INTRODUCTION
India, a nation deeply rooted in its traditions, values, and cultural heritage, has long viewed live-in relationships as an unconventional practice. This arrangement allows couples to cohabit and engage in consensual relationships without the legal recognition associated with matrimonial bonds. Live-in relationships offer the advantage of shared living, fostering collaborative decision-making, shared household responsibilities, and the freedom to pursue individual lifestyles, free from societal constraints or external influences.
However, it is important to note that under Indian law, live-in relationships are not recognized as valid marriages. This lack of formal legal status denies couples the rights and privileges associated with marriage. Despite this, live-in arrangements provide partners with an opportunity to assess their compatibility and commitment levels before making decisions about marriage.
While India has not fully embraced Western practices and traditions, globalization and increasing awareness have prompted shifts in societal attitudes. Marriage has traditionally been the cornerstone of social and legal relationships. However, changing cultural norms and evolving ideas about personal autonomy and commitment have brought live-in relationships into greater prominence. These arrangements, distinct from traditional marriages, emphasize cohabitation without formal legal recognition, granting partners financial independence and a space to evaluate emotional compatibility.
Court pronouncements across various jurisdictions have sought to reform the legal framework surrounding live-in relationships, addressing complex questions of rights, obligations, and protections for cohabiting partners outside the bounds of marriage. Despite an increasing number of couples opting for such arrangements, live-in relationships remain stigmatized, with societal perceptions often attaching a taboo to these partnerships. This stems from conservative mindsets that view such relationships as a challenge to traditional values and cultural norms.
The institution of marriage continues to be revered and regarded as sacred by many, even in the face of a significant rise in divorce rates and marital conflicts. These contrasting societal attitudes underscore the tension between evolving relationship dynamics and deeply ingrained traditional beliefs.
HISTORY
The 1990s marked a turning point on the global stage with the end of the Cold War, bringing sweeping changes to countries, politics, societies, and economies. This era introduced groundbreaking technologies, such as military drones, e-commerce, and the Internet, while also giving rise to significant challenges like low birth rates, global terrorism, and conflicts in regions like Congo, Chechnya, Rwanda, Iraq, and Yugoslavia. Amid these shifts, live-in relationships emerged as a notable global trend, gaining traction in South and Southeast Asia, North America, and Western Europe during the late 20th century. This rise was closely linked to evolving societal and cultural norms around marriage, gender roles, and religion.
The fall of communism in Eastern Europe, the emergence of the feminist movement, and the rise of individualization theories significantly shaped modern relationships. These developments emphasized personal fulfillment and gender equality, making live-in relationships an appealing alternative to traditional marriage by the 1980s1.
Interestingly, live-in relationships are not a novel concept in India. They existed in ancient times as ‘Gandharva vivaha, ’ a form of union where couples chose to live together without societal approval or prescribed rituals. This practice was prevalent during the Vedic and medieval periods. However, the British colonial era brought legal measures to discourage relationships outside marriage, altering India’s social and cultural dynamics. In the post-independence period, perceptions toward live-in relationships shifted significantly.
Today, live-in relationships are increasingly common among younger generations in India, who view them as a way to escape societal pressures and traditional responsibilities. These arrangements, characterized by consensual cohabitation and a shared living space, allow couples to maintain their autonomy while refraining from formalizing their union through marriage.
In Hindu Dharma, the concept of ‘Ekapatni Vrat’ extols monogamy as the sacred ideal of marriage. Hindu law regards marriage as a form of worship, intended to safeguard society and ensure the continuity of the human race. Personal laws across different religions aim to uphold the sanctity of marital relationships. Historically, live-in relationships were deemed void-ab-initio until the mid-1970s. However, a landmark shift occurred with the Supreme Court’s decision in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation2 (August 1, 1978), which recognized live-in relationships as valid if they met the requisites of a valid marriage, such as mental capacity, legal age, free consent, and absence of prohibited relationships. Additionally, cohabiting for a substantial period could allow the couple to be treated as husband and wife, although the specific duration remains undefined.
