogni*ed live in relationships as valid marriage, putting a stop to uestions raised by

authorities on the (' years of life in relationship of a couple. .It was held by 7ustice 8rishna Iyer

that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedloc where the partners have lived together for a

long term as husband and wife. "lthough the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies onhim who sees to deprive the relationship of its legal origin. /aw leans in favour of legitimacy

and frowns upon bastardy.

Moving on from the initial time when the court recogni*ed live in relationship which were of

considerably long period, court in recent cases have postulated that live in relationship are not

illegal per se. The "llahabad !igh $ourt, in &''0,

$$ (1928) 1 MLJ 388 (PC)% AIR 1929 PC 135

3 AIR 1978 SC 1557


6/20

in !ayal %harma v. %&perintendent' (ari (i)etan' and others496, stated that a live-in

relationship is not illegal. #harma had approached the "llahabad !igh $ourt when she was

forced to live in 2ari 2ietan at "gra, following her arrest, along with :amendra #ingh, with

whom she had a live-in relationship. The "gra police arrested her and #ingh on the basis of an;I: lodged by her father, accusing #ingh, an already married man, of idnapping #harma. ayal

#harma produced documentary evidence evincing the fact that she was &0 years old. On the basis

of this evidence, the court directed the authorities to set her free. 7ustice M 8atu and 7ustice

:.relation between two

adults without a formal marriage cannot be construed as an offence. It also stated that there is no

such statute which postulates that live in relationships are illegal. The same proposition was

upheld in the case of

*&lsa v. D&rghatiya ++, ,4?6 where the long term live in relationship was recogni*ed as

euivalent to marriage.

The #upreme $ourt provided legal status to the children born from live in

relationship. It was held that one of the crucial pre-conditions for a child born from live-in

relationship to not be treated as illegitimate are that the parents must have lived under one roof

and co-habited for a considerably long time for society to recogni*e them as husband and wife

and it must not be a @wal in and wal out@ relationship. Therefore, the court also granted the

right to property to a child born out of a live in relationship.

The further sanction to live in relationship was granted by udgement of #upreme $ourt on

rd o# Mar"h' +1+ in the Kh&shboo "ase4A6&. The case of the prosecution was that the

comment of the actress 8hushboo allegedly endorsing pre-marital se+ will adversely affect the

%& 2001 (3) AWC 1778' (2006) 8 SCC 726

( (2008) 4 SCC 520

) JT 2010 (4) SC 478


7/20

moral fabric of society. The $ourt, while uashing the charges framed on 8hushboo, commented

that there is no law that prohibits pre-marital relationships. " three udge bench comprising of

$hief 7ustice 8.B.


8/20

Indian society is changing# and this change has been reflected and recogni$ed by %arliament by

enacting !he %rotection of &omen from omestic iolence )ct# *++,.

!ence, though more or less uniformity has been e+uded in a positive direction by the court whenit comes to live in relationships, the law does not cut a clear picture as can be observed from the

recent %elhi !igh $ourt udgement.

Indra %arma vs. .K..%arma' +1 [/]

The recent udgment of the #upreme $ourt has illustrated five categories where the concept of

live in relationships can be considered and proved in the court of law. ;ollowing are the

categoriesE

0. %omestic relationship between an adult male and an adult female, both unmarried. It is

the most uncomplicated sort of relationship

&. %omestic relationship between a married man and an adult unmarried woman, entered

nowingly.

5. %omestic relationship between an adult unmarried man and a married woman, entered

nowingly. #uch relationship can lead to a conviction under Indian enal $ode for the

crime of adultery

9. %omestic relationship between an unmarried adult female and a married male, entered

unnowingly

(. %omestic relationship between same se+ partners F gay or lesbianG

The $ourt stated that a live-in relationship will fall within the e+pression =relationship in the

nature of marriageH under Section 2'f( of the rotection of omen A-ain)t Dome)tic Violence

Act"2&&5 and provided certain guidelines to get an insight of such relationships. "lso, there

should be a close analysis of the entire relationship, in other words, all facets of the interpersonal

relationship need to be taen into account, including the individual factors.

