Introduction

All over the Hindu and Christian worlds, marriage began as a sacrament. Marriage
began as a sacrament implied a permanent and indissoluble union. It was a union not
merely in this life but also in all lives to come-an eternal union.
The Shanskarars ordained that once is a maiden given in marriage, and the injunction
was: "A true wife must preserve her chastity as much after as before her husband's
death"[5]. Indian society has been in a state of transition from the old world to the new,
altering old customs and traditions in light of the cultural changes and the influence of
the west. The sanctity of marriage is still deeply guarded by the society but that is not to
say that people don't adopt alternative forms of living arrangements. A live in relationship
is just such an alternative arrangement which is gathering momentum and acceptance
today. Earlier mahahrajas, nawabs, zamindars and other rich men of status in the
society used to have several live-in women in their zenanas, apart from their legally
wedded wives. Such live-in relationships were in addition to marriage and it was not
considered immoral for men to indulge in this practice[6]. Sometimes an additional
household was maintained by men for live-in women away from their families. Now such
relationships are generally in place of marriage instead of being additional to marriage.
Young men and women, who do not want to undertake the commitment and
responsibilities of a marriage, start living together with the freedom to walk away any
time. In metropolitan cities, this practice is encouraged to some extent by high cost of
accommodation and reduced societal control.
6. [Link] Singh Khehra, Legal Recognition of Live-in Relationship: Role of
Judiciary, in "Growth of Law in India Role of Judiciary" 274(2008).

The concept of 'Mitru Sambandh' is nothing but a concept of the 'Live-in-relationship' or

'Living relationship'. Generally speaking, in modern age increasing concept of live-in
relationship means a male and female staying together as a friend without marriage.
This is unstable form of family. Many people imagine that living together before marriage
resembles taking a car for a test drive. Live-in-relationships are not new in our society.
The only difference is that now people have become open about it. A living arrangement
in which an unmarried couple lives together in a long-term relationship that resembles a
marriage.

The Supreme Court in D Veluswamy v. D Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC 479 has

explained the definition of Live- in Relationships with reference to Domestic Violence
Act. The Court in its judgement in the mentioned rule: Section 2(f) states:
"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";
Having noted the relevant provisions in The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, court pointed out that the expression 'domestic relationship' includes
not only the relationship of marriage but also a relationship 'in the nature of marriage'.
The question, therefore, arises as to what is the meaning of the expression 'a
relationship in the nature of marriage'. Unfortunately this expression has not been
defined in the Act. Since there is no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of
this expression we think it necessary to interpret it because a large number of cases will
be coming up before the Courts in our country on this point, and hence an authoritative
decision is required.
In the words of Dhingra J., "There are no legal strings attached to this relationship nor
does this relationship create any legal-bond between the partners. People who choose
to have live-in relationship cannot complain of infidelity or immorality as live-in
relationships are also known to have been between a married man and unmarried
woman or vice-versa" Live in Relationship is contractual relationship. There is offer and
acceptance between parties to live in relationship so such relationship should be framed
within ambit of law. We need special legal rules to deal with consequences of such
relationship. In spite of no clear and specific legal sanction, there has been a huge
societal change in the attitude towards live-in relationships, the multinational companies
providing health insurance benefits to domestic partner of the employees[8].

Recognition to Live-in relationship in India

No law at present deal with the concept of live-in-relationships and their legality. Still
even in the absence of a specific legislation on the subject, it is praise-worthy that under
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, all benefits are bestowed
on woman living in such kind of arrangement by reason of being covered within the term
"domestic relationship" under Section 2(f). If we propose to enact a law to regulate live-
in-relationships, though it would grant rights to parties to it but at the same time it would
also impose obligation on them. Female live-in partners have economic rights under
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 The Hindu Marriage Act 1955
does not recognize 'live-in-relationship'. Nor does the Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (PWDVA) on the other
hand for the purpose of providing protection and maintenance to women says that an
aggrieved live-in partner may be granted alimony under the Act.

The Fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants to all its
citizens "right to life and personal liberty" which means that one is free to live the way
one wants. Live in relationship may be immoral in the eyes of the conservative Indian
society but it is not "illegal" in the eyes of law.

Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lays down that where independent evidence
of solemnization of marriage is not available, it will be presumed to be a valid marriage
by continuous cohabitation between the parties unless the contrary is proved.