In the S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another (2010) case3, the Supreme Court further clarified that live-in relationships are not an offense, nor is there any law prohibiting pre-marital sex or such arrangements. The Court emphasized that cohabitation is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right to personal liberty and individual choice. This judgment has been pivotal in strengthening the legitimacy of live-in relationships and reinforcing the constitutional right of individuals to make personal decisions within the framework of the law.
A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN DIFFERENT NATIONS
The concept of live-in relationships varies widely across different countries. In India, this practice is gradually gaining acceptance, albeit still emerging within societal norms. In contrast, developed nations such as Denmark, the USA, Sweden, Norway, and Australia view cohabitation as not only acceptable but also commonplace and legal. However, in countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia, and others adhering to Sharia law, live-in relationships are deemed illegal and can attract punishments of up to two years imprisonment4.
(A) United States of America: In the United States, live-in relationships, or cohabitation, have become increasingly common over the past few decades. As of 2019, around 7% of U.S. adults were living with an unmarried partner, a significant rise from 3% in 1995. Among adults aged 18 to 44, 59% have cohabited, which is higher than the 50% who have ever been married.
Cohabitation is particularly widespread among younger adults. In 2018, 14.8% of adults aged 25 to 34 were living with an unmarried partner, a sharp increase from 0.2% in 1968. The trend is also reflected in marriage statistics, as in 2022, only 46.8% of U.S. households were headed by married couples, a significant decline from 78.8% in 1949.
These figures indicate a substantial shift in relationship patterns in the United States, with cohabitation emerging as a more accepted and widespread alternative to marriage.
(B) Scotland: In Scotland, over 150, 000 couples automatically had their live-in relationships legalized when the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 came into effect. This Act recognized cohabiting couples for the first time. Under the provisions of the Act, when a court considers whether two people are cohabitants for the purposes of Sections 26 to 29, it must take into account the following factors:
• The duration of their cohabitation
• The nature of their partnership at the time
• The nature of their financial arrangements
Additionally, if a cohabiting relationship ends, one partner can apply for financial provision in court.
(C) Australia: The Family Law Act of 1957 outlines the conditions under which a de facto relationship can be recognized. For a relationship to be considered de facto, the following criteria must be met:
• The individuals are not married to each other
• They are not related by family
• They voluntarily cohabit together on a domestic basis
This framework establishes the basic legal understanding of de facto relationships in certain jurisdictions.
(D) Philippines: In the Philippines, live-in relationships, also referred to as common-law marriages, have seen a notable rise in recent years. The number of such couples increased from 7.24 million in 2015 to 12.66 million in 2020, representing a growing trend of cohabitation without formal marriage. In 2022, surveys revealed that 18.8% of women aged 15-49 were living with partners as though married, marking the highest rate in three decades, while the percentage of those in legal marriages dropped to 36.2%.
Although live-in couples in the Philippines enjoy certain rights and responsibilities similar to those of married couples, they do not receive the same legal recognition. This shift indicates a gradual change in societal attitudes toward family structures and a move toward more diverse forms of relationships in the country.
(E) Canada: According to Section 54(1) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, two individuals who are cohabiting or planning to do so have the option to sign a contract that outlines their rights and responsibilities during their cohabitation, after their separation, and following their death. This agreement may cover various aspects such as:
• Property-related rights
• Support obligations
• Rights concerning the selection of education and moral upbringing for children, though without granting custody or access rights to the children
• If one of the individuals is married to someone else, Section 53(2) of the Act stipulates that the written agreement will be considered a marriage contract, provided both parties in the agreement are unmarried.