The $ourt in this case affirmed that the relationship in the present case is not a =relationship in

the nature of marriageH because it has no inherent or essential characteristic of a marriage, but a

relationship other than =in the nature of marriageH and the appellants status is lower than the

status of a wife and that relationship would not fall within the definition of =domestic

relationshipH under Section 2'f( of the %V "ct. In this case, the appellant admittedly entered into

a relationship with the respondent despite of nowing that the respondent was a married man

with two children born out of the wedloc who opposed the live in relationship since the

http://www.legallyindia.com/blogs/right-of-maintenance-to-women-in-live-in-relationships#edn5http://www.legallyindia.com/blogs/right-of-maintenance-to-women-in-live-in-relationships#edn5


9/20

inception. The $ourt further added, =If we hold that the relationship between the appellant and

the respondent is a relationship in the nature of a marriage, we will be doing an inustice to the

legally wedded wife and children who opposed that relationship. $onseuently, any act,

omission or commission or conduct of the respondent in connection with that type of

relationship, would not amount to =domestic violenceH under Section % of the %V "ct, as there isalso no evidence of a live-in relationship between the appellant and the respondent as per the

given guidelinesH. The $ourt held that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent

was not a relationship in the nature of a marriage, and the status of the appellant was that of a

concubine. ;urthermore, the %omestic Violence "ct does not tae care of such relationship

which may perhaps call for an amendment of the definition of )ection 2'f( of the %V "ct, which

is restrictive and e+haustive.

Stat!) of c0ild 3orn !nder a li.e in relation)0i

When it comes to the right of child born under live in relationship, we again find the law to be

groping in the dar. The !indu Marriage "ct, 01(( gives the status of legitimacy to every child,

irrespective of birth out of a void, voidable or valid marriage. !owever, they dont have property

and maintenance rights. !owever, there is no such presumption of legality of child in any other

religion or law, in such cases, legality of the child born out of such relationship is doubtful.

"nother important matter that needs to be taen note of is that, if the live in partners and the

parents desire to get out of the relationship, the future of the child comes into uestion. There

must be a provision to secure the right of the child, in case3 none of the parent wants to eep the

child with him. $ourt may appoint a guardian to loo after the interest of child. The child ought

to be entitled to have share, both in mothers and fathers property.

rotection of Ri-0t) of +emale artner in Li.e in Relation)0i)

The rights of female partner in live in relationship tend to be secure, credited to the recent

statutes and recommendation by the committees. $ourts also display alacrity to protect the right

of female partner in such relationship as e+hibited by udgements given in number of cases. The

statutes lie rotection of Women from %omestic Violence "ct, &''( protects woman both in the

categories of wife i.e. relationship by marriage and live-in partner i.e. relationship in nature of

marriage416, by reason of being embraced within the term =domestic relationshipH under #ection


10/20

&FfG of the "ct. !owever as was discussed in D. el&s0ami v. D. !at"haimmal 40'6(, to get the

benefits arising from =relationship lie marriageH, it is necessary that, =couple must hold

themselves out to society as being ain to spouses, they must be of legal age to marry, they must

be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried, they must havevoluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being ain to spouses for a

significant period of time.$

In 7une, &''C, The 2ational $ommission for Women recommended to Ministry of Women and

$hild %evelopment made suggestion to include live in female partners for the right of

maintenance under #ection 0&( of $r$. This view was supported by the udgement in Abhiit

Bhi)aseth A&ti v. %tate 2# Maharashtra and 2thers4006. The positive opinion in favour of live

in relationship was also seconded by Maharashtra Bovernment in October, &''C when it

accepted the proposal made by Malimath $ommittee and /aw $ommission of India which

suggested that if a woman has been in a live-in relationship for considerably long time, she ought

to enoy the legal status as given to wife. !owever, recently it was observed that it is divorced

wife who is treated as a wife in conte+t of #ection 0&( of $r$ and if a person has not even been

married i.e. the case of live in partners, they cannot be divorced, and hence cannot claim

maintenance under #ection 0&( of $r$.40&6

The "pe+ $ourt even went on to protect the live in female partner from harassment for dowry.