Judicial Approach
However, living together has been long considered to be presumption of marriage until
some facts prove it to be otherwise under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In, A. Dinohamy v. W.L. Blahamy, AIR 1927 P.C. 185, the Privy Council laid down the
general proposition that; "where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as
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."Long cohabitation by a man and a woman has all along, directly or
indirectly, been recognised by the judiciary in India. Even in the nineteenth century,
courts enforced some agreements where the consideration was past cohabitation.
According to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 if court regards the
consideration of an agreement immoral, it is unlawful and consequently the agreement is
void. Where a man and a woman live and cohabit together, although not lawfully married
to each other and the man in consideration of the past cohabitation agrees to transfer
property to the women or to make provision for her maintenance, the question often
arises as to the enforceability of such an agreement.
In Dhiraj Kaur v. Bikramjit Singh, (1881) ILR 3 All 787, the Allahabad High Court
allowed a woman to recover arrears of allowance promised to her for past cohabitation.
The Patna High Court, in Godfrey v. Parbati, AIR 1938 Pat 502, held that a contact to
compensate a woman for what she had lost on account of past cohabitation with the
promise was not immoral and hence enforceable. However, if cohabitation amounts to
adultery under the Indian Penal Code, such agreements are void for consideration being
forbidden by law.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court also enforces an agreement in Subhashchandra v.

Smt. Narbadabai, AIR 1982 MP 236 where the consideration was apparently past
cohabitation. In this case, Narbadabai has been living in exclusive keeping of one Seth
Kishanlal, a married man for the past about fifty years and was entitled to claim
maintenance (as mentioned in the agreement) during her lifetime from the estate of
Kishanlal. The cohibtation was not shown to be adulterous. It was held by the high Court
that agreement embodied a valid contract and was enforceable.

In D. Nagaratnamba v. Kunuku Ramayya, AIR 1968 SC 253, Justice Bachawat of the
Supreme Court of India recognised past cohabitation as a good consideration. These
cases were concerning enforceability of agreements where the consideration was past
cohabitation without marriage and upholding lawfulness of consideration in such cases
amounted to legal recognition of live-in relationship by the judiciary.

In Mohabhat Ali v. Md. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135, the Privy Council, which was
the highest court of appeal for Indian cases prior to Supreme Court, held that, "the law
presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have
cohabited continuously for number of years."

The Supreme Court stated in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, AIR
1978 SC 1557 a case where a man and a woman lived together for around 50 years
that, there would be strong presumption in favour of wedlock. The Court however added
that, "the presumption was rebuttable, but a heavy burden lies on the person who seeks
to deprive the relationship of legal origin to prove that no marriage took place. Law leans
in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy."

The Supreme Court in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, AIR 1952 SC 231 observed that
continuous cohabitation of woman as husband and wife and their treatment as such for a
number of years may raise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may
be drawn from long co-habitation is rebuttable and if there are circumstances which
weaken and destroy that presumption, the Court cannot ignore them[17].

In the judgements before 2000 there is hardly any case where the Courts have used the
word "live-in relationship" to clarify the legal status of a domestic partner or in any other
such connections.

In 2001, the Allahabad High Court held in Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari
Niketan, Agra, AIR 2001 All 254, that a major man and woman can stay together
without getting married if they want and this is not illegal.
The Supreme Court in the case of Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai, 2008 (2)SCC 238,
issued a Succession Certificate to the live-in partner, who was nominated by the
deceased.
In, Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. W.P. No. 2218/2007
MANU/MH 1432/2008 (Bom. H.C. Sept. 16. 2009), the Bombay High Court observed
that it is not necessary for a woman to strictly establish the marriage, to claim
maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

In, Koppisetti Subbharao Subramaniam v. State of A.P., Crl. Appl. No. 867/2009

MANU/SC/0689/2009 (S.C. September 24. 2009), the Supreme Court extended the
protection against dowry under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code so as to "to
cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such
proclaimed or feigned status of husband" and resort to cruelty or torture to the women.
This case has extended the protection of women from dowry even when they are in a
live-in relationship.

In Tulsa v. Durghatiya, 2008 (4) SCC 520, the Supreme Court re-recognised the rule
that there would be a presumption of marriage when there has been long cohabitation.

