According to the survey, over 80% of millennials (aged 18-35) support live-in relationships over marriage, citing societal progress and evolving perspectives that challenge traditional norms. However, 47% of the total respondents preferred marriage over live-in arrangements when given the choice, as Indian society has traditionally been opposed to live-in relationships. As a result, people have strongly adhered to their customs and rituals.

In the past, living together before marriage was considered immoral. Even Hindu Dharma upholds monogamy, with the concept of "one man, one wife" being the most respected form of marriage. However, as society progresses and individuals develop broader perspectives, newer generations are becoming more accepting of changes and questioning outdated traditions. Notably, 26% of millennials expressed a preference for lifelong live-in relationships instead of marriage.

In today's generation, couples enter live-in relationships not just for fun but also to assess their compatibility and understand each other better before marriage, ensuring a happier married life. Seventy-five percent of the surveyed individuals believe that live-in relationships result in a better understanding before marriage.

While society may view live-in relationships as inappropriate, for individuals, they can be a practical and wise decision, potentially preventing unhappy marriages and future complications. When discussing the legalization of live-in relationships or their pros and cons, we must carefully consider questions such as: What are live-in relationships all about? Are they legal in our country? What is the government's stance on them? And what do couples in live-in relationships think of the existing laws? There are many questions surrounding this topic.

Definition Of Live-In Relationships

A 'live-in' relationship is a de facto non-marital heterosexual relationship prevalent in the West, known by various names such as common law marriages, informal marriages, marriage by habit, or deemed marriages. It represents a willful rejection of the institution of marriage, its associated stereotypes, and the restrictions and inequalities that it has come to symbolize.

A live-in relationship is a form of cohabitation where partners live together and often share an intimate bond without the legal and financial commitments associated with marriage. These relationships are not formally recognized as marital unions, and partners do not have inherent rights over each other's property or assets. It is an arrangement where two individuals choose to live together without formalizing their union through a legally recognized marriage.

This arrangement, whether temporary or long-term, is typically characterized by an intimate emotional and/or sexual connection. The increasing acceptance of such relationships can be attributed to the diminishing influence of rigid societal norms and reduced family interference. According to a study, one out of two Indians considers live-in relationships a viable alternative to conventional marriage.

The rapid evolution of social norms has led to a complex and contradictory situation regarding non-marital heterosexual relationships. Live-in relationships are more prevalent in metropolitan cities, particularly among professionals working in multinational corporations who experience immense workloads. These individuals often seek both physical and emotional support from their partners. Live-in relationships are predominantly observed among such groups and have gained prominence in recent years as a modern form of partnership.

However, they present dynamic challenges within society, as the absence of legal marriage raises questions regarding property rights, traditional values, and various legal aspects that a formal marital union typically upholds. In some jurisdictions, a live-in relationship is legally recognized as a marriage, even though no legally recognized marriage ceremony is performed, no civil marriage contract is entered into, and the marriage is not registered in a civil registry. The term 'live-in' relationship is sometimes misused by individuals in extramarital relationships, which should be addressed.

Legality Of Live-In Relationships

It is important to understand that live-in relationships are not illegal, as no law classifies them as a criminal offense. The primary obstacle to such relationships stems from societal norms and taboos, rather than legal restrictions.

Non-Marital Cohabitation: A Worldwide View

The legal rights and obligations of live-in partners vary from country to country. Heterosexual couples in live-in arrangements are referred to as cohabitants, while same-sex couples are known as civil partners. However, cohabitation laws are still developing and many are unaware of their rights and obligations.

The Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006 introduced provisions in Scots law to provide security for more than 150,000 cohabiting couples who are not married or civil partners, but live together. A court can find that the couple are cohabitants based on how long they've been together, the nature of the relationship, and the parties' financial arrangements. However, an unmarried father if his name is on the birth certificate then he will have parental responsibility of the child France In France, Immigration marriage law was introduced through the Civil Solidarity Pact (PaCS) in 1999, which regulates live-in relationships. This legal agreement, defines cohabitation as a stable, continuous relationship and treats it as a contract. The individuals participating, described as contractants, have no obligation to be bound by a separate pact, meaning such as marriage.10

United Kingdom Half of the children born in the UK are conceived in live-in relationship11 . The Civil Partnership Act 2004 governs live-in relationships in the UK. Although they're often referred to as common law spouses,12 unmarried couples have no default property or inheritance rights. Because courts can't split property like they can in divorce cases, and cohabiting couples are regarded as individuals for tax purposes.

Canada In Canada they are called common law marriage, which is a fancy way of saying we just live together. Couples are recognized after living together for a minimum of 12 months or if they share a child. Under federal law, common law couples have the same rights as married couples.

Ireland recognizes cohabitation although there has been opposition in the public to legislation that would grant legal rights to separated lives couples. However, the law has given the right to couple cohabiting together to claim maintenance or share in the property if the couple cohabiting together for 3 years or 2 years having children.13 Australia Australia's Family Law Act applies to same-sex or opposite-sex couples living in "de facto relationships."

A person can be in a de facto relationship while being married or in another person de facto relationship. United States Before 1970, cohabitation was illegal in the U.S. Now, it's recognized as lawful in some states. Some states give cohabiting couples similar rights as married couples, but without specific legal provisions, cohabiting couples are not always viewed as legal parents.

Live-In Relationships: Government And Executive Outlook

Traditional beliefs in Indian society continue to hinder the acceptance of live-in relationships, as it is considered taboo. However, this is no longer the case in metropolitan areas, though such notions remain prevalent in conservative rural regions.

The Court opined that The live-in relationship which had been followed in certain sect of the society continued with a stigma in the Indian culture. Live-in relationship was an imported philosophy contrary to the general expectations of Indian tenets. In Indian tradition each of citizen possessed a sense of self that was unique and unlikely to be confused with imported traditions.

There could not be a more inglorious object 14 The executives, both at central and state levels have never shown an intent to promulgate proper legislation on legal recognition or status of live-in or cohabitation of unmarried couples living together without nuptial ties. Even after the Judiciary's clear direction to the Government to formulate a proper law on live-in relationships15 the most recent was when a single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand. of Rajasthan High Court ordered compulsory registration of live-in relationships with competent authority until legislation related to it is enacted16 . Female live-in partners are entitled to economic rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 200517.

In October 2008, the Maharashtra Government proposed that a woman in a live-in relationship be given the status of a wife only if she was involved in such a relationship for a 'reasonable period'. The reasonableness of a period will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.18

In the letter dated 30th June 2008, National Commission for Women requested the Ministry of Women and Child Development that the definition of 'wife' as used in section 125 of Cr. PC now section 144 of BNSS should include women in a live-in relationship. The recommendation sought to reconcile the laws addressing the protection of women from domestic violence and to ensure that the relationship of a couple living with each other is at par with that of a legal wedlock19.

For this purpose, a Committee was appointed by the Supreme Court: The Justice  which submitted many recommendations under the head offences against women the most important being that if a man and a woman live together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, the man shall be presumed to be married to the woman.20

The committee in its report recommended that women living with a man like a married couple must be entitled for alimony for this the term wife used in Section 125 Cr. P.C. now section 144 of BNSS should be amended.

After the committee report, the Maharashtra government again began the process to amend section 125 of Cr.P.C. now section 144 of BNSS which again brought the uncertainty about the legal status of live-in relationships into the limelight. The move was interpreted as an effort to grant legal recognition to secondary unions of men and to legalize 'live-in' relationships, where young men and women opt for non-marital heterosexual relationships before committing to long-term matrimonial bonds.

However, the report of Justice Malimath committee, 2000 was never implemented.21 Following this development, the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, was regarded as the first law to acknowledge the existence of unmarried heterosexual relations and also acknowledged the economic rights of female "live-in" partners22 .

The central government has, on multiple occasions, taken a negative stance against live-in relationships by failing to implement the recommendations of the Malimath Committee or by excluding live-in partners from surrogacy under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act. Furthermore, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 2(a) defines an "aggrieved person" as any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

Section 2(f) defines a "domestic relationship" as a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family. Section 2(g) defines "domestic violence" as having the same meaning as assigned in Section 3. Additionally, the Steering Committee of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) reversed its previous decision of allowing live-in partners to adopt a child.

In 2012, the Meghalaya government promulgated the Meghalaya Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2012, which included live-in relationships under the definition of marriage as per Section 2(b). However, in 2015, the Meghalaya government amended the Act to substitute live-in relationships with marriages contracted under any existing law.

The Social Justice, Empowerment, Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, and Antyodaya (SEWA) Department under the Haryana Government notified the Financial Assistance to Widowers and Unmarried Persons Scheme, 2023, to provide social security to widowers and unmarried persons. However, persons in live-in relationships were excluded from this scheme. This exclusion suggests that the government indirectly accepts live-in relationships as equivalent to marriage.

A significant step toward legal recognition was taken by the Uttarakhand government in 2024 with the enactment of The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024. Section 37(8) mandates that parties in a live-in relationship residing in the State of Uttarakhand must submit a "statement of the live-in relationship" to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction they reside, within one month of entering into the relationship. The UCC rules, 2025, outline the regulations regarding the registration and termination of live-in relationships.

The government has stated in the Supreme Court that same-sex couples and live-in partners are excluded from surrogacy and assisted reproduction laws to prevent "misuse" and to ensure that children have a "complete family.

Indian Judiciary On Cohabitation-: Rights And Legal Precedents

Judicial pronouncements have sought to harmonize legal principles with prevailing social perspectives, clarifying the permissibility and legal standing of this evolving form of cohabitation.

Indian courts have consistently recognized the presumption of marriage when a man and woman have cohabited for a significant period. In the 1927 case of A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy31 , the Privy Council established that if a couple has lived together as husband and wife, the law will assume their relationship is a valid marriage32 . This ruling suggests that a live-in relationship may be deemed a lawful marriage if the couple has cohabited, and no contrary evidence exists to dispute this presumption.

In the 1929 case of Mohabhat Ali v. Md. Ibrahim Khan33 the Privy Council further reinforced this principle, stating that the law favors the presumption of marriage over concubinage when a man and woman have cohabited continuously for an extended period. The Court emphasized that for a live-in couple to be legally recognized as married, evidence of sustained cohabitation was required, though it did not establish a specific minimum duration for such recognition34.

After Independence, the first case on the live-in relationship was Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari35 in the year 1952 where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle from Dinohamy's case but added that while the presumption of a valid marriage could arise from long cohabitation, this did not automatically grant legitimacy. The presumption could be rebutted with contrary evidence36 In this judgment the Supreme Court had refused to recognize a live-in relationship, though the couple had lived together for some years before the pregnant women went away to live alone with her child born out of her live-in relationship with the man. The rebuttal of the presumption in favour of a valid marriage, in this case, came from the child, who said she did not remember her father ever visiting her or her mother.

In the case of Payal Katara v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan Kandri Vihar, Agra & Others37 , the Allahabad High Court boldly asserted that cohabitation between a man and a woman, even outside of marriage, is not inherently illegal. The Court made a crucial distinction between legal validity and moral judgment, pointing out that societal norms of morality should not be a factor in determining the legality of personal relationships. This decision emphasized the importance of personal autonomy in such arrangements.

Similarly, in Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others 38 , the Supreme Court recognized that prolonged cohabitation for over 50 years could lead to a legal presumption of marriage, highlighting that a relationship's continuous nature can give rise to legal rights, even in the absence of formal marriage. This ruling reinforced the notion that relationships, when sustained, should be respected by law as long as they are based on mutual consent.

In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal39 , the Supreme Court further validated live-in relationships, recognizing them as a fundamental aspect of personal liberty and choice. It unequivocally stated that cohabitation outside of marriage does not constitute a criminal offense, highlighting the growing legal recognition and protection for individuals choosing this path.40 The Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 41 ruling also solidified this notion by affirming that live-in relationships between consenting adults fall under the protections guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Court drew a clear boundary, stating that relationships involving adultery are not covered under this protection. On the other hand, in Saloni Yadav and Another v. State of U.P and Others 42 , the Allahabad High Court took a more cautious approach, ruling that live-in relationships involving minors are unlawful and unethical.

The Court firmly stated that individuals under the age of 18 do not possess the legal In this judgment the Supreme Court had refused to recognize a live-in relationship, though the couple had lived together for some years before the pregnant women went away to live alone with her child born out of her live-in relationship with the man. The rebuttal of the presumption in favour of a valid marriage, in this case, came from the child, who said she did not remember her father ever visiting her or her mother capacity to consent to such arrangements.

In contrast, Kiran Rawat v. State of UP43 presented a different perspective, particularly under Muslim law, where any form of cohabitation outside marriage, including live-in relationships, is prohibited, considering it a form of Zina. This case highlighted the interplay between personal relationships and religious law, underscoring the varied legal landscapes that exist within India's diverse legal and cultural contexts.

The Supreme Court stated that if a married man was in a live-in relationship with another woman, it would be considered akin to marriage, but the key issue now before the court was that a woman in a live-in relationship could seek maintenance only under the Domestic Violence Act (DVA), as the court held that a woman who is not legally married cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) even if a man has treated her as a wife because what matter is the intent or objective of the legislator not party attitude.44 In the Velusamy vs. Patchaiammal45 , the same issue arose because the term 'wife' under Section 125 of the CrPC requires a legal marriage and includes divorced wives.

This means that if a woman in a live-in relationship has not been legally married, she cannot be considered a wife and therefore cannot claim rights under Section 125, as she cannot be divorced if no formal marriage occurred. Essentially, the judgment denies women in live-in relationships the rights granted under both the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) and Section 125, as it does not recognize them as wives under the law. However Justice Katlu on this issue has commented that, 'If a man has a 'keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.46 '

Which was seen as reprehensible objectionable behaviour and language of the judge and court for women. This legal position was ultimately clarified by the courts in the cases of Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse47 and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma48 , where the court ruled that if the husband concealed his first marriage from his second wife, the second wife is entitled to maintenance.

The court further explained that when a woman is aware that the man with whom she is in a live-in relationship already has a legally wedded wife and children, she is not entitled to the same legal protections or reliefs available to a legally married wife or those in a relationship akin to marriage. The court also established specific guidelines to determine whether a live-in relationship can be classified as a 'relationship in the nature of marriage,' which includes factors such as the duration of the relationship, shared household, pooling of resources, domestic arrangements, sexual relationship, children, public socialization, and the intention and conduct of the parties. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court urged Parliament to introduce new legislation to protect the rights of individuals in such relationships, safeguarding them from any societal wrongs.

After recognizing or presuming a live-in relationship as marriage now the question arises about the status of the offspring due to the wedlock of unmarried and the property rights and other inheritance rights. Supreme court in S.P.S Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan49 court observed that any child born to a heterosexual couple living together under a rooftop for a reasonable time won't be illegitimate reaffirmed by the supreme court in Tulsa vs. Durghatiya50 by stating that a child conceived out of live-in relationship from now will not be considered as illegitimate the only precondition being guardian living under one rooftop for long time to general public remember them as couple and it should not be a stroll in and exit relationship.

Now, It is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live-in relationship, in such case the court cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such distressful live-in relationship and children born out of such relationships.

Conclusion
Now, It is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live-in relationship and in such case the court cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such distressful live-in relationship and children born out of such relationships.51 As live-in relationship does not hold the same legal status as marriage; its recognition is limited to aspects such as inheritance, maintenance, and matrimonial rights.

While these provisions can be beneficial, they may also pose challenges in certain situations. India has no specific law for live-in relationships. This concept is relatively new in Indian society and remains controversial. Many criticize it for allegedly going against traditional values, as marriage in India has been tied to strict rituals and cultural beliefs.

The Indian judiciary plays a crucial role in shaping the legal framework and societal perception of live-in relationships. It has emerged as a crucial pillar in addressing public opinion and ensuring the legal recognition of such partnerships. In recent times, Indian courts have adopted a progressive approach toward live-in relationships, consistently endeavoring to safeguard the rights and interests of partners, and when we talk about the judiciary applying their minds in these cases then we have the High courts who are taking the stances on this particular issue as.

The Rajasthan High court has directed the creation of the web portal for the registration of live-in relationships. Until any specific legislation is enforced, such relationships must be registered with a competent authority. This step safeguards the legal rights of the couples and their children while addressing the increasing number of protection requests from live-in partners facing threats from their families and society. Hindu Dharma upholds monogamy, with "one man, one wife" being the most respected form of marriage.

End Notes:

1. Perception of youth towards live-in relationship in India by Vinita Gosh — https://ijip.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/18.01.209.0210902.pdf
2. Ibid
3. Ibid.
4. Survey conducted by Inshort on 1.4 lakh netizens in May — https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/more-women-supporting-live-in-relationships51844
5. Book by Shoma A. Chatterji
6. Book by Karlyn Hillerstrom and P. Roger Hillerstrom “The Intimacy Cover Up: Covering the difference between love and sex”
7. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/spotlight/1-in-2-indians-prefer-living-in-before-they-get-married-study/articleshow/98090751.cms
8. Supra note 5 — Scotland
9. P. Jayachandran v. A. Yesuranthinam, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2502
10. http://www.thegeminigeek.com/what-is-live-in.Ireland
11. Amelia Hill, "Cohabiting Couples Fastest Growing Family Type, Says ONS", The Guardian, dt. 7-8-2019 — https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/07/cohabiting-couples-fastest-growing-family-type-ons
12. The Social Security (Welfare) Law of UK treats married couples and live-in couples the same regardless of formal marriage
13. Supra note 10 — than to adopt live-in relationship to destroy the interwoven culture in society and tradition
14. Abdul Hameed Siddiqui v. Kavita Gupta, FA(MAT) No. 27 of 2024, Chhattisgarh High Court — Malimath Committee
15. D. Veluamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469
16. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/live-in-relationships-must-be-registered-with-competent-authority-rajasthan-hc/articleshow/117715089.cms?from=mdr
17. Act No. 43 of 2005
18. https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/maharashtra-government-to-legalise-live-in-relationships-31237-2008-10-08
19. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/ncw-pleads-case-of-live-in-partners/story-QlUkFC76vsLYlsd1eAihUI.html
20. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System 189-94 (2003)2021”23
21. Supra note 8
22. CARA (A Statutory Body of Ministry of Women and Child Development, GOI) — File No. CARAICA013/1/2022Administration — “Registration of cases of single PAPs having a live-in partner in a long time relationship and not married-reg.”
23. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/17681/1/meghalaya_compulsory_registrationofmarriageact2012_asmended.pdf
24. Notification dated 19 July 2023 numbered as 40/9/2023-4SW by Social and Empowerment Department, Haryana Government
25. Act No. 03 of 2024, Uttarakhand Government
26. Part 3, Section 378 to Section 389 deals with live-in relationship
27. No.101 /xx-5/2025/03(10)2024 (E-71413), dated 27 January 2025 — https://ucc.uk.gov.in/downloads
28. Chapter 5 of the rules deal with Live-in relationship
29. AIR 127 PC 185
30. Ibid. at p.187
31. AIR 1929 PC 135
32. Ibid at p.138
33. AIR 1952 SC 231
34. Ibid at p.240
35. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023, Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court
36. Savitaben Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636
37. Supra note 15 at p.5
38. Ibid at p.34
39. (2014) 1 SCC 188
40. (2013) 15 SCC 755
41. AIR 2001 All 254
42. AIR 1978 SC 1557
43. AIR 2001 SC 3196
44. Ibid at p.3199
45. AIR 1952 SC 231
46. 2023 SCC OnLine All 3171
47. AIR 2008 SC 1193
48. (1994) 1 SCC 460
49. Supra note no. 14, p 11

Written By:

• Himanshu Maheshwari
• Prakriti Chatterjee