In Koppisetti %&bbharao %&bramaniam v. %tate o# A.! 4056, the defendant used to harass his live

in partner for dowry. In the #upreme $ourt, 7ustice "rit asyat and ".8. Banguly while denying

the contention of defendant that section 91C" does not apply to him since he was not married to

his live in partner held that, =the nomenclature )dowry* does not have any magical charm written

over it. It is just a label given to a demand of money in relation to a marital relationshipH.

'$-Supra- o#$ 9$$ CRIMI%AL WRIT P.TITI/% %/"2218 / 2007

12 Supra- o#$ 9

$* SLP (Cl") %o" 4496 o, 2006


11/20

%rawing parallels with the law which recogni*es the legitimacy of children born of void and

voidable marriages, it e+plained its stand asingE =+an a person who enters into a marital

agreement be allowed to tae shelter behind a smoescreen to contend that since there was no

valid marriage, the question of dowry does not arise&$

"n important observation to be noted here is that to recogni*e the right of female partners in live

in relationship and conseuently the protection granted via some statutes will have to be

accompanied by changes in laws of succession, adoption, marriage as well if we move in the

direction of legalisation of such relationship. "nother point to be taen note of is that recourse to

such relationship was taen to circumvent the obligations, bondage and legality attached with

marriage.


12/20

,ILIINES, live in relationship couples right to each others property is governed by co-

ownership rule. "rticle 09A, of the ;amily $ode, hilippines provides that when a man and a

woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live e+clusively with each other as husband and

wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall beowned by them in eual shares and the property acuired by both of them through their wor or

industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.09

UNITED 4INDO6, live in couples does not enoy legal sanction and status as granted to

married couple. There is no obligation on the partners to maintain each other. artners do not

have inheritance right over each others property unless named in their partners will. "s per a

&'0' note from the !ome "ffairs #ection to the !ouse of $ommons, unmarried couples have no

guaranteed rights to ownership of each others property on breadown of relationship. !owever,

the law see to protect the right of child born under such relationship.


13/20

In C,INA, couple can sign a contract for live in relationship. The rights of the child are

secured as the child born outside the wedloc has the same benefits as enoyed by the child born

under a marriage40C6.

?

The laws of IRELAND "2% AUSTRALIA also recogni*es live in relationship. The

family law of "ustralia recogni*es =de facto relationshipH between couples, while in Ireland the

impetus is towards greater recognition to live in relationship as there has been demand for right

to maintenance by separated live in couples.

The position that emerges with respect to live in relationships is not very discernible and lacs a

definition in maority of the countries. While some countries have passed legislation according

legal status to live in couples, some countries are granting greater legality to such couples by the

implied provision of their statutes as discussed. In India as well, via various decisions of the

court, law is e+hibiting a tendency of giving legal tinge to live in relationships.

2evertheless, the fact remains3 the legal progress of laws with respect to live in relationship and

the sweeping increase in number of such live in relationships are not running parallel to each

other. The law needs to whi* up to prescribe and proscribe speculation with respect to live inrelations.

($'Lo!$ l'!$+'* Ma+Woma R$la#'o*'* L',$ S#l$ T$ T'm$* o,

I'a

##&'m$*o,''a"''a#'m$*"om&l',$+*#l$&$la#'o*'*&ma+:oma&Lo!$+l'!$+

'*&a#'l$*o:&6386392"m*;'


14/20

LIVE IN RELATIONS,IS IN INDIAN SOCIO/LEAL CONTE7T/

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The manifold augmentation in the number of live in relationship couples in India may e+ude the

new metropolitan tenor and bondage free living but also has umpteen lacunae.While it threatens the very notion of husband and wife and the cognition of marriage that enoys

high level of sanctity when it comes to India, it also tends to prop up adultery, as there is no such

proscription that live in partners should be unmarried. Thus, a person might be married and be

living with someone else under the garb of live in relationship.

/ive-in relationships also endorse bigamy. ;or instance !ayal Katara v. %&perintendent (ari

(i)etan Kandri ihar Agra and 2thers*1#$ here :aendra rasad, the person with whom plaintiff

was living in was already married. While the court recogni*ed the right of cohabitation of the

plaintiff, what about the right of the wife of the person with whom plaintiff was cohabiting. The

uestion that sees an answer with the elevation of live in relationship is what will be the status

of wife, if a person who is in live in relationship is already married as law also see to protect the

right of live in partner under statutes lie rotection of Women from %omestic Violence "ct,

&''(. The recommendations of /aw $ommission, Malimath $ommittee is to recogni*e live in

partner as wife in case of live in relationship of reasonably long time. The attitude of "pe+ $ourt

towards such relation also evinces their alacrity in recognising live in relationships. "long withthese, the suggestions to include live in female partner under the provision given in #ection 0&(

of $r$ ends up euating the status of live in female partner and wife.