The year 2010 was a significant year in the legal sphere related to live-in relationships,
with the judiciary in both the Supreme Court and the High Courts delivering numerous
decisions on the legal status of live-in relationships.
In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 (vide para 31), the Supreme Court,
placing reliance upon its earlier decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC
2522, held that a live-in relationship is permissible only in unmarried major persons of
heterogeneous sex and is not a criminal offence under any law. The court said even
Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology. The apex court said
there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex. The apex court
made the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petition filed by
noted south Indian actress Khusboo. Living together is a right to life, "the apex court said
apparently referring to Article 21 which granted right to life and liberty as a Fundamental
Right. "It's better to have a live-in relationship rather than having a divorced life!" This is
common and quite rational line favouring live-in relations in the world. Live in relationship
are not new for western countries but these days the concept is adjusting its roots in
east also.

In Narayan Jagluji Thool & others v. Mala Chandan Wani, AIR 2015 Bombay 36,
Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 does not require
that a women should be a wife and it is enough that she is living with a man in
relationship, which is similar to that of a marriage. But there is a rider to it. She should be
unmarried and be otherwise qualified to marry. In the instant case respondent is a
married woman, whose marriage with her husband is still subsisting and this being the
position, her relationship with another man outside marriage cannot be termed as
domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005. Therefore, she cannot seek
protection under Act and if the proceeding are allowed to be continued, it would be
nothing but abuse of the process of law.

The Supreme Court on 13 August, 2010 in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni
Kant, (2010) INSC 631 has once again entered the debate on legality of the live-in
relationship as well as legitimacy of a child born out of such relationship. The Court while
dismissing the appeal in the property dispute held that there is a presumption of
marriage between those who are in live-in relationship for a long time and this cannot be
termed as 'walking-in and walking-out' relationship.

In the case of Bharata Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan, 2010 (6) SCALE 53 dealing
with the legitimacy of child born out of a live-in relationship and his succession of
property rights, the Supreme Court held that such a child may be allowed to succeed
inheritance in the property of the parents, if any, but doesn't have any claim as against
Hindu ancestral coparcenary property.

However, in another case, Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, 2011 (2) UJ 1342(SC), the

Supreme Court observed that taking into consideration the current social circumstances,
it is necessary that the amended Section 16 (3) of the Hindu Marriage Act must be
interpreted to give right of inheritance to an illegitimate child to the ancestry property.

The Delhi High Court in its decision on 10 August 2010, in Alok Kumar v. State, Crl.
M.C. No. 299/2009 MANU/DE/2069/2010, (Del. H.C. August 9, 2010) while dealing with
the validity of live-in relationship observed that, "'Live-in relationship' is a walk-in and
walk-out relationship. There are no strings attached to this relationship, neither this
relationship creates any legal bond between the parties. It is a contract of living together
which is renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties
without consent of the other party and one party can walk out at will at any time."
Further, the persons entering into such relationships are debarred from complaining of
infidelity or immorality of the other partner.

In the case of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141,
the Supreme Court observed that "in those cases where a man, who lived with a woman
for a long time and even though they may not have undergone legal necessities of a
valid marriage, should be made liable to pay the woman maintenance if he deserts her.
The man should not be allowed to benefit from the legal loopholes by enjoying the
advantages of a de facto marriage without undertaking the duties and obligations." Court
also wanted to interpret the meaning of "wife" broadly under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for
claim of maintenance, so that even women in live-in relationship can claim maintenance.
The Court further declared that a woman in a live-in relationship in entitled to claim any
relief mentioned under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Supreme Court in the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC
479 held that, a 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the 2005 Act must also
fulfill the following criteria:
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as if they are spouses,
(b) They must be of legal age to marry,
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being
unmarried and
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being
akin to spouses for a significant period of time, and in addition the parties must have
lived together in a 'shared household' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act.
The Court further clarified that, "merely spending weekends together or a one night
stand would not make it a 'domestic relationship'." It also held 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'.
The executive is not far away from taking reformative stance. The Malimath Committee
Report[32] suggested that the meaning of "wife" within Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. need
to be amended "so as to include a woman who was living with the man as his wife for a
reasonably long period, during the subsistence of the first marriage." Later, in October
2008, the Government of Maharashtra accepted the proposal of Malimath Committee
Report.
In a landmark judgement that can reduce the stigma of living in a live-in-relationship,
the Supreme Court on Monday, April 13, 2015 ruled out that couples living in live-in-
relationships will be presumed legally married. The apex court also said that in case if
the man dies, then his property will be inherited by his partner.  Children born of live-in
relationship are legitimate Bharata Matha & Others v. R. Vijay Rengiinaihan &
Others, ILC-2015-SC-MAT.