(E) United Kingdom: In the United Kingdom, live-in couples are not automatically recognized as legal spouses, and they do not have the same rights as married couples in terms of property division if the relationship breaks down. Unlike in divorce cases, there is no legislation granting unmarried couples automatic rights to each other’s property in the event of separation, as highlighted in a 2010 parliamentary discussion. The primary legislation that addresses the legal status of certain relationships in the UK is the Civil Partnership Act of 2004, which provides a legal framework for same-sex couples but does not extend similar recognition to live-in, heterosexual couples.
INDIA’S PERSPECTIVE ON LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS
Changes in societal attitudes, legal frameworks, and cultural norms have had a significant impact on the acceptance of live-in relationships in India over time. Traditionally, Indian society was conservative regarding relationships, with marriage being the primary bond, and extramarital affairs were rare and socially frowned upon. However, the concept of live-in relationships gained popularity during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, driven by globalization, industrialization, and exposure to Western lifestyles. As young people moved to urban areas for better educational and job opportunities, they adopted more liberal views on relationships. This shift, fueled by educational advancement, economic independence, and global cultural exposure, led to a reevaluation of traditional norms and growing acceptance of live-in relationships.5
(A) Judicial Recognition: In the absence of specific legislation, judicial recognition has played a crucial role in legitimizing live-in relationships in India. Through various judgments, the Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the validity of such relationships and extended certain legal protections to the partners, particularly in matters related to inheritance, maintenance, and protection from domestic violence. In the landmark case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P.6, the Court ruled that live-in relationships between two adult heterosexuals are not considered offenses. This stance was reaffirmed in Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another7, where the Court acknowledged that while live-in relationships may be deemed immoral by society, they are not illegal in the eyes of the law.
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal8, the Court held that long-term live-in relationships should be recognized as legitimate marriages under certain conditions. This decision granted rights to women in such relationships, entitling them to maintenance from their partners after the relationship ends, similar to the rights of a spouse in a formal marriage.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes women in live-in relationships within its scope, offering them legal protection against exploitation and abuse. However, despite evolving perspectives, some cases have seen courts upholding the sanctity of marriage, particularly in situations where traditional views on marriage are emphasized.
In the case of Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt. Governor, Delhi & Others9, the Delhi High Court prioritized the preservation of the moral and legal integrity of marriage. The Court rejected the request of prisoner Sonu Sonkar for parole to live with his live-in partner, citing that he was already married with children from that marriage. The Court emphasized that parole should not be granted to facilitate the continuation of marital or conjugal relationships outside the legally recognized marriage. It further asserted that allowing parole for such purposes would set a negative precedent, reinforcing the traditional stance that parole should not be used to enable live-in relationships.
(B) Societal Acceptance: Live-in relationships are more readily accepted in urban areas, where exposure to diverse cultures and liberal values is greater. However, acceptance in rural or semi-urban areas can vary, as traditional values may still dominate, making live-in relationships less favorable or even stigmatized. The younger generation is generally more open to the idea, viewing it as a way to test compatibility before marriage. In contrast, older generations often remain conservative, associating live-in relationships with moral decay.
Indian cinema, television, and digital platforms have played a significant role in normalizing live-in relationships, with movies and shows depicting them as a part of modern life. Despite the growing acceptance, cohabitation still carries some stigma, particularly in more conservative regions. Couples living together may face pressure from families to marry, as marriage is traditionally viewed as a social and religious institution in India.
(C) Legal Rights: Statutory recognition of live-in relationships has granted certain rights, especially when the couple has cohabited for a significant period. Furthermore, children born from live-in relationships are also afforded rights to ensure they are not subjected to discrimination in areas such as succession, custody, and legitimacy. This legal acknowledgment aims to provide them with protections similar to those of children born in legally recognized marriages.
LAW VS. MORALITY: THE INDIAN DILEMMA
The conflict between morality and law regarding live-in relationships in India reflects a broader tension between modernity and tradition. While the law increasingly supports individual autonomy, societal attitudes take longer to shift, leading to an ongoing struggle between legal recognition and moral judgment. This tension highlights the dynamic relationship between evolving legal standards and the deeply ingrained cultural values in Indian society. It underscores the complexity of balancing personal freedoms in a society that is legally progressive yet culturally conservative.
