LIVING IN-WALK IN & WALK OUT RELATIONSHIPS
The topic of a live-in relationship or living relationship has been a debatable one in India but its existence is non-deniable. The yardsticks of morality is at the forefront while discussing the societal perspective. Although, the apex court noted that it will not go into condemning or endorsing the issue in S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. [Cr. Appeal No. 913 of 2013] but it held live-in relationship to be legal by referring to Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The apex court declared that for a man and a woman between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex can live together is part of their right to life and it does not amounts to a “criminal offence”-in the matter, Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2006 SC 2522, even though it may be perceived as immoral.
VULNERABILITY UNDER LIVING IN
Coexistence of man and women as husband and wife in the Indian society gives legal empowerment through personal laws besides societal recognition. The institution of marriage has social and legal recognition across society in India. The personal law is based on prevalent customs and moral values. However, with time certain new practices are coming like live-in and of recently even adultery was decriminalised by law. Therefore, even though the personal law has no recognition on the subject but judicial interpretation to fundamental rights of individual give such run away individuals a legal respite.
In an order dated May 7, 2018 as quoted in leading daily newspaper-The Indian Express, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, in one such case where the girl was 19 but boy was not 21, said, “It is sufficient to note that both of them are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock, they have the right to live together even outside wedlock. The freedom of choice would be of the girl as to with whom she wants to live.”
There is no law that states the idea of live-in relationships, but different courts have given judgments in its regard. In S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. the Supreme Court held referring Article 21 of the constitution says, “Please tell us what is the offence and under which section, living together is a right to life.”
The Allahabad High Court stated that the right to stay in live-in relationship is covered under Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty. This was laid down by the High court in the case of Kumar Devi & Anr. V. State of U.P. & Ors. The court stated that a couple in a relationship has the liberty to live together and no person has the right to interfere in their peaceful living.
The Supreme Court in Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma defined live-in relationships – A domestic cohabitation between an adult unmarried male and an adult unmarried female. Another, a domestic cohabitation between a married man and an adult unmarried woman (entered mutually). A domestic cohabitation between an adult unmarried man and a married woman (entered mutually). So the basic limitation given is that a person should be an adult to constitute a live-in relationship. Based on the tests mentioned in the Velusamy case, the judges of the Supreme Court, in this case laid down certain guidelines for a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’, in the Indian context which takes into account the unacceptability of the live-in culture in mind. These guidelines are follows:
- A reasonable duration of the period of relationship between the man and the woman.
- Sharing of a common household by both of them.
- Pooling of resources and finances in order to live as a single unit by joint-ownership, shared accounts, etc.
- Division of responsibilities of the household and domestic arrangements.
- Sexual intimacy and physical relationship not merely for pleasure but for emotional and intimate support.
- Rearing and upbringing of children together.
- Socialisation and interaction with the public as husband and wife.
Intention and conduct of both the parties which signifies their common goals for a shared long future D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469
PROTECTION FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTS IN LIVE-IN
The court has held that if the couple presents themselves to society as husband and wife and lives together for a significant period of time, the relationship is considered to be a relationship “in the nature of marriage” under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The definition of a live-in relationship can be said to be “an arrangement of living under which the couples which are unmarried life together to conduct a long-going relationship similarly as in marriage.” Sometimes live-in type of relationships leads to an unhealthy living standard that is there might be an existence of harassment or abuse. The government does not disregard this aspect. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV), is one such Act under which, the legislature has acknowledged live-in relationships by giving rights and protection to those females who are not legally married, but rather are living with a male individual in a relationship. 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. Although there is no act that defines the live in, but the court interprets the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
PROPERTY RIGHTS & OTHER PROTECTION
The Supreme Court has observed that children born from live-in relationship would not be treated as illegitimate if their parents would have lived under one roof and cohabited for a considerably long period of time so as to be recognized as husband and wife and it must not be a “walk in and walk out” relationship. Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 26 of the Special Marriage Act, bestow legitimacy to children born out of void and voidable marriages, shall be legitimate or deemed to be legitimate, respectively. However, the right of inheritance of such children is limited to the property of the parents only. Claiming maintenance under the Section 125 of the CrPC is well within the rights of a dependent children born out of the live-in relationships, as the section itself expressly mentions “both legitimate and illegitimate child.” Of recently, there are cases of run-away couples have to stay in live in because of the fear that one’s family might not allow wedlock because of religion, caste or conservatism. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court there was a couple who was seeking protection against the girl’s family. There were threats to kill them incase they get in a live in. The court denied protection saying “If the petitioners herein have not committed any offence, this court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to.” The court asked the authorities to look into the matter and help the petitioners. These relationships are often termed as walk-in and walk out relationships, with no surety of marriage. It might also lead to pre marital sex which is considered immoral. Although live-in relationships are accepted by law, the morality of this often a major cause for concern. It may be considered immoral in the eyes of society but it is not at all “illegal” in the eye of the law.Moral values and ethical principles vary from person to person. Live in relationships being a western culture story which is now being adopted by liberal youth of the country. As the law suggests that an adult human can make their decisions from themselves, Article 21 gives them the liberty to choose live-in.
INTERNATIONAL SCENARIO
Talking about the live in culture of countries like France and UK they have approved couples to have such a relationship. In France it is means of solidarity pacts, which provides for a lawful permission to the individuals who wants to enter into a civil union. In United Kingdom, the Live in relationship enjoy a better recognition, in fact a child born out of it as can be seen from the automatic legal right of maintenance granted to such children. However, they don’t get inheritance rights. In Scandinavian countries it is still not ethically or morally accepted by their culture. In Philippines, the live in relationship has been condemned and regarded as immoral. Thereby, declaring it void under the purview of law.
CONCLUSION
Live in relationship has always been causes of concern in a country like ours especially because matrimonial relationships have very high pedestal. Whether the concept is part of personal law or not but Constitutional protection does not prohibits this kind of relationship. With growing number of family law litigation in India, the youth are more and more curious to draw their inferences before entering into serious relationships. However, missing social and family support often give rise to threat to life making them vulnerable. As neither there is binding nature of this relationship nor the same has been defined anywhere, it continues to run as walk in and walk out relationship under the umbrella of law.
About the author
As society grows, the law also grows. Further, I think that most couples go for live-in relations because they hate to be getting divorced, so why they will do the same after marriage? So, we all still the opposing communities are on the rock and it is uncertain that the live-in concept is acceptable or not? But it is rooting up day by day and it needs ethical and legal concerns.