The historic verdict was given by the bench consisting of Justice MY Eqbal and Justice
Amitava Roy. On November 28, 2013, the Supreme Court had held that live-in
relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, while asking Parliament to frame law for
protection of women in such relationship and children born out of it. Live in relationship
not a crime Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, SLP (Crl) No. 4895 of 2012.

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya
(2008) granted the right to property to the child born in a live-in relationship
and held that such child shall not be treated as illegitimate in cases where
the parents of such child have cohabited for a considerable period. 

Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 26 of Special Marriage

Act, 1954 reserves the rights of the legitimacy of the child or children born in
a void or voidable marriage, and a live-in relationship falls within this ambit.
A child or children born in a live-in relationship are equally entitled to the
rights of inheritance as compared to a child or children born out of a lawful
wedding, however, such rights are very limited in scope and extend only to
the property of the parents and such rights do not extents to the
coparcenary rights in a Hindu Undivided Family. Similar views were taken in
the case of Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan &
Ors (2010) where the Supreme Court of India held that a child born in a void
or voidable marriage is not entitled to claim inheritance rights in the
ancestral property however such child may claim a share in any self-acquired
property. 

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Revanasiddappa & Anr vs

Mallikarjun & Ors (2011) considered the right to property as a Constitutional
right to the illegitimate child and upheld the right to inheritance of the
children who were born out of a live-in relationship. 
Conclusion
The law on live in relationship need to demonstrate a clear cut picture keeping in mind
the present social context along with the basic structure of tradition and culture that
characterises Indian society.

thought that seek attention is that if the law lobs same kind of obligation with respect to
maintenance and succession as exist 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. 

Outside the legal arena, live in relationship also faces the social speculation; the tenor of
live in relationship is the characteristic motif of metropolitan area, however, when we
look at the masses that define India, live in relationship does not find consensus of
majority and is accused of tampering with the Indian culture of values and morality.
Live-in-Relation would give rise to child pregnancy and has far reaching ramifications,
adding despite its aim to restrict multiple partners. It would have an adverse impact on
the youths and result in the spread of HIV/Aids. Therefore awareness amongst youth in
most important.

Hence, as we observed many questions 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. Laws should be made by the parliament, which should keep a check on the
practice of evading bondages.
Live in relationships should be granted legal status after specific period of its existence,
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 break up or death of one of the partner. The guidelines given in D. Veluswami v.
D. Patchaimmal, AIR 2011 SC 479 is worth noting in this context and should be
followed. Since, proving de facto live in relationship is difficult, the burden of proof should
be relaxed, so that the rights that are conferred upon partners, specifically female live in
partner can be availed. However, if the person in live in relationship 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. A good legal system always tends to
adapt to the gradual social changes. As such, the law cannot grope in dark, when the
number of live in couples is increasing tremendously. The rights of live in couples should
be legally recognised while ensuring that it does not impede upon the system of
marriage.
Introduction 
A live-in relationship refers to a living arrangement in which an unmarried
couple lives together in a long-term relationship that is similar to marriage
but they are not tied by the sacred thread of marriage. The couples-only
cohabit together, but they live like husband and wife. 

Society and its laws are not strangers to one another, and they are both an
important aspect of mankind, and therefore, with the ever-evolving society,
the laws shall be evolving as well, or else the development of the society will
be ceased by the outdated laws. 

Various High Courts and Supreme Court of India have timely considered
numerous aspects of live-in relationships and have tried to understand and
explain the phenomenon of live-in relationship which is indeed an alien
concept to the Indian society, where only marriage is considered as a sacred
tie between a couple and the marriage is presumed to be a license to have
sexual intercourse. 

The Indian legal mechanism certainly lacks separate legislation regarding a

live-in relationship, however, the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 in its Section 2(f) is moderately concerned with the
concept of live-in relationship, and states that live-in relationship falls within
the ambit of a domestic relationship. Section 2 (q) of the 2005 Act protects
women who are in live-in relationships.

Origins of live-in relationships 

The concept of a live-in relationship is not new for society however, it has
evolved a long way comparatively. The mention of live-in relationship can be
traced back to the Vedas where we can find 8 types of marriages, one of
them being the ‘Gandharva’ form of marriage where the marriage was in a
form of union of a man and a woman with mutual consent, however
according to Manu, it is a marriage between a man and an unmarried girl
(usually a virgin) which arises out of lust. Although such a type of marriage
does not directly fall within the meaning of a live-in relationship in some way,
it is associated with the contemporary times’ concept of a live-in
relationship. 

In the case of Mohabbat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (1929) the

court was of the view that in cases where a man and woman have
established to be living together as a couple, the law will pressure, until the
contrary is proved, that such couple was cohabiting together as a valid
marriage. 
What are the issues pertaining to live-in relationships
The couples involved in live-in relationships face numerous challenges, some
of these challenges are: 

Societal challenges 
In India, live-in relationships are not only discouraged but also are not
accepted by the members of society due to the sophisticated culture. The
parents of a couple may also not allow for such a relationship, and may not
allow the couple to reside in the same house. The couples also face issues
when they seek residence on rent. Apart from the issue of the place of
residence, the couple also faces issues at the workplace and other public
places. 

Documentation challenges 
The issue of documents, especially in cases of a joint account holder,
insurances, bank details, etc, the couple faces challenges due to the absence
of a live-in relationship column. 

Cultural values 
Indian society is highly influenced by the culture and traditions to which it
belongs, and since all the cultures and traditions were established a very
long time ago, they do not encourage the concept of the live-in relationship
which is continued in contemporary times. Cultural values play an important
role in the acts, and thoughts of society, and since society is influenced by
cultural values, live-in relationships are highly discouraged. 

Succession and Inheritance challenges

The concept of a live-in relationship is comparatively new and therefore,
there are no amendments regarding the right to succession and inheritance
in cases of live-in relationship, since all the succession and inheritance laws
were earlier primarily concerned with a married couple.

What are the reasons behind live-in relationships 

The reasons behind opting for a live-in relationship are: 
  The couple wants to determine the compatibility among each other
before they enter into formal wedlock. 
 Both the parties to a live-in relationship want to continue their
relationship status as single and not married. 
 In certain cases of a homosexual couple, or those who are already
married, the laws do not allow such couples to enter into a
wedlock. 
 Parties to a live-in relationship may also want to avoid divorce and
the procedure which follows, and rather opt for a simple ‘break-up’. 
 The families of the couple may also not be in favor of the marriage,
of either one partner or both the partners, especially due to inter-
religion factors.

Supreme Court judgments regarding live-in relationships

What is the validity of live-in relationships 

In the case of S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal (2010) the Supreme Court of
India held that there is no legal provision where adults are voluntarily
associated in sexual relationships other than marriage, and therefore it does
not violate any law. The Court further referred to the case of Lata Singh vs
State Of U.P. & Another (2006) where the Court held that a major girl is free
to marry anyone she likes or may live with anyone she likes. The Court
further held that no offence has been committed by the accused and the
present case is an abuse of the process of the court and the administration
mechanism. 

In the case of Alok Kumar vs State (2010) the court held that in a live-in

relationship, there are no strings attached, and such a relationship does not
create any legal bond among the parties. The court, while referring to the
live-in relationship as a walk-in and walk-out, held that those who do not
wish to enter in such relations may enter in the bond of marriage, where the
parties are not allowed to simply break the bond and have legal obligations.
Individuals who are in live-in relationships cannot complain of infidelity or
immorality since live-in relationships are usually between a married man and
an unmarried woman or between a married woman and an unmarried man.

What is the presumption regarding live-in

relationships 
In the case of Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And
Ors (1978) the Apex Court held that it is firmly presumed that a couple who
have been living like husband and wife shall be husband and wife, but such
presumption is rebuttable and the burden of proof lies on the part of the
person who seeks to rebut such relationship to its legal origins. Similar views
were taken in the case of S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs
Suruttayan (1993) where the Court ruled that where a man and a woman
live together for a long period as husband and wife, there lies a presumption
of legality of marriage between the couple, until the contrary is proved and a
child born out of such relationship is also not illegitimate and is entitled to
inheritance in the property of the man. 

In the case of Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya (2008), while referring to Section

114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the court held that the provisions under
the said section refer to a common course of natural events, human conduct,
and private business. The court shall presume the existence of facts that are
likely to have happened. While interpreting Sections 50 and Section 114 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 combinedly, it is evident that the act of
marriage is to be presumed from the view of the common course of natural
events. 

Issue of lack of legislation 

In the case of Indra Sarma vs [Link] (2013) the Supreme Court of
India held that live-in relationships may last for a considerable time can lead
to standards of dependency and vulnerability, and with the increase in the
number of live-in relationships, there must be sufficient protection, especially
for women and those children who are born out of such relationship. The law
cannot promote pre-marital sex, and live-in relationships are personal and
people can give their opinion in favor or against it. The legislature must
consider this issue and enact separate legislation so that protection for
women and children born out of live-in relationships can be provided. 

Whether maintenance can be obtained in a live-in

relationship
The suggestions of Justice Malimath Committee in the year 2003 was one of
the first instances wherein the committee suggested that the definition
of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be amended
accordingly to including a woman who was living with a man as his wife for a
significant period during the subsistence of the first marriage.  

In the case of [Link] vs [Link] (2010) the Supreme Court

while bestowing the difference between live-in relationships, and
relationships like marriage laid down the conditions under which a woman in
a live-in relationship can claim maintenance under Section 125 of The Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The conditions required to get maintenance out
of the live-in relationship are:

 The couple must represent themselves to the society similar to

being each other’s spouses. 
 Both the parties to the relationship must be of legal age to marry.
 Both the parties to the relationship must have qualified to enter into
a legal marriage, including being unmarried. 
 Both the parties to the relationship must be cohabited voluntarily
and must hold themselves similar to being each other’s spouse for a
significant period. 
In the case of Ajay Bhardwaj vs Jyotsna And Ors (2016) the Punjab and
Haryana High Court held that the jurisdictions of Section 125 of CrPC were
formed to prevent any unsettled residence and poverty of wife, or minor
children, or old age parents, and the jurisdictions of same has also been
lengthened by judicial interpretation to the partners in a live-in relationship,
however, the nature of such relationship must be considered while deciding
the maintenance. The primary question which arose, in this case, was
whether a woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC on
account of a live-in relationship, not being a wife, and the same question was
answered in the case of Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha &
Ors (2010) where the Apex Court ruled that in circumstances where partners
live together as husband and wife, there lies a presumption in favor of
wedlock, and consequently the High Court in the Ajay
Bhardwaj case ruled that women in live-in relationships are entitled to
maintenance akin to legally-wedded wives. 

Protection of women from domestic violence 

In the case of Lalita Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand (2018), the Supreme
Court of India held that under the jurisdictions of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the female live-in relationship partner will be
allowed to relieve more than what is bestowed under Section 125 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

In the case of  [Link] vs [Link] (2010) the Apex Court, while

phrasing the Acts of parliament by drawing a difference between marriage
and a relationship in the nature of marriage held that in both the cases a
person who is into such a relationship is entitled to protection under
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, however, the Court
also mentioned conditions under which an individual can seek protection
under the 2005 Act, and further held that not all live-in relationships will get
the benefit of the 2005 Act, and to get the benefit of the 2005 Act, the
conditions mentioned must be satisfied. 
What are the rights of children born out of live-in
relationships 
The Supreme Court of India in the case of Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya
(2008) granted the right to property to the child born in a live-in relationship
and held that such child shall not be treated as illegitimate in cases where
the parents of such child have cohabited for a considerable period. 

Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 26 of Special Marriage

Act, 1954 reserves the rights of the legitimacy of the child or children born in
a void or voidable marriage, and a live-in relationship falls within this ambit.
A child or children born in a live-in relationship are equally entitled to the
rights of inheritance as compared to a child or children born out of a lawful
wedding, however, such rights are very limited in scope and extend only to
the property of the parents and such rights do not extents to the
coparcenary rights in a Hindu Undivided Family. Similar views were taken in
the case of Bharatha Matha & Anr vs R. Vijaya Renganathan &
Ors (2010) where the Supreme Court of India held that a child born in a void
or voidable marriage is not entitled to claim inheritance rights in the
ancestral property however such child may claim a share in any self-acquired
property. 

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Revanasiddappa & Anr vs

Mallikarjun & Ors (2011) considered the right to property as a Constitutional
right to the illegitimate child and upheld the right to inheritance of the
children who were born out of a live-in relationship. 

Conclusion
From the above judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court of
India, it can be concluded that the Indian judiciary has most of the time
practiced interpretation of laws while protecting the rights of women and
children associated with live-in relationships and certainly the Indian legal
mechanism lacks separate legislation which must deal with the cases of live-
in relationship and must provide with codified laws, and punitive measures. 

One of the reasons why India lacks such laws is the moral and societal values
dominated by the sophisticated culture of India, however with time revolving,
there is an urgent need to enact new laws, and therefore, the legislature
must enact a separate law regarding the same.