The gradual recognition of live-in relationships in Indian law has been facilitated by Supreme Court judgments, which have consistently affirmed that consenting adult couples have the right to live together without marriage, and such relationships are not inherently illegal. From the case of Lata Singh v. State of UP10 to Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma11, the judiciary has protected the rights of individuals in live-in relationships, particularly concerning domestic violence and succession rights for children born out of these unions. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 200512 also extends certain protections to women in live-in relationships, offering them rights similar to those of married wives in cases of domestic abuse. Over time, judicial precedents have developed regarding property rights, maintenance, and the legitimacy of children born from live-in relationships.
Indian society is traditionally conservative, where marriage is considered sacred and essential, and cohabitation outside of marriage is often seen as inappropriate. This stems from cultural and religious beliefs that uphold the sanctity of marriage. Even with legal recognition, live-in relationships are often met with social stigma. Individuals who choose to enter into such relationships frequently face discrimination, ostracization, and pressure from family and society to conform to traditional matrimonial norms and enter into marriage.
Among the younger generation in urban areas, live-in relationships are increasingly viewed as a personal lifestyle choice, leading to greater acceptance. However, in rural and semi-urban areas, moral opposition remains strong, creating a clear divide in societal acceptance.
The primary conflict arises from the tension between public morality and individual rights. While the law respects an individual’s choice regarding personal relationships, societal norms often challenge it. Despite legal recognition, the law’s application in various situations remains unclear, leaving individuals in live-in relationships legally protected but still socially marginalized. A further moral issue concerns the status of children born from live-in relationships, particularly their legitimacy and rights. Although the law ensures their protection, these children are often viewed as born out of wedlock, which can affect their social reputation.
Justice Siddharth of the Allahabad High Court expressed concern about the changing dynamics of relationships in society, remarking that partners who shift frequently, like changing seasons, do not contribute to a ‘stable and healthy’ society. This statement was made during the case Adnan v/s State of U.P. and Others (2023), where he was hearing a matter concerning the grant of bail to an accused for raping his live-in partner. The remark reflected his apprehension about the negative impact such relationship trends could have on societal values and stability. The court observed that women in live-in relationships often face social rejection and ostracism, with many seeking legal recourse with the intention of gaining ‘social sanction’ for their relationship. Justice Siddharth also cautioned that frequent changes in partners do not contribute to a fulfilling life and that children suffer from various challenges, often becoming a societal burden once their parents separate. His comments emphasized the importance of preserving the institution of marriage and highlighted concerns about the social and moral consequences of live-in relationships, particularly regarding their impact on family values, child welfare, and societal stability.
PRONOUNCEMENTS OF DIFFERENT COURTS ON LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS OVER TIME
• Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, 1978 was a landmark case that addressed the issue of live-in relationships. It acknowledged the couple’s cohabitation as husband and wife for a significant period, despite the absence of formal marital ties. The Supreme Court remarked, “If men and women who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eyewitness evidence that they were validly married, just a few will succeed.” This case marked a pivotal moment in recognizing the legitimacy of long-term cohabitation outside formal marriage.
• In the recent case before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Muskan Thru. Her Next Friend (Husband Shabnoor Khan) v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Others, 2024, the court emphasized that India is not a Western nation where live-in relationships are more widely accepted. The court stated that India is fortunate to have a society that values its culture and traditions, which are considered the nation’s greatest assets. Therefore, citizens are expected to respect and adhere to these national customs and cultural norms.
• In the case Raksha and Another v. State of U.P. and Others, 2022, a writ petition was filed, and Judge Renu Agarwal held that one of the partners in the live-in relationship was still legally married to someone else and had not filed for divorce in a competent court. Hindu law prohibits a person with a living spouse from engaging in an illicit relationship or entering into a live-in relationship, as it is seen as detrimental to social cohesion. While the court did not endorse the live-in relationship, it clarified that consensual sexual relations outside of marriage do not constitute an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which requires proof of remarriage during the lifetime of the spouse.
• In the case Pooja and Another v. State of Punjab and Others, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a notable judgment on August 17, 2023, affirming that every Indian has an inherent and unalienable fundamental right to life, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court granted police protection to same-sex live-in partners, emphasizing that the State must safeguard their right to life. This protection was granted in response to a plea filed by a prominent lesbian couple—two young women who had been living together for four years and had publicly declared their love for each other. The judgment highlighted their fundamental rights, especially the right to life under Article 21.
• In the case Abdul Hameed Siddiqui v. Kavita Gupta13, heard before the Chhattisgarh High Court, the court dealt with the complexities of personal laws, inter-faith marriage arising from a live-in relationship, and the custody of a child born from such a relationship. The court acknowledged the stigma still attached to live-in relationships within Indian culture, despite their presence in some sections of society. It stated that “the live-in relationship was an immigrant ideology that went against the prevalent beliefs of Indian culture.” The court emphasized that each citizen of India possesses a distinct identity, deeply rooted in Indian tradition, and adopting a live-in relationship was seen as dishonorable as it was believed to weaken the nation’s traditional values and culture.
• The Kerala High Court ruled that a woman cannot invoke protection under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if the relationship is a live-in relationship and there has been no formal marriage, either through Sanskara or customary rites. In such cases, where the couple has lived together as husband and wife but without a valid marriage, the woman cannot seek protection under Section 498A of the IPC. The court emphasized that if the woman is living with a man and the marriage has not been officially dissolved, she cannot file for protection under Section 498A. The court clarified that the man living with the woman is not legally considered her ‘husband, ’ and thus, he cannot be penalized under Section 498A for cruelty inflicted on her or any of his relatives. This judgment was reinforced in the case Narayanan & Others v/s State of Kerala, where the court stated that the petitioner and the deceased were not married through any traditional ceremony, but only lived together based on a marriage deed that was not legally valid. Therefore, the relationship should be treated as a live-in relationship, not a marriage, to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Section 498A.
• In the case of Smt. Saloni Yadav and Another v. State of UP14, the Allahabad High Court recently took cognizance of the issue surrounding minor individuals in live-in relationships. The court highlighted that a minor, specifically a boy under the age of eighteen, cannot lawfully be in a live-in relationship, as it would constitute unlawful and unethical behavior. While there is no blanket legal prohibition on live-in relationships, the court emphasized that a person must be of legal age—at least eighteen years old—to be considered eligible for a live-in relationship, even if they are not yet of marriageable age (which is twenty-one for men). The court rejected the argument that individuals under eighteen should be granted protection in such relationships. The judge stated that approving such conduct would amount to endorsing illegal activities, which is against the interests of society, and therefore, the court did not approve of such relationships involving minors.
• In the case of Yad Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2024, the applicant’s wife filed a joint reply with one of the accused, stating that she had voluntarily left her home and was in a relationship with that person. The court held that despite the societal view that sexual relations should only occur within marriage, there is no legal provision that criminalizes consensual sexual relations between adults outside of marriage, even though such relationships might be labeled as ‘adultery’ under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court referred to the judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., where it was noted that while a live-in relationship between two consenting adults of different sexes may be considered dishonorable by some, it is not illegal. The court reiterated that an adult woman has the right to live with anyone she chooses and marry whomever she wishes.
• In Saleha and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of live-in relationships in the context of Shariat (Islamic law) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that a legally married Muslim woman cannot enter into a live-in relationship with another man while her marriage is still valid, as this would amount to ‘zina’ (fornication) and be considered ‘haram’ (forbidden) under Islamic law. The court also stressed that it would not condone or support relationships that contradict established religious and legal principles. Since the woman in question had not divorced her husband, her live-in relationship with her Hindu partner was considered illegal both under Islamic law and secular law. Such actions could lead to criminal charges under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC, which deal with remarriage during the lifetime of a spouse and concealment of a previous marriage. The court referred to previous judgments, including the Kiran Rawat case, which clarified that any extramarital sexual activities are considered ‘haram’ and could constitute ‘zina’ under Islamic law. The court therefore decided not to grant protection to the woman and her live-in partner, as their relationship did not qualify as either a legally recognized marriage or a legally protected live-in arrangement.
• In the case X v. The State of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the discharge of a police constable who, despite being married, continued to live in a live-in relationship with another woman. The constable argued that his dismissal required proof of bigamy; however, the court rejected this argument. The court stated that his conduct was unbecoming of a police officer and violated the expected moral standards, as per Rule 23 of the Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 707 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. These rules outline the expected behavior for police officers and emphasize the need to uphold high moral and ethical standards. The court found no procedural faults in the disciplinary process and confirmed that the constable’s actions were in breach of these standards. As a result, the court ruled that the constable’s dismissal was justified under Article 226 of the Constitution, which deals with the powers of High Courts to issue directions or orders in cases of public interest or where there is a violation of legal rights15.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the evolving nature of live-in relationships highlights a significant shift in both societal and legal perspectives. Traditionally viewed with stigma and without legal recognition, live-in relationships have gained substantial legitimacy and protection through recent court rulings. In rural areas, the evolving perception of relationships and marital responsibilities, particularly by the younger generation, marks a significant change in societal values.
Courts have increasingly recognized the rights of couples in live-in relationships, particularly concerning property rights, protection against domestic violence, and the legitimacy of children born from such unions. These developments reflect a growing societal acceptance of non-traditional family structures and a commitment to safeguarding individual autonomy and choice. However, the legal recognition of live-in relationships still varies greatly across different jurisdictions, presenting a challenge in striking the right balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining societal values and norms.
In conclusion, the transformation of live-in relationships, as seen in recent judicial pronouncements, signals a progressive shift towards a more inclusive understanding of personal relationships. This evolving framework underscores the need for continuous legal development to ensure that the rights within these diverse relationships are vigorously protected.
*****
Footnotes
1. Anish Bacchan, Live-In Relationship in Various Countries, LEGALSERVICESINDIA, https://www.legalservicei ndia.com/legal/article-4058-live-in-relationship-in-various-countries.html.
2. Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director of Consolidation And Others [1978 AIR 1557, 1979 SCR (1) 1]
3. Khusboo v. Kanniammal 3196, 2010 (5) SCC 600
4. Sandip Bhosale, Live-In Relationship, ADVOCATEKHOJ, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/blogs/index.php? bid=4294fe94c613c9ad072931429&bcmd=VIEW
5. N. Pautunthang, Exploring live-in relationships in modern Indian society, 4(1) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL LAW AND LEGAL RESEARCH 406, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379898682_Exploring_live in_relationships_in_modern_Indian_society
6. Lata Singh v. State of U.P, (2006) 5 SCC 475.
7. S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr, (2010) 5 SCC 600.
8. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010)10 SCC 469.
9. Sonu Sonkar v. The Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3763).
10. AIR 2006 SC 2522
11. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma [AIR 2014 SC 309].
12. https://wcd.delhi.gov.in/wcd/protection-women-domestic-violence-act-2005
13. Abdul Hameed Siddiqui v. Kavita Gupta, FA(MAT) No. 27 of 2024
14. Saloni Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 Live Law (AB) 238
15. Sukriti Mishra, “Police Personnel’s Live-In Relationship With Woman Other Than Wife Violates Service Rules: Jharkhand HC” Verdictum, 2024 available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/x-v-the-state of-jharkhand-wps-no-2250-of-2021-jharkhand-high-court-1543899 (last visited April 20, 2026).