This promotes bigamy, as the person who is getting into live in relationship might be already

married. The position of the wife is disadvantageous in such situation as court on the one hand is

giving all the rights of wife to live in female partner, while on the other hand it prohibits bigamy.

/aw is ambiguous and disadvantageous for the weaer se+ and is not being beneficial to anyone.

While C1the right of legally wedded wife remains at stae, the right of live in female partner too

does not become secure.

)$, Supra- o#$ 5

+


15/20

Jven if rights of maintenance etc are provided to the live in female partner, there is no guarantee

that she can actually avail those rights. Marriages grant social recognition, but there is no proof

of live in relationship3 a person can easily deny the fact of live in relationship to evade liability.In sum and substance the rights of woman remains precarious.

When we tal about the after math of a live in relationship, the rights and liabilities of partners is

deficient of delineation. What will be the rights and liabilities of such partners after separation or

the death of one of the partner. There is no law of succession and maintenance that mentions the

stipulation that protects the right of such live in couples.

The children born under such relationship, although are recogni*ed under !indu Marriage "ct,

01((3 however, it is submitted that the couples who tend to disobey the socially recogni*ed

social tenor cannot be supposed to be people of only one religion or to be the one professing

!induism. In fact, many a time, because of familys opposition to inter-religion and inter-racial

marriage, couple prefers to get into live in relationship and hence forth circumventing family

obection.

#uch relationships are fragile and can be dissolved any moment, there is no obligation and

bondage, legal position with respect to live in relationship does not portray a discernible image./ive in relationship sponsor bigamy and adultery while posing a threat to the entire fabric

weaved out of values and morals on which the Indian #ociety stands.

T,E RESENT NEED

The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture eeping in mind the

present social conte+t along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that characterises

Indian society.

While the court in few cases granted the status of married couple to live in couple, in some cases

court held that live in relationship does not cast any obligation on the couple, as the whole idea

,


16/20

of live in relationship is to evade such bondage, evincing a penchant towards an obligation less,

free society.

2onetheless, another thought that see attention is that if the law lobs same ind of obligationwith respect to maintenance and succession as e+ist in the institution of marriage, then why will

a couple prefer to get into a live in relationship, when the basis of getting into live in relationship

is to evade all bondages and entanglement. " different point to be observed is that, if the rights

under live in relationships and marriage are euated, it will bring in conflict the rights of wife if

the person who is in relationship is already married and the rights of live in partner, secondly this

will mae the circumventing of liability much easier and matters more complicated by shuffling

between the rights and liability under marriage- live in relationship and will lead to entanglement

in udicial meanders if udicial discourse is taen.

Outside the legal arena, live in relationship also faces the social speculation3 the tenor of live in

relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area, however, when we loo at the masses

that define India, live in relationship does not find consensus of maority and is accused of

tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality.

!ence, as we observed many uestions with respect to live in relationship remains unanswered.On the one hand it faces speculation from society and secondly legal status of live in relationship

evinces contingency. The more clear approach and attitude of law and the changing time and

stance of society will determine the future of live in relationship. /aws should be made by the

parliament, which should eep a chec on the practice of evading bondages.

/ive in relationships should be granted legal status after specific period of its e+istence,

providing the partners as well as the child born out of such relationship with all the legal rights of

maintenance, succession, inheritance as available to a married couple and their legitimate

offspring, also securing their rights after the dissolution of such relationship due to brea up or


17/20

death of one of the partner. The guidelines given in D. el&s0ami v. D. !at"haimmal[ ] 1+ 3 is

worth noting in this conte+t and should be followed. #ince, proving de facto live in relationship

is difficult, the burden of proof should be rela+ed, so that the rights that are conferred upon

partners, specifically female live in partner

4&06

can be availed. !owever, if the person in live inrelationship is already married, then live in relationship should be considered as the second

marriage, hence an offence of bigamy. This will ensure the rights and privileges in live in

relationship without possessing any threat to the institution of marriage. " good legal system

always tends to adapt to the gradual social changes. "s such, the law cannot grope in dar, when

the number of live in couples is increasing tremendously. The rights of live in couples should be

legally recogni*ed while ensuring that it does not impede upon the system of marriage"

$O2$/K#IO2

Thus, the legal status of live-in relationships in India has been evolved and determined by

the#upreme $ourt in its various udgments. and provides legality to this concept. Though the

concept of live-in relationship is considered immoral by the society, but is definitely not illegal in

the eyes of the law. The #upreme $ourt states that living together is a right to life and therefore it

cannot be held illegal. The court has also tried to improve the conditions of the women and

children borne out of live in relationships by defining their status under the %omestic Violence

"ct, &''( if the relationship is proved to be =relationship in the nature of marriageH. In a recent

case of May (th, &'0(, the #upreme $ourt bench of 8!)tice) Vi9rama:it Sen and A 6

Sare" dismissed a petition by the petitioner L who wored in the


18/20

would give rise to the presumption of a valid marriage and if a live in relationship breas down,

the man is bound to pay maintenance to the women.

In the landmar Indra #harma $ase, the $ourt stated that such relationship may endure for a long

time and can result pattern of dependency and vulnerability, and increasing number of such

relationships, calls for adeuate and effective protection, especially to the woman and children

born out of that live-in-relationship. /egislature, of course, cannot promote pre-marital se+,

though, at times, such relationships are intensively personal and people may e+press their

opinion, for and against. Thus the arliament has to ponder over these issues, bring in proper

legislation or mae a proper amendment of the "ct, so that women and the children, born out of

such inds of relationships are protected, though such relationship might not be a relationship in

the nature of a marriage

/aw on this issue is not very clear either in India or abroad. While case by case basis court is

adumbrating the law with regard to live in relationships, there are many uestions that need to be

answered. The rights guaranteed to female live in partners along with the rights of child born out

of such relationships ought to be secured. !owever, it has to be ept in mind that when law is

giving legal sanction to live in relationships, it does not impede upon the institution of marriage

as many a times men who get into live in relationship is already married. If live in relationships

are recogni*ed prima facie then it may implicitly promote bigamy. /aw should have a discernible

stance with respect to live in relationships and the aftermath of such relations.

Outside the legal arena, live in relationship also faces the social speculation3 the tenor of live in

relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area, however, when we loo at the masses

that define India, live in relationship does not find consensus of maority and is accused of

tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality.

!ence, as we observed many uestions with respect to live in relationship remains unanswered.

On the one hand it faces speculation from society and secondly legal status of live in relationship

evinces contingency. The more clear approach and attitude of law and the changing time and

stance of society will determine the future of live in relationship. /aws should be made by the

parliament, which should eep a chec on the practice of evading bondages.


19/20

"s per various 7udgments given by #upreme court and various others court, live in relationships

should be granted legal status after specific period of its e+istence, providing the partners as well

as the child born out of such relationship with all the legal rights of maintenance, succession,

inheritance as available to a married couple and their legitimate offspring, also securing their

rights after the dissolution of such relationship due to brea up or death of one of the partner.

#ince, proving de facto live in relationship is difficult, the burden of proof should be rela+ed, so

that the rights that are conferred upon partners, specifically female live in partner can be availed.

This will ensure the rights and privileges in live in relationship without possessing any threat to

the institution of marriage. " good legal system always tends to adapt to the gradual social

changes. "s such, the law cannot grope in dar, when the number of live in couples is increasing

tremendously. The rights of livein relationships should be given legal sanctity.

The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture eeping in mind the

present social conte+t along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that characteri*es

Indian society.

"nd lastly we can say that =$hange is the need of the hourH and the social nd moral ethics need

to be evolved and as when our legal system allows for the same our society must broaden our

mind and must accept the change for good and must move ahead with new and refreshed

thining and Values and accept the concept of live in :eelationship.


20/20

Documents

Live in Relationship DIXIT